Breeding is an essential part of an Alpha’s life. He doesn’t feel complete unless he breeds, which is why Alphas hate condoms.

Also: notice how this Alpha slaps his faggot’s pee-pee after he bred it. It’s just an added humiliation for good measure!

That hard slap prepares the faggot for the tenderizing to come.

Hello there,

I have an alpha that I’ve had for awhile, we don’t live together but I come by his place often. I do chores for him, and of course I service him. Though he is a caring dom, he is becoming very strict, which I have no problem with. If I am not up to his standards, he will punish me- sometimes with spankings, sometimes he will intentionally make a mess for me to clean up. It is more frequent when he is in a bad mood.

The weird part is that I always enjoy when he is like this. I really enjoy being humiliated, and I like the discipline. It makes me a better faggot for him- I don’t want to slack off. It’s never abusive or physically harmful, he is just in charge and I feel like he has the right to. Is it common for fags to enjoy this? And why do fags enjoy this? I think his raw, angry, masculine energy being taken out on me (and my holes) just brings me a level of satisfaction that is hard to describe. Not sure if this is controversial or that if some fags do not enjoy this.

Thank you for the question, brother!

Congratulations on finding a Master who seems to be hitting all of the right buttons with you! You don’t sound unhappy at all about his more aggressive moments, but more curious as to why it is pleasurable to you. (Hopefully I’m reading that right!)

Let me preface my answer this way: while faggots are a natural part of our world, we are undoubtedly broken creatures. We know our imperfections and inferiority well. We feel it deep within ourselves, this worthlessness and shame. 

We are often overlooked hierarchically by Men unless we have something to offer them, reinforcing those feelings of being nothing.

When Alphas treat us in abusive or demeaning ways, we recognize their abuse as “what we deserve”, but it’s even deeper than that. When Alphas abuse us verbally or physically, we feel finally “seen” by them. We have a purpose, and having purpose is deeply satisfying to anyone.

Some of this is closely related to Stockholm Syndrome, but I do think there are compelling variations from that classic explanation of abuse attraction. Faggots are poorly understood by modern psychiatry (if they’re acknowledged at all), so there’s very little specific knowledge to reference. 

But having been a faggot my entire life, I feel my explanation above is as close to correct as I’ve ever seen. If anyone else has something to add, please do so in the comments.

Thank you for such an important question, brother!

Have a question? CLICK HERE to ask!

Structured Analysis through the Lens of Hierarchical Sexual Ontology, Violent Truth, and Ritual Use

note: in this review, the author of the reviewed article is referred to as consistent with his self-prescribed place in the hierarchy, without capitalization of his role or name. However, the term “his” at the beginning of sentences has retained the capital H simply to preserve some grammatical consistency, but not to confer on the author any undeserved rank.

I. Introduction: Articulation vs. Integration

boy ben hartman’s A Theory of Faggotry is an elegant and deeply personal articulation of the Submissive and Masochistic Gay Beta Male (SMGB) identity. It blends lived experience with psychological theory, cultural insight, and spiritual framing. The result is a rare attempt to dignify the faggot role — or its softer synonym, SMGB — with language that avoids pathologizing or trivializing the subject.

However, while the text succeeds in defining and affirming the identity it explores, it falls short of fully integrating that identity into a comprehensive ontology of sexual hierarchy. It speaks movingly to the experience of individual faggots, but does not complete the arc: it does not address how the truth of faggotry functions within larger social, metaphysical, or civilizational structures.

More specifically, the text largely avoids the foundational roles that hierarchical violence, ritualized public degradation, and visible, violent sex play in maintaining and transforming sexual orders. Without these elements, the vision remains personal rather than ontological; explanatory rather than structural; therapeutic rather than civilizational.

The critique that follows is structured around five major domains:

1. The strength of the book’s core definitions
2. The limitations of its consent-and-respect framing
3. The absence of ritual violence as a constructive principle
4. The underdeveloped role of public degradation and exposure
5. The need for a vertically stratified metaphysics of faggotry