Homosexuality is same-sex sexual attraction or behavior with lots of political drama associated with it. Only less than 2% of the adult population identifies as exclusively homosexual, and two thirds of adult homosexuals change their identity to heterosexual after five years. Among today's teens, homosexuality is more common, but nearly all of teen homosexuals choose to identify as heterosexual later on.
Male homosexuals come in multiple different manifestations. A minority of (presumably) fast-life strategists is known to engage in an excessive, anonymous and promiscuous lifestyle. Unlimited by female coyness, this tiny minority accounts for the majority of infections with some sexually transmissible diseases. This fact is a taboo in Western countries due to how politicized the topic has become. However, the majority of homosexuals has comparable sex frequencies as heterosexuals, engaging in benign homosociality and sexual curiosity, in fact, a larger share of about 10% of all men has such bisexual curiosities at least once in their lifetime. Effeminate males are overrepresented among male homosexuals, but most look like regular men (see feminization).
This article primarily covers male homosexuality as lesbians appear to have a lower significance for inceldom because refraining from reproductive sex is actually socially and individually often desired for women whereas for males doing so tends to be regarded as an indicator of failure (double standard). Further, women have a lower sex drive and are less promiscuous, hence their homosexuality also seems less motivated by sexual frustration. Furthermore, lesbians are cross-culturally a bit more tolerated than male homosexuals, possibly also in part because lesbians less likely propagate STDs. It has been suggested that lesbianism is sexually selected behavior stemming from men preferring their harem wives to get additional sexual pleasure from each other rather from other men as a means of paternity assurance, an idea that was not received well among LGBT activists. Lesbianism is, however, also not universally accepted, possibly due to the high prevalence of social norms aimed at constraining overall female sexuality (see the slut article). Lesbians are a bit more often feminists than heterosexuals.
Prevalence and legitimacy[edit | edit source]
Ford and Beach (1951) found that some forms of homoerotic behavior were accepted in 64% of the 76 cultures studied. However, while bisexuality was very common in human history, men exclusively pursuing other men has probably always been weird due to how rare it was and still is. Even today, despite high levels of gay acceptance, only less than 2% of men identify as exclusively homosexual, and only a minority of them keeps that identity for long, though much more men may have some androphilia alongside their gynephilia, i.e. bisexuality, which will be the main subject of this wiki article. 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. In many countries, including Western countries, 'treatments' for homosexuality have been devised which have proven 'effective', which isn't surprising since nearly all men with androphilia have gynephilia anyhow.
Evolution of male androphilia[edit | edit source]
Since homosexual acts cannot produce offspring, one would expect attraction to other men (androphilia) to be non-adaptive or even maladaptive, because, from the point of view of the genes, homosexual men waste time and resources on activities that do not raise directly their reproductive success. This holds primarily true for exclusive homosexuality (and less for bi-sexuality). However, male androphilia is likely more prevalent than what mutation–selection balance between androphilia and gynophilia (attraction women) would predict. Additionally, homosexuality and androphilia are somewhat heritable (around 40%), all of which may suggest that homosexuality is an adaptation, i.e. that it increased men's reproductive success (RS) in the past.
One can broadly distinguish slow and fast life history (LH) adaptations involving male androphilia, where fast LH means low investment in the offspring (a result of r-selection) and slow LH means high investment (a result of K-selection). Fast LH adaptations tend to be more violent, primitive, feral, accompanied by earlier maturation, lower cultural and social sophistication, higher sex drive and more promiscuity.
Fast and slow LH adpatations involving male androphilia are not mutually exclusive, though fast LH adaptations are more ancient. None of these adaptations for male androphilia are necessarily context-dependent, so today they can be executed outside of that context, so homosexual love may not necessarily feel similar to the context in which it evolved at all.
Fast life history adaptations[edit | edit source]
A fast-life history adaptation resulting in male androphilia may be the sneaker male hypothesis, which states that homosexuality allows to sneakily approach females by pretending to show no sexual interest, evading intrasexual competition and larger males, to then potentially even engage in mate poaching. Evidence for this to be a viable reproductive strategy is that women report to find gay males more trustworthy than other males. This is a fast life history adaptation because human bonds not negotiated withing a larger social context and marriage are unlikely to be stable and allow for long-term investment into the offspring.
Another fast-life strategy is indiscriminate mating. By mounting partners of either sex rather than only the one that can conceive may be correlated with reproductive success strongly enough that such sexual attraction to either sex becomes adaptive. Such a strategy is unlikely to involve long-term bonding or parental investment because then men would waste a lot of time and resources with same-sex partners before finding the one that can conceive.
Behavior in a fast life ecology tends to be marked by a more primitive mode of competition e.g. through physical dominance, intimidation and dark personality traits. Hence, in a fast LH context, one would expect a brutish dominant-submissive dichotomy to play a greater role in homosexual acts. In particular, sexual penetration can be identified as a high-status activity as it involves overpowering the penetree (implying more RS), whereas the role of the penetree is associated with low status (implying less RS). The low-status aspect of the penetree results in intrasexual competition in shape of gossip and shaming, also affecting reproductive success (higher RS for the accuser and lower RS for the accusee). It is further conceivable that homosexuality is a costly signal of high status as it evidences social status high enough so as to thwart said gossip (higher RS for either homosexual partner).
Relatedly, F. Muscarella proposed the so called alliance formation hypothesis. In this theory, low status incels can turn into submissive homosexuals forming sexual alliances with higher status men to regain access to group resources and reproductive success (homocel hypothesis), with the higher status male also gaining some benefits, including sexual pleasure and support (RS for either). However, such alliances could simultaneously be K-selected as discussed later.
Each of these aspects are detailed below:
- Dominance: In many species, including humans, the greater parental investment on part of females causes males to engage in contest competitions over reproductive opportunities. A result is that the act of penetration itself acts as dominance signal as it is the consequence of winning prior contests, but also demonstrates physical superiority by overpowering the penetree. A similar adaptation can be observed in very primitive species, e.g. in the freshwater fish Poecilia mexicana, in which male homosexual acts are attractive to females, presumably as it acts as a dominance signal. Also other animals use homosexual behavior to negotiate rank within dominance hierarchies. Females, in turn submit to the most dominant male available, in order to secure the best social and material resources being dominated and managed by that male. Anthropologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt suggested such male dominance/female surrender patterns may be rooted in ancient brain regions that humans share with lizards. He suggested the type of excessive, promiscuous and anonymous male homosexual behavior that is common among many homosexuals (see statistics) may have originated from the archaic vertebrate dominance-and-submission sexuality. Indeed, historically, penetration of another man (sodomy) was, arguably, the ultimate act of male-male domination, especially in honor-shame cultures. Exhibitionism and phallus symbolism may also be born from such display of dominance. Women's lower sex drive, as a result of their greater parental investment, also dooms men to be horny, which facilitates men getting sexual pleasure from one another as an outlet of sexual frustration. However, dominance behavior is unlikely to explain all male homosexual behavior as it also comes in other forms besides excessive anonymous promiscuity.
- Submission: One other form is receptive and submissive homosexuality. In what Muscarella calls alliance formation hypothesis, he suggested peripheralized men (incels) can establish social ties with horny men of higher social standing by homosociality and re-gain access to resources, and thereby increase their chances of reproductive success (see homocel hypothesis). The submissive male can make himself into the female in order to appease dominant males and get some crumbs in return. This kind of adaptation can either be considered fast LH as male whoring, or as slow life as a long-term investment in male relationships and alliances.
- Gossip: In both of these homosexual reproductive strategies, the penetree is associated with low status, so men can use accusations of gayness as means of intrasexual competition. Omega males are of no use for betas, so betas exclude and bully them to foil any competitive threat that may arise (see also violent reproductive strategies). The cross-cultural prevalence of laws against homosexuality may be driven by the same innate tendency among males to accuse one another of gayness. Alternatively or additionally such laws may also have culturally evolved to limit the excessive, dominant promiscuity that also exists in gay communities, which may be regarded as uncivilized or a health threat with regards to STDs, however, antifragility should imply that this is not a huge problem.
- Costly signaling: As a result of potential adaptations for accusing men of gayness, men of higher status can use homosexual or homosocial acts, not only as act of intimidation, but also for the purposes of showing-off, as costly signaling risking being accused of gayness, but being confident in one's ability to thwart such insults to one's reputation and social standing, hence robust evidence of high social status. Evidence of such signaling may be found, for example, in a study by Robison and Anderson from University of Winchester in which highly confident and masculine men (sport athletes) did engage in homosocial tactility, even though today public male intimacy is uncommon in the West (see gay acceptance and homosocial intimacy). Only a dominant man can afford to hold hands with other men in public. A low status man vulnerable to gossip would need to claim the status of a protected class and rely on shaming to survive socially.
Below are historical examples of the prevalence of the dichotomy of dominant vs submissive homosexuality:
- Ancient Rome: In Ancient Rome, gay sex was socially permissible 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). The Christian religion seemingly broke with Roman precedent by utterly condemning both forms of homosexuality, though Paul's condemnation of the act has been argued to reflect contemporary Roman ideas of the passive role being particularly shameful, as it places the receptive homosexual in the role of a woman.
- Chinese mass sodomy: One striking historical example is the mass rape of Chinese male captives ordered by the Mongol Great Khan, Ogedei. Prior to the battle, the Chinese, thinking themselves secure with their superior numbers, boasted they would rape the Mongol's women after the battle. This was not an idle threat, as Mongol women often operated near the front lines in supportive roles. After the Mongol's victory, the Khan ordered that the thousands of Chinese captives should be sodomized to punish them for their impertinence. 
- Prison rape: This type of thinking persists in modern modern times, for instance, homosexual rape (or the threat of it) is commonly used to emasculate rivals in prison (in addition to satisfaction of sexual frustration). Many such rapists do not view the act of raping another man as homosexuality, but as a forceful demonstration of masculinity. Authoritarian regimes have also made use of homosexual acts to torture and control dissidents, for example the inmates of prison camps in Pinochet era Chile were frequently sodomized by guards to break their will to resist. Rape of male prisoners is still common in modern conflicts, for instance in the Civil War in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Bosnian civil war that occurred after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The Congolese men who were raped often reported being abandoned by their wives, who apparently coldly asserted that they were weak and therefore couldn't protect her. Many of the men who were raped in the former Yugoslavia claimed they were seen as outcasts in their own villages after the rapes.
- Middle East and honor-shame cultures: There are reports of other middle-eastern cultures, such as war torn post-Gaddafi Libya, making common use of homosexual penetration or the penetration of subjugated men with objects as a means of diminishing the man's social status and will to resist his bondage. Colonel Gaddafi himself was sodomized with a bayonet before being executed. Another disgraced ruler that was dispatched in such a manner was King Edward II of England, a homosexual, who was claimed by some contemporary accounts to have been executed by having a heated poker shoved up his rectum, though this account has been hotly disputed. Such acts also occurred during the First World War (the gang rape of Lawrence of Arabia by the Turks), and the Syrian Civil War. Arguably, the tale of Lot and the Sodomites in the Bible contains allusions to such behavior.
- More cross-cultural findings: The active-passive contrast in homosexuality was also prevalent in medieval Scandinavia and contemporary Latin America. Pederasty, which is also an instance of homosexual power differentials, has flourished in many lower cultures, e.g. Indians of North America, but also in a number of high cultures, including ancient Greece, medieval Islam (especially among Sufis), Japan (among the Samurai nobility), and Korea.
- Modern West: Today, most Western homosexuals identify as versatile (around 40%), meaning they have no particular preference for the role of the penetrator or the penetree. This means contemporary homosexuals do not exhibit a dichotomy in penetrative or dominance behavior. This may be regarded as counter-evidence for the dominant/submissive dichotomy hypothesis. However, modern (exclusive) homosexual identity is likely only a political fad, attracting people to act out their sexual fantasies rather than adaptations in the context they evolved in.
Slow life history adaptations[edit | edit source]
A large share of male homosexuals exhibits quite the opposite to fast life history traits, namely slow maturation and feminine traits. In fact, as an overall group, homosexuals tend to be feminized compared to the overall population. Harry (1982) found that 42 percent of his gay respondents were 'sissies' during childhood compared to only 11% in his heterosexual sample. Saghir and Robins (1973, 18) found that about one-third of their gay respondents deviated from gender norms, while only 3 percent of their heterosexual sample.
The phenomenon of feminized homosexuals can either be explained by toxins causing a feminization causing a feminine phenotype overall (including androphilia). Alternatively, adaptations for androphilia (to the extent it is adaptive at all) may developmentally necessitate an overall more feminine phenotype. An alternative explanation is that K-selection has acted on males and homosexuality, for example by the following mechanisms:
- Self-domestication: It has been suggested in recent human history, human males have been substantially selected to be nice to one another (domestication), with homosociality being one instance thereof and in which homosexuality serves as a means of bonding via intimacy. This largely overlaps with the notion of alliances in Muscarella's theory, however here the access to resources (which are harder to secure in harsh/slow ecologies) exerts K-selection more immediately and may involve some male pandering compared to just domestication.
- Helper in the nest: This hypothesis claims that gay males tend to help in the household increasing the reproductive success of siblings,, helping relatives to survive by allocating to them material resources, childcare, and protection being freed from the burden of caring for one's own offspring, however homosexuals do not actually seem to exhibit more kinship behavior.
Other adaptations or causes[edit | edit source]
- Feminization advantage for female relatives: Homosexuals presumably being more feminine may confer an increased fecundity in the females related to the homosexual (feminine) genes from (related to selection-mutation balance).
- Selection-mutation balance: Mutations occur naturally. Hence some number of males are expected to express androphilia, but sexual selection will rule out mutations over time as best as it can, but it cannot be ruled entirely as mutations are unpredictable and some amount of mutation is useful to adapt to environmental changes and outcompete other species, hence a balance between mutation and selection is maintained.
- Developmental disturbances: Related to the previous point, homosexuality may be caused by environmental disturbances, which may act in the same or similar ways as genetic mutations, causing some males to express androphilia. See also feminization.
Homophobia and homohysteria[edit | edit source]
Negative emotions toward gays have been termed homophobia by social scientists, sneakily characterizing them as an anxiety disorder and irrational fear (a phobia). Similarly, the fear of being regarded as gay or socially excluded for being gay has been termed homohysteria, again characterizing it as an irrational anxiety, a hysteria, even though it may be warranted under certain circumstances. After all, losing one's reputation of being able to compete for women is cross-culturally cosidered detrimental for men.
A variety of not necessarily contradictory evolutionary hypotheses for these emotions have been proposed as summarized below. Again, one can distinguish slow and fast life history adaptations, e.g. ruthless male competition as a fast life history adaptation in contrast to adaptations regulating cooperation effectiveness as a slow life history adaptation.
Ineffective male coalitions[edit | edit source]
One 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.
An alternate hypothesis claims that homophobia is not mediated by homosexual men being poorer coalition partners, but is instead caused by friction between men who seek to forge coalitions based on competence and accrual of resources vs men who forge alliances based on intimate homosexual relationships.
Gossip and competition[edit | edit source]
Much of homophobia may be born from male intrasexual competition in accusations of gayness. Homosexuality may be banned in so many cultures as it taps into these evolved mechanism of competition, so it feels natural to bully, punish and exclude males who cannot get sexuality in the natural way, that is by competing for reproductive opportunities with other men. However, in many traditional cultures more importance is attached to the sexual role a man takes than to the sex of his partners. Most 'homophobic' stigma is directed toward 'effeminates' (passive males), while active homosexuals are received with indifference or even congratulated on their dominance and sexual success. In cultures with moral systems that sanction all sexual relations between men, there is still some difference in the way they are received: passive homosexuality is seen as a shameful degradation of the self, active homosexuality a form of violence against others. This shame/violence matrix explains why the Ancient Greeks preferred non-penetrative forms of homosexual copulation between free males. It was considered poor form for an erastes to subject his eromenos to sodomy: an act of violence in a loving relationship meant to engender virtue.
Inceldom and homophobia[edit | edit source]
Many male incels lack heterosexual experience as well as the ability to impress women or intimidate other men and they occupy low social status. As a result, male incels may be vulnerable being accused of gayness, especially now that it is socially accepted to identify as homosexual. For this reason, male incels may feel unease with male intimacy and physical closeness with other males, and they may even express strong anti-gay views, both in order to avoid risking a reputation of being homosexual. On the other hand, men who have already proven their competitive ability to court a woman, may feel more relaxed around other men, including homosexuals, especially since this can even act as a costly signal. Researchers at the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, have indeed revealed that femininized men often adopt homophobia as a means of establishing their heterosexuality in a culture in which distinguishing oneself as a man has been complicated by gender-egalitarian norms.
Repressed homosexuality[edit | edit source]
A common feminist claim is that male homophobes often have repressed homosexual impulses, which seems to have been indicated by phallometry suggesting a surprising amount of men may really do have slight or even strong androphilia. This may be related to the finding mentioned in the previous section that femininized (in this case homosexual) men adopt homophobia as a means of establishing their heterosexuality.
[edit | edit source]
Paradoxically, there is evidence that male homosocial intimacy, the intimacy between heterosexual males, has declined with the acceptance of homosexuals. For example it used to be not uncommon for heterosexual men to exchange love letters:
You know my desire to befriend you is everlasting, that I will never cease, while I know how to do any thing.
—Lincoln to his friend Joshua Speed
I wish, my Dear Laurens, it m[ight] be in my power, by action rather than words, [to] convince you that I love you.
—Hamilton to John Laurens
Further, heterosexual men in Western countries used to hold hands, and boys used to cuddle more often. John Ibson documented this change with hundreds of photos taken throughout the past century. More homosocial behavior can also be found in contemporary cultures that ban male homosexuality, e.g. it is not uncommon to see men holding hands in Saudi-Arabia. Such homosocial behavior plausibly acts as costly dominance signals as well, in a sense, playing with fire and signaling high confidence in one's ability to attract a woman and to thwart insults to one's heterosexual reputation.
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 may have increased male intrasexual competition. Further, in order to evade gossip, homosocial closeness may require a high degree of heterosexual confidence that modern men may possess at decreasing rate.
Statistics[edit | edit source]
Even though kids raised by homosexuals do not fare much worse, which may be evidence of resilience, one can observe highly unstable, promiscuous lifestyles among homosexuals. However, not all homosexuals are as extreme, and those who raise children may also have less extreme lifestyles.
Much of the promiscuous, non-monogamous lifestyle that causes a high prevalence of STDs among male homosexuals can easily be understood considering that men have a very promiscuous sexuality due to their low parental investment, thus without female coyness involved which is typically the main limiting factor in sexual activity, homosexual males are bound to have a vast amount of sex.
The high prevalence of mental ill health may either stem from social exclusion, but conversely, neurodivergent, depressed men may tend to be low status, which may drive them to exhibit homocel behavior, seeking alliances with higher status men.
- In the U.S., male homosexuals had on average 56.9 partners, but male heterosexuals only 16.7 (General Social Survey).
- In Australia, 25% of homosexuals have had more than 100 sex partners and another 10% had so many they had “no idea”.
- In an Australian national phone survey, 10-15% homosexuals reported >1000 sexual partners.
- 28% gay men in the U.S. have had over 1000 sex partners.
- 43% of gay men have over 500 partners.
- For comparison, among straight men, only 25% have had sex with more than 10 women.
- The average gay man has several dozen sex partners per year.
- Gay single men see around 14 times as many partners per year via online dating compared to straight single men (0.2 partners per year vs 2.8).
- Married homosexual men are 50% more likely than straight couples to divorce.
- In the Netherlands, the average homosexual in a “steady relationship” has seven to eight affairs per year.
- Married lesbians are 2-3 times more likely to divorce than straight couples.
- Among gay Canadian men in “committed relationships, only 25% were monogamous.
- 56% of homosexuals "usually spend several hours or less with a partner".
- In one study, only 9% of gay men were monogamous.
- 83% of gay men had had frequent homosexual contacts outside their “steady” relationship in the past year.
- 75% of straight men an are faithful, compared to just 4.5% of gay men.
- 79% of homosexual men say over half of their sex partners are strangers.
- Infection rates for gonorrhea and chlamydia are increasing among active homosexual men.
- Syphilis was almost eradicated, but made a comeback among homosexual men.
- Gay men, 1%-1.65% of the U.S. population, account for 63%-83% of syphilis cases.
- Gay men are 15 times more likely to have Hepatitis B than everyone else.
- Active homosexual men are 17 times more likely than straight people to have anal cancer.
- Gay men are 60x more likely to have HIV than straight men.
- One in eight gay men in London has HIV.
- In 2010, homosexuals were about 200 times more likely than everyone else to be diagnosed with HIV.
- While comprising only 2% of the country, homosexuals account for over 67% of all new HIV diagnoses, the risk of becoming infected being ~100 times higher than the US average.
- Among 13 to 24 year olds, homosexuals constitute 91.8% of HIV diagnoses.
- 86% of HIV infections occur within committed (not casual) homosexual relationships.
- 66% of men and women who were homosexual change their orientation to heterosexual five years later.
- 99.8% of lesbian, gay and bisexual teens will change their sexual orientation within 13 years.
- Identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual does not end sexual questioning or confusion.
- Two-thirds of men and women who were homosexual change their orientation to heterosexual five years later.
- Two thirds of self-identified lesbians later have heterosexual relationships.
- 24%-90% of lesbians report being psychologically abused by their partners.
- Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to be stalked or physically abused by their partners.
- Homosexual men are more likely to have been abused by their partners than straight men.
- Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to be stalked or physically abused by their partners.
- Between 24% and 90% of lesbians report being psychologically abused by their partners.
- Homosexuals are more likely than straight people to have anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and to commit suicide.
- Gay men are six times more likely to commit suicide than straight men.
- Gay men are 12x more likely to use amphetamines than straight men.
- Gay men are 10x more likely to use heroin than straight men.
- Gay people are 2-3x more likely to abuse alcohol than straight people.
- Homosexuals are more likely to use illegal drugs and drink to excess than straight people.
- Homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals are poorer than straight people.
- Gay men are 10-15 times more likely than straight men to have eating disorders, are more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder and account for 63% of new syphilis cases.
- Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to have eating disorders.
- Gays are more likely than straight people to have mental illness.
- Lesbians are 2.5x more likely than straight women to be obese.
Gaypill[edit | edit source]
The gaypill is pill jargon for straight involuntarily celibate men who think that the only way to escape Inceldom is to become gay. In their opinion they can't get a woman, because women don't want them because they are more strict than men in regards to issues such as lookism, race, status, mental state or other diseases. On the other hand they believe that men in general don't care as much about these things so much as women do, so that they have an easier chance to escape inceldom by becoming bi/gay. It is a special form of the blackpill.
See also[edit | edit source]
- analysis of their fixation on giant tits
- Homocel hypothesis
- Trans-vestigiality hypothesis
References[edit | edit source]
- Harry 1982 https://archive.org/details/gaychildrengrown0000harr/
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=560351713504498712&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 See section "Male Tolerance"
- Worthen, M. G. F. (2018). “All the Gays Are Liberal?” Sexuality and Gender Gaps in Political Perspectives among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Mostly Heterosexual, and Heterosexual College Students in the Southern USA. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. doi:10.1007/s13178-018-0365-6
- Only 22% of U.S. population opposes homosexuality http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx
- Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. 1990. Dominance, Submission, and Love: Sexual Pathologies from the Perspective of Ethology. In: Feierman, J. R. (ed.): Pedophilia. Biosocial Dimensions. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990 151-175. [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
- 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.
- Saghir and Robins (1973, 18)
- Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
- Christopher P. Scheitle, Lisa F. Platt. (2020) Sexual identity and confidence in medicine: an analysis of national survey data. Culture, Health & Sexuality 22:5, pages 568-584. [Abstract] [FullText]
- Rosenfeld, M. (2018). Are Tinder and Dating Apps Changing Dating and Mating in the USA? Families and Technology, 103–117. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95540-7_6