Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to the same sex.
Some forms of homoerotic behavior were accepted in 64% of the 76 cultures studied, but in only around 20% it was fully accepted. While bisexuality was likely common in human history, men exclusively pursuing other men has probably always been weird due to how rare it is and for other reasons discussed below. In much of Oceania, the Middle East, the Caribbean, Africa, and parts of Asia, homosexuality remains illegal and severely punishable, with some countries having a death penalty for it.
Receptive gay sex is low status[edit | edit source]
All men are chronically horny because men's sex drive is higher than women's, so the easiest way for male incels to get consenting sex is to offer their boypussy to other horny men (cf. homocel hypothesis). It has also been observed that peripheralized men (incels) can establish social ties with horny men of higher social standing this way, re-gaining their access to resources and potentially restoring some amount of reproductive success.
Therefore, gayness is associated with low status, and men can use accusations of gayness as means of intrasexual competition and reputation denigration to get ahead in the dominance game of impressing women. Omega males are of no use for betas, so betas exclude and bully them to foil any competitive threat that may arise. Receiving gay sex (being the "bottom" rather than the "top") is also widely regarded as submissive and feminine, i.e. weak. This explains why accusation of being a receptive homosexual was historically just about the worst insult one could level at a man.
Penetrative gay sex is high status[edit | edit source]
Since gayness is associated with failure to compete, horny men of high status can use gay sex as a costly signal of their high status, and also as additional sexual pleasure. For example, in Ancient Rome, gay sex was socially permissable among high status men who penetrated other men (the emperor Nero, for example, had a catamite which is a receptive homosexual slave, whom he had castrated), but receptive homosexuals were deemed outlaws (infamia). Only a highly dominant man can afford to playfully kiss another man on his mouth in public. Since male reproductive success is largely determined by dominance, penetrative homosexuality may increase reproductive success as it signals uttermost dominance. This may explain the prevalence of homosexuality above what selection-mutation balance would predict.
Homosexual penetration of another man is probably the ultimate act of domination. It is, for example used to emasculate rivals in prison (in addition to satisfaction of sexual frustration). Honor-shame cultures also frequently employ sodomy for this purpose, as is e.g. reported in the Christian Bible (Genesis 19). A more concrete historical example would be the gang rape of Lawrence of Arabia by his Ottoman Turkish captors.
Homophobia[edit | edit source]
Homophobia is the fear of being socially excluded for being regarded as gay. It is the fear that other men destroy one's reputation of one's willingness and ability to compete for women. Sexless beta or omega males (incels) hence avoid physical closeness to other men to avoid being seen as gay. On the other hand, men who have already proven their competitive ability to get a woman, feel more relaxed around gays, especially since this can even act as a costly signal of their status.
Another hypothesis is that gays are avoided and excluded because they are seen as ineffective coalition partners when competing for women. However historical male warrior societies like Sparta (mannerbund concept being typically correlated with homosexuality, see also the Stumabteilung (SA) in Nazi Germany, which was riddled with homosexuality, including the leader of the SA, Ernst Röhm, before the leadership was purged during the Night of the Long Knives) and Thebes (the legendary Theban band, made up solely of male homosexual couples) seem to seem to challenge the theory that homophobia results from poorer male group cohesion.
Inceldom and homosexuality[edit | edit source]
Many incels probably feel unease around men because they cannot demonstrate any heterosexual experience or ability to impress women and outcompete other men whatsoever, so they fear the male intrasexual competition of being accused of gayness. Many incels who feel this way are often very vocal about their anti-gay, anti-feminist views (which is a good thing because it means others can easily see that they are incels). These incels usually feel very threatened by men so much more powerful than them that they will do anything to avoid the threat. If they could get into a relationship with a man they feel could actually outcompete them, it would be like an alien invasion to them. Incels are most often in fact not gay or bisexual but have a severe lack of self esteem and are afraid that being gay is a sign of weakness.
Gay acceptance and male-male intimacy[edit | edit source]
There is much historical evidence that male-male intimacy has declined with the acceptance of homosexuals. For example it used to be not uncommon for heterosexual men to exchange love letters. Further, heterosexual men in Western countries used to hold hands, and boys used to cuddle more often. Plausibly these activities acted as costly dominance signals as well. John Ibson documented this change with hundreds of photos taken throughout the past century.
Explanations include that the expectation that men can be gay increases the fear that other men could be gay and thus male intimacy could lead to a greater risk of being regarded as gay (male intrasexual competition). Also decreasing gender segregation max have motivated more male intrasexual competition.
Other explanations of homosexuality[edit | edit source]
- Selection-mutation balance
- Gay genes
- Genes predisposing to homosexuality conferring advantage in heterosexuals, a kin selection effect, social prestige.
- An increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual (feminine) genes from (related to selection-mutation balance).
References[edit | edit source]
- 17% of U.S. women identify as "strong feminists". 1.5% or so of women are lesbians (not bi). Further, "45% of self-identified feminists in a US sample identified as non-heterosexual, predominantly gynephilious (Liss and Erchull, 2010) as compared to 5.6% in a USA probability sample (Bogaert, 2000), which means that feminists were 4.5 times more likely to be non-exclusively heterosexual." (Source) Hence, 17% * 45% = 7.7% of women are predicted to be lesbians. By this reasoning, it highly likely that nearly all of the 1.5% lesbians are very strong feminists.
- Kruger DJ, Fitzgerald CJ. 2011. Reproductive strategies and relationship preferences associated with prestigious and dominant men. Personality and Individual Differences. 50(3):365-9. [Abstract]
- Boone, J. L. (1986). Parental investment and elite family structure in preindustrialstates: A case study of late medieval-early modern Portuguese genealogies. Amer-ican Anthropologist, 88, 859-878.
- Boone, J. L. (1988). Parental investment, social subordination, and population processes among the 15th and 16th century Portuguese nobility. In L. Betzig, M. B.Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian perspective (pp. 201-219). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
- Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hy-potheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
- Buss, D. M. (1992). Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice andintrasexual competition. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), Theadapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 249-266).New York: Oxford University Press.
- Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York:Basic Books.
- Ellis, B. J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms inwomen. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind:Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 267-288). New York:Oxford University Press.
- Hill, E. M., Nocks, E. S., & Gardner, L. (1987). Physical attractiveness: Manipula-tion by physique and status displays. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 143-154.
- Mealey, L. (1985). The relationship between social status and biological success: Acase study of the Mormon religious hierarchy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6,249-257.
- Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
- Ristroph, Alice. "Prison, Detention, and Correctional Institutions." Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. Ed. Fedwa Malti-Douglas. Vol. 3. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 1196-1199. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Oct. 2016.
- Schippers M. 2007. Recovering the feminine other: masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society. Vol. 36.1, pp. 85–102. [Abstract]
- Wegesin DJ, Meyer-Bahlburg HFL. 2000. Top/Bottom Self-Label, Anal Sex Practices, HIV Risk and Gender Role Identity in Gay Men in New York City. [Abstract] Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. Vol 12.3, pp. 43–62.
- Hoppe T. 2011. Circuits of power, circuits of pleasure: Sexual scripting in gay men's bottom narratives Sexualities. Vol. 14.2, pp. 193–217. [Abstract]
- Hensley, Christopher; Tewksbury, Richard (2002). "Inmate-to-Inmate Prison Sexuality : A Review of Empirical Studies". Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 3 (3): 226–243. doi:10.1177/15248380020033005
See also[edit | edit source]
|Pick Up Artists|