I had this shitposty idea on Tumblr, but I want to post it here to see if I'm onto anything.
True or False: in contemporary American far-rightism, it is more socially acceptable to be a 'vanilla' gay man than it is to be a straight man who acts publicly and visibly horny.
I'm not plugged into chan culture, but I know some of you are, and I get the vague sense that there was a meme there like "Women are so terrible that it's better to just be gay" and in the last few years people have started taking that as both serious and actionable. Combine that with the need for male-friendly spaces and homosocial male bonding that the right acknowledges but the left mostly does not, plus the (less reputable) idea that the porn industry and even masturbation are psyops by the boogeyman-of-the-day to keep men weak and passive, and it all starts to add up to the very weird conclusion that, within less than a generation, both gay men and men who don't care much for sex (including actual asexuals) could start feeling more at home on the right than the left. I think there are signs of this already. And it seems unremarkable to say it but even ten years ago I would not have thought it possible.
The gay thing seems more explicable from a historical perspective: we're getting close to a generation reaching adulthood that sees the gay rights fight as history, and homosexuality as unremarkable. And if you see the left as constantly searching for a more intersectional demographic to hold up as virtuous, gay men were inevitably going to lose out to trans-women and other non-cis identities.
The anti-horny thing seems less obvious; it seems like just a few years ago the most common complaint on the far right was that SJWs wanted to neuter and destroy straight male sexuality. Now, at least in the avant-garde, it is the 'coomers' who are destroying themselves; the same victims of (let's call it) "Globalist-enforced dopamine-auto-secretion", just with porn instead of TV shows or social media.
Am I on the right track here? Because even if I've described the facts right, I'm not sure what caused the change.
Well, first I have to note that far-right and chan culture have little to do with one another, besides a sort of shared irreverence of societal norms.
I think you're most of the way there. I don't know about the masturbation rhetoric, the right-wing gays I know are some of the filthiest guys I know, whereas a lot of the leftists I know think fuzzy handcuffs are kinky, tee hee. So that part, if it's real, is probably more far-right than 4chan, since I'm unfamiliar with it.
I'm going to break this down into two sections that I know about first-hand and expand some on them: 4chan's attitude to gays/women, and the thought process of right-wing gays.
4chan's attitude to sex has evolved a lot over the years. First, there's the undercurrent of anonymity inherent in 4chan interactions and how that affects identity traits. There's no real "penalty" for being gay on 4chan, though you have to be resistant to the so-called "hate" rhetoric which functions as a screen to keep out those unwilling to adapt to 4chan's irreverent social norms, as it will include insults based on sexuality. If you're gay and you're lusting after some guy in a thread, you can just say it. You have no consistent identity. Nobody will know that your next post in a different thread was even the same guy. But similarly, don't bring it up for no reason. Anonymity is the shared freeing principle, and needlessly violating that when it's not relevant ticks the culture off.
This relates to how 4chan feels about women. If you've ever seen the acronym GOTIS, that's a 4chan thing. GOTIS is Girl On The Internet Syndrome, and refers to the way women use their gender to try and garner extra (in 4chan's opinion, unwarranted) attention from people, because that's what they're used to getting in real life. There used to be deluges of female commenters needlessly identifying as "femanons" when it wasn't relevant to the discussion, trying to camwhore for attention and so on, to the point "femanon" was auto-wordfiltered to "cumdumpster" to try and curb it.
The other tine of 4chan's relation to the gays comes courtesy of traps. Traps have nothing to do with transgender people, they're just extremely convincing crossdressers. This has always been the case, from the obsession over "Trap-chan" all the way up. It's not uncommon to find meme images comparing "girlfriend" to "trap 'girl'friend" and coming up in favour of the trap. A lot of the time this comes down to "is essentially a bro you can fuck", and over time that got extrapolated out to a small degree to wider gays. It's fair to say some of this is a reflection of the dating market w/r/t tinder etc, where women are the gatekeepers. It's perceived as being overly difficult and not particularly worth it.
Combining these things gets you to a point where there are certain part-joking, part-sincere sentiments in 4chan that women are a sub-optimal choice for a partner and it would be much better to have a nice submissive trap partner, or be gay. The idea being that a gay partner will be more likely to join in with your antics as opposed to being a shrill harpie telling you not to do whatever and controlling you. Rightly or wrongly, this is 4chan's idea of the modal straight relationship -- a guy controlled by his girlfriend, endlessly forced to go shopping, take/pose for instagram selfies and curbed from hanging out with his bros.
As for your right-wing gays, there's a bunch of stuff here. Firstly, right-wing gays tend to put far less emphasis on their sexuality than their left-wing counterparts. Whether this is "right-wing, therefore de-emphasises idpol" or "does not subscribe to idpol, therefore right-wing" is debateable. They will see someone say something like "how can you even consider voting for Boris Johnson, he called us all tank-topped bum boys!" and their answer will be "well, it might be something about all the rest of his hundreds of policies, none of which are affected by that". The idea that how "gay-friendly" a candidate is should be the sole determining factor in their vote is nonsensical to them because their whole life isn't about being gay.
There's this sense that the left feels like they own gays, the same way some people remark that the left owns blacks and their votes. And it is very much resented, even more so now that gay males seem to be "not oppressed enough" for the woke left, whether that's being slammed for appropriating culture in drag, being told you're not oppressed enough to need representation, being told that they just hate women or any of the myriad ways that the woke left's disdain for men as an oppressor class spills over onto them, so yes, some gay men (myself included) feel that it is only a matter of time before the left turns on them.
Then there's the matter of the left's (perceived?) alliance with Islam and zeal for open borders policies. There was a great deal of grim satisfaction when the Birmingham school protests happened, because we were witnessing a two-button meme in real life. Most of the left, when addressing this, would be very quick to deflect onto Christians and specifically avoid blaming Islam at all. Never mind the fact that there are areas of our cities now that you just can't be gay in -- my boyfriend's mother begged us not to even view houses in the part of town where the community center signs are all in Arabic because she would never sleep at night, our Pride parade very conspicuously routes around this area of town, and last Pride event there were multiple instances of people being attacked walking home from the Pride event in the park through those areas, up to and including people chasing taxis to throw things at them. But you don't hear a peep defending us from Islam from the left, while they continually bleat on about Islamophobia, so they're considered to have simply abandoned us. The feeling is that they want more of this. More immigration. Less integration. More multiculturalism.
There's a kinship with out beleaguered straight bros, and of course we're effected by the erosion of male-only spaces too. In terms of positive discrimination, this cuts both ways. Sometimes we will be discriminated against for being male, sometimes we will be granted advantage for being gay. Most of the right-wing gays aren't comfortable with the latter, and it leads to a lot of self-questioning and imposter syndrome. Did you get the job to tick a box, or because you're talented?
In addition, we mostly wholly resent the "gay best friend" stereotype, and it's kind of seen as another way in which we're expected to be brought to heel as the pawn of straight women, the same way straight women are seen to be driving the woke left and we're expected to heel to that, too. There's a certain dark amusement that the TRA/TERF war is starting to bite these women back now, like they're being devoured by the very monster they spawned.
In places where 4chan culture and right-wing gays overlap, you'll see it darkly mentioned that women are a limiting factor on straight men, and how unfortunate it is for straight guys to be cursed with an attraction to something that only restricts them. In the same way some straight guys consider marriage a fool's proposition these days ("what, so I bet half my stuff you'll love me forever? no thanks") some guys extrapolate this to straight relationships as a whole. I'm not sure it's entirely sincere -- as with everything 4chan, there's a huge vein of wry irony and trolling running through it all -- but I've heard multiple gay friends of mine remark "oh thank god I'm not straight, I couldn't do it, guys are so much easier". I've certainly thought the same myself after hearing straight friends' girlfriend troubles.
I have more, but this has run long enough as is.