Some critics think I am anti women. This is of course total and absolute quatsch.
If anything, than I am anti men.
My favorite omni-potency imagination is to be the ruler of an island. No men there, except for me. I love to imagine women in every position. No, not in bed, but as managers, physicians, architects, and bankers.
Even in a modern society, I would happily go with a sex distribution of 95 % women and 5 % men. I grant that we need some men, as construction workers, or in other jobs where physical strength is required. The fewer the better.
I am no Kantian fool. While I am a man, and while I want the best for me, the conclusion that I would want the best for all men is a medieval philosophical fallacy.
This doesn't mean, that I wouldn't recognize the benefits of solidarity among men. Even though I may enjoy fantasies of societies with no other men, or just a limited number of other men, I realize that my chances of ever living in such a society are so slim, that I will do absolutely nothing to pursue it.
On the other hand, I can reap in some tangible benefit for me from acting in solidarity with other men and women, even though I am aware that other men are my competitors, and even though I am aware of the fact that women usually have sexual strategies quite different from those of men.
As an activist, I do not seek solidarity for my sexual lifestyle. Yes, my sexual lifestyle is elitist. I am aware that such a lifestyle is available only for a relatively small number of men.
I am also aware that my sexual lifestyle is contrary to what most women would want it to be, even those women who tell me that they love me.
I am an activist for men's rights, but I do not preach my lifestyle to others. I am aware that it cannot be implemented on a general scale.
But even more than for men's rights, I am an activist for personal freedom, especially in sexual matters. And on that level, I'd like to be part of a large coalition. Like everybody else, I wish to be as unrestricted as possible in pursuing happiness.
But personal freedom needs personal safety to be enjoyable. This is why my advocacy for personal freedom, and non-interference of the state in private, especially sexual matters, does not mean that I would preach the absence of states in future societies, or even just weak government (which would result in nothing but mafias lording it over).
To the contrary, the best guarantor of the personal freedom of the members of a society is strong government by a political party with a strong ideological commitment to the personal freedom of the citizens of a state. Such a strong government could even be proactive towards the optimal sexual satisfaction of the members of a society, and even concern itself with matters such as assuring as gentle a death for as many of a country's citizens as ever possible.
However, Western-style democracy, in which those who want to get elected preferably play to the sentiments of hate and jealousy of those who vote, will unlikely lead to a society with a strong government, which is benevolent in matters of personal freedom.
