In Defense of Macrophilia

Cruising the data streams of macrophilia erotic material, one can not help hearing the occasional outcries of 'straights' who stumble upon our art. Many so exposed react with disgust to what they call a strange fetish, discounting the inherent irrationality of all sexual activity apart from procreation for its own sake. I have always been puzzled by this reaction, and for more than the previous reason. In this essay I will attempt to explain my confusion and perhaps in the process exonerate my much maligned brothers and sister macros.

First off macrophilia is not a fetish, it is a gift. This gift takes many forms though one is certainly the ability to, without effort, see women as more than sexual objects. Straights will try to deny it, but the statistics are in the bank. What matters most to heterosexuals (particularly males) in regards to their mate is appearance (if this is not true than some amazing coincidence must be at work driving those of similar attractiveness together and giving rise to the concept of 'leagues'). Before I knew about macrophilia (ie. when I thought I was the only macrophile on earth) I arrogantly believed my male peers were below me, crude neanderthal's barely worthy of contempt. Many actions I observed, contrasted with my own sterling record, supported this conclusion. As such most of my good friends have been women or gay men. I have, do and always will find straight men irritating to be around because when no women are present they revert to a manner of speaking in regards to the oppsite sex that angers me.

I am no better than straight men, I know that now. We are all, all of us, no more and no less than what we are. I, for example, am able to see women for their brain rather than their bust not because I am some evolved entity but simply because my own brain is hard wired as a macrophile. That being said, if straights are going to criticize my sexuality as if it was an abomination, I damn well intend to embark on a compare and contrast of my own. Ready, heeere we go.

Lets begin by looking at erotica. One thing male macrophiles seem to share with their straight counterparts is the ability to stimulate arousal by use of pictoral and/or textual art. This gives rise to the vast scope of macrophilia material available on the internet. The collection is made vaster still by the fact that a macrophile's chief fantasy can likely never be realized in this life. Those straights or gays who have a problem with our art should look to their own before hurling stones elsewhere. In heterosexual pornography women are routinely violated. They are used by their lovers (a fact often symbolized by the restraining hand placed over the back of the head during felacio) and are obviously selected only for their sex appeal. As is usual for the gays, their pornography is simply a reverse of the same, no better no worse in most cases.

Something different is going on in macrophilia erotica. In fact, in many ways it's the opposite of the usual trash. Instead of being degraded our actresses our uplifted to the status of Goddesses. Few are asked to take off more than their socks and none play less than the central role in the story. Perhaps as a result of the later, our live action erotica draws women who wouldn't otherwise appear in pornography (ie. those with a hearty heaping of self respect, a nonstandard figure and a higher than 80 IQ). As for our abundant collage, pencil, and cgi work, I don't think it is possible to abuse pixels.

On that note, one common attack leveled against macrophiles is that a sexuality that fixates on fantasy scenarios draws energy away from meaningful relationships. I would argue that on the contrary, by having an active imaginary life one frees oneself from the need to constantly engage in relationship. With this impediment gone one is able to approach potential lovers with the openness and acceptance required to make relationships work. Straights and gays on the other hand seem to me to be obsessed with relationship. As such their lovers, past and future, become the primary pillar holding up their ego and this situation breeds a perverse attachment ending always with some form of meddling and usually heartbreak. As a macrophile, and quite a fan of erotica, I have been able to give love and ask nothing in return, something achieved by few in this life. Having a well satisfied libido, however, is only one reason for this.

We want less for ourselves. When you want less you can give more and macrophiles by their very nature want very little. Straight men have detailed descriptions of their physical type and straight women have their 'dream man' down to a freaking science. Macrophiles can't and don't cogitate in this manner. Though this manifests on many fronts I can think of none more prominent than the bedroom. The stereotype of a man getting off and then collapsing in a sweaty heap overtop of his unsatisfied lover is a uniquely straight stereotype. We have our share of issues but outside of the hiccups of sexual inexperience this is not one of them. I will now proceed to gross out the straights in the audience by using myself as an example. I have never and will never get fucking. What brings me to orgasm is primarily oral contact with a woman's feet or genitalia. I can literally fuck all afternoon and have done so without, I believe the common parlance is 'blowing a load.' I have no otherworldly stamina and I've never read the Kama Sutra. My brain is just not wired to set off whatever magical pattern of electricity that is an orgasm in response to intercourse. I don't claim to understand it but I sure as hell claim to experience it as have some exhausted and bewildered women and I've heard similar tales from others of my 'kind'. The gift here is that macrophiles can be the most generous lovers imaginable and even beyond the sheets we usually by our nature place our mates before ourselves. We do see them as Goddesses after all.

One specific thing we want or care less about which I already have mentioned is appearance. Similar to heterosexual women, confidence and attitude become primary. Macrophiles who forget this and follow the hetero pattern of making a bee-line for the hottest piece of ass available are doomed to failure. Let me exemplify, before I understood this principle I often applied hetero-logic to relationships, lacking any other viable alternative. The results were disastrous. Many of my early loves were quite pretty but upon onset of coitus I was baffled by the nonfunctionality of a certain organ. This was not the result of underdeveloped (what Chris Rock would call) 'dick control' for in previous relationships (as has already been stated) I had all the vigor of my astrological sign. Looking back now with what I know about macrophilia I can see the pattern as clear as day. My first lover was my senior by four years and my superior in both maturity and education, at the time. Many of those I was with after conformed more to the standard hetero pattern being younger than myself with either less experience, knowledge or both. For a macrophile this is a death sentence to the libido. I must have a mate I can look up to; all macrophile fantasies are simply a symbolic representation of this central fact. And so in a world where women continue to be reduced to breasts that speak, a male sexuality which attracts on the basis of true merit gets much maligned? Are you starting to see my confusion?

Lets talk about violence. One out of every 5 women will experience some degree of sexual violence in their lifetime be this date-rape or a more serious assault. For a species that spawned, in the past, cultures lacking a word for 'rape', that's a pretty bad record. We are capable of being much better and I, and many of my fellow 'fetishists', are. Not through effort or chivalry or bushido training but biology. I am, you see, incapable of rape as sure as a DC circuit is incapable of induction. More examplification is neccesary here Im sure, so lets imagine, just for the purpose of mental experiment, Joe-Macrophile-Rapist. There is already a glaring inconsistency. How can Joe even find his target considering that a rapist must single out a weak and/or defenseless girl and a macrophile is drawn to the exact opposite. Even if we accept that and fast forward to Joe restraining his victim, he is going to have a mighty hard time sustaining the needed erection when the roles are reversed to his natural inclination. I can say from experiment that even imagining rape, for me, acts in the same physiological pathway as a mental image of a naked Janet Reno does for the standard heterosexual man. Truly, apart from some serial worshipper who traps women in elevators where he 'forcibly' prostrates himself before them, it is impossible to even make sense of the combination of terms 'macrophile rapist.' Outside of some poor shlameals who dont know who they are and are trapped in the hetero or gay pattern, it's simply not possible.

Domination. What an ugly word, the hetero's think as they move through the world they've created, one of tier upon tier of scrabbling competitors each trying to best the other. How vile, they think as they ceaselessly maneuver in their relationships to control the other, to... dominate them. You see the truth about sadomasochism is that everyone's a sadomasochist. We queers, gays I'm including you here, tend to be more aware of it because we are more open as a group to the eccentricities of sexuality. This openness comes as a natural consequence of realizing one's sexuality in a world that forbids it. Hence the commonality of BDSM themes across all of queerdom. Now, straights are just as attached to hierarchy as the rest of us, the difference, is that since they are largely unaware of it, ala Freud, it tends to filter unconsciously into their everyday life. Want to see true sadism, look no farther than the institution of marriage. Wanna see bondage, its got that to: "To have and to hold." Straights often apall me with the cruelty they display toward their lovers (and that which they desire), but I forget they are simply manifesting in real life what for me might become a story on Giantessworld.net. Moreover male macrophiles like myself are widely masochistic in nature so even when we are manifesting, the side effects (though possibly disastrous to ourselves) are less so to our lover and those around us.

One last thing. Lots of men like to act like feminists. I choose the word 'act' for a reason. For two years I lived in the most radically liberal feminist community in America and I can tell you that every so called feminist of the bunch turned out to be a phony. This usually became apparent as soon as the person in question resided in all male company. You see, a straight man's feminism is simply one more in an arsenal of ploys designed to ensnare the hotty (in this case a hotty with self respect). Only certain male sexualities can truly be feminists. Macrophilia is one of them. Why? We have every reason to be feminists and every reason not to be chauvenists. Though we may mistake it as such, this is not an ideological choice, but a gift of birth. I am primarily attracted to women whom I see as my superior in one important area or another and lacking this condition I attempt to make it so, uplifting my mate and filling her with the confidence she might be lacking. The respect inherent in these situations is what arouses me primarily, not any idiosyncracy of physical form. In otherwords my feminism is not abstract and confined to the brain, it runs the gamut from cerebrum to hypothalumus to testicles. In other words I am a feminist from my balls up, and let me tell you from the balls up is the only way to be or do anything with vitality if ye be packing them.

I think that covers about everything. I hope you now realize how baffled I am by the invectives hurled at my sexuality by those of one which is inherently abusive in nature. If you are a straight reading this, let me restate that I claim no superiority over you for my moral highground is based on nothing more than genetics. If you are gay, let me impress upon you that there are many ways to be queer and human sexuality is more than a sliding scale between hetero and homo. If you are a macro like myself or a microphile let me remind you that your sexuality is not just beautiful, it is exactly what this prudish perverted patriarchal world needs.

That is all,

Neo-rodent

PS Writing this has left me struggling for a term to describe those who are not gay but certainly not straight. In other words those denied existence by the fascist Kinsey Scale. I suggest the term gonzosexual. If you fall into this category please share your thoughts, I would like to hear.