Open main menu
Submissive vs dominant dichotomy

Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to the same sex. This article primarily discusses the dominance signaling aspect of homosocial and homosexual behavior, the low-status aspect of submissive homosexuality, and resulting intrasexual competition by accusations of gayness. It also discusses Muscarella's alliance formation hypothesis[1] which claims incels can turn submissive homosexuals to form a sexual alliance with a higher status man to regain access to group resources and reproductive success (homocel hypothesis), with the higher status male also gaining some benefits, including sexual pleasure and costly signaling by risking accusations of gayness.

This article only covers male homosexuality since lesbians seem to be of low significance for inceldom and society at large.[2] Lesbians seem to be cute, foidish, often feminists[3] and universally more tolerated than male homosexuals.[4] Lesbianism may have been sexually selected behavior by men preferring their harem wives to get additional sexual pleasure from each other rather from other men as a means of paternity assurance.[5]

Prevalence and legitimacyEdit

Some forms of homoerotic behavior were accepted in 64% of the 76 cultures studied.[1] 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. Despite high levels of gay acceptance,[6] only less than 2% of men identify as exclusively homosexual.[7] 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.[8][9]


At first glance, attraction to other men (androphilia) should be maladaptive because homosexual acts cannot produce offspring. However, male homosexuality is more prevalent than what selection-mutation balance regarding androphilia and gynophilia (attraction to men and women, respectively) would predict.[10] Homosexuality and gender non-conformity is somewhat heritable,[11][12] all of which suggests homosexuality is an adaptation, i.e. that it increased men's reproductive success in the past.

Dominant vs submissiveEdit

There are seemingly various conceivable pathways toward increased reproductive success (RS) through homosexual behavior in terms of the dominant vs submissive dichotomy, explaining homosexuality as an evolved behavior: Promiscuity/sodomy (RS for penetrator), alliance (RS for penetrator and penetree), intrasexual competition by gossip (RS for accuser), homosexuality and homosocialty as costly signal by thwarting said gossip (RS for both, mostly for the penetrator). These pathways are explained in detail 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.[13][14] 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. 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-Eibesfeld 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.[15] 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.[15] 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 it also comes in other forms and shapes, besides excessive anonymous promiscuity.
  • Submission: One other shape 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).[1] The submissive male can make himself into the female in order to appease dominant males and get some crumbs in return.
  • 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[16] (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 as costly signaling as they risk being accused of gayness, but are confident in their ability to thwart such insults to their reputations, 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,[17][18] 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),[19] but receptive homosexuals were deemed outlaws (infamia).[20] 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.[21]
  • 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. [22]
  • 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).[23] Many such rapists do not view the act of raping another man as homosexuality, but as a forceful demonstration of masculinity.[24] 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.[25] Rape of male prisoners is still common in modern conflicts, for instance in the Civil War in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[26] and the Bosnian civil war that occurred after the dissolution of Yugoslavia.[27][28] 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.[29] Colonel Gaddafi himself was sodomized with a bayonet before being executed.[30] 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.[31] Such acts also occurred during the First World War (the gang rape of Lawrence of Arabia by the Turks),[32] and the Syrian Civil War.[33] Arguably, the tale of Lot and the Sodomites in the Bible contains allusions to such behavior.[34]
  • More cross-cultural findings: The active-passive contrast in homosexuality was also prevalent in medieval Scandinavia and contemporary Latin America.[35] Pederasty, which is also an instance of homosexual power differentials, has flourished in many lower cultures, e.g. Indians of North America,[36] but also in a number of high cultures, including ancient Greece, medieval Islam (especially among Sufis), Japan (among the Samurai nobility), and Korea.[37]
  • Modern West: Today, most homosexuals identify as versatile (around 40%), preferring both the dominant and submissive role at times, with a roughly equal split between top and bottom preferences,[38][39] which may be regarded as counter evidence for the relevance of dominant/submissive dichotomy for the evolution of male homosexual behavior as one would perhaps expect a greater divide. However, the entire modern homosexual identity may largely be a social construct, attracting people to act out their sexual fantasies rather than adaptations in the context they evolved. The notion of a fixed sexual identity has been questioned in a recent meta study,[40] rather orientation changes over time and exists on a continuum and 98% of men wanting sex with the opposite sex alongside some homosexual curiosity that may have evolved as discussed above. Hence modern self-identifying as homosexuals are not necessarily representative of human homosexuality in the past.

Other hypothesesEdit

Rather than just one cause, multiple causes and adaptive pressures may be involved in the phenomenon of male homosexuality. Few of these explanations are mutually exclusive.

  • 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.[41] This largely overlaps with the notion of alliances in Muscarella's theory.
  • Helper in the nest: This hypothesis claims that gay males tend to help in the household increasing the reproductive success of siblings,[10], 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,[42][43] however homosexuals do not actually seem to exhibit more kinship behavior.[44] This also does not really explain bisexuality. Exclusive homosexuality is also rare, so this cannot be a strong selective pressure.
  • 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.[45]


Homophobia is the fear of being socially excluded for being regarded as gay, i.e. the fear that other men will destroy one's reputation of one's willingness and ability to compete for women. Sexless beta or omega males (incels) hence avoid often 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, may 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.[46] 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.[47]

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.

Inceldom and homophobiaEdit

Many incels 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. As a result incels often very vocally express their anti-gay views to avoid being seen gay.

Repressed homosexualityEdit

A common feminist claim is that male homophobes often have repressed homosexual impulses, which seems to have been indicated by phallometry.[48] The reason homophobes need to signal this is rather because they lack social and sexual status otherwise that would allow them to act out their homosocial impulses without risking being vulnerable to male intrasexually competitive gossip, also a result of living in a highly competitive environment or one that is heavily concerned about shame and honor. The feminist insinuation is mislead by the notion that androphily would primarily be a separate sexual identity, when in truth it is primarily an accessory that is conductive to male reproductive success in heterosexual males.

Gay acceptance and homosocial intimacyEdit

There is much historical evidence that 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.[49] John Ibson documented this change with hundreds of photos taken throughout the past century.[50] 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.[51]


Even though kids of homosexuals do not fare much worse,[52] which may be evidence of resilience, one can observe astonishing grievances in homosexual communities in terms of a highly unstable, promiscuous lifestyle. However, those who raise children may also have less extreme lifestyles.


  • Male homosexuals had on average 56.9 partners, but male heterosexuals only 16.7.[53]
  • In Australia, 25% of homosexuals have had more than 100 sex partners.[54]
  • In an Australian national phone survey, 10-15% homosexuals reported >1000 sexual partners.[55]
  • In another Australia phone survey, 17% of gay men had >100 partners.[56]
  • 25% gay men in America have had over 1000 sex partners.[57]
  • 43% of gay men have over 500 partners.[57]
  • Over 20% of older homosexuals have had more than 500 different sex partners.[58]
  • 28% of homosexuals have had sex with over a thousand men. For straight men? Just 25% have had sex with more than 10 women.[58]
  • The average gay man has several dozen sex partners per year.[58]
  • Gay men are twice as likely as straight men to be in interracial relationships.[59]


  • Married homosexual men are 50% more likely than straight couples to divorce.[54]
  • Homosexual relationships are often non-monogamous.[54]
  • In the Netherlands, the average homosexual in a “steady relationship” has seven to eight affairs per year.[54]
  • Most “long term relationships” between gay men last less than eight years.[58]
  • Among gay Canadian men in “committed relationships, only 25% were monogamous.[58]
  • In one study, only 9% of gay men were monogamous.[58]
  • 75% of straight men an are faithful, compared to just 4.5% of gay men.[58]
  • In Berlin, 83% of gay men in “steady” relationships had had frequent affairs in the last year.[58]
  • Married lesbians are 2-3 times more likely to divorce than straight couples.[54]
  • 79% of homosexual men say over half of their sex partners are strangers.[60]


  • Infection rates for gonorrhea and chlamydia are increasing among active homosexual men.[61]
  • Gay men, 1% of the population, account for 83% of syphilis cases.[61]
  • Syphilis was almost eradicated, but made a comeback among homosexual men.[61]
  • Active homosexual men are 17 times more likely than straight people to have anal cancer.[61]
  • Gay men are 60x more likely to have HIV than straight men.[62]
  • One in eight gay men in London has HIV.[63]
  • Gay men, who are 1.65% of the US population, account for 63% of the country’s syphilis cases.[54]
  • In 2010, homosexuals were about 200 times more likely than everyone else to be diagnosed with HIV.[54]
  • Gay men are 15 times more likely to have Hepatitis B than everyone else.[54]
  • 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.[64]


  • 66% of men and women who were homosexual change their orientation to heterosexual five years later.[65]
  • 99.8% of lesbian, gay and bisexual teens will change their sexual orientation within 13 years.[65]
  • Identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual does not end sexual questioning or confusion.[66]
  • 99.8% of lesbian, gay and bisexual teens will change their sexual orientation within 13 years.[67]
  • Two-thirds of men and women who were homosexual change their orientation to heterosexual five years later.[66]
  • Two thirds of self-identified lesbians later have heterosexual relationships.[66]


  • Homosexuals are more likely than straight people to have anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and to commit suicide.[54]
  • Gay men are six times more likely to commit suicide than straight men.[60]
  • Gay men are 12x more likely to use amphetamines than straight men.[60]
  • Gay men are 10x more likely to use heroin than straight men.[60]
  • Gay people are 2-3x more likely to abuse alcohol than straight people.[60]
  • Homosexuals are more likely to use illegal drugs and drink to excess than straight people.[54]
  • Homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals are poorer than straight people.[54]


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2
  2. Despite women being much more likely considered a victim group, the term "female homosexuality" is used way less than "male homosexuality". This suggests few people really care about lesbians. Anti-lesbian homophobia is much less prevalent and men find lesbians outright sexually arousing, which may stem from the fact that lesbians in a harm implies a lower risk of cuckoldry, hence men selected from it.
  3. 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.
  5.,5 See section "Male Tolerance"
  6. Only 22% of U.S. population opposes homosexuality
  10. 10.0 10.1
  15. 15.0 15.1 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.
  23. 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
  28. 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.
  42. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  43. Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  54. 54.00 54.01 54.02 54.03 54.04 54.05 54.06 54.07 54.08 54.09 54.10
  57. 57.0 57.1
  58. 58.0 58.1 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.5 58.6 58.7
  60. 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 60.4
  61. 61.0 61.1 61.2 61.3
  65. 65.0 65.1
  66. 66.0 66.1 66.2

See alsoEdit



GameRomanceCourtshipNeggingSMVBeautyCharismaOrbiterBullyingLMSPUAAssholeTalk therapyIOIDominance hierarchyIODSocial circleSlayerN.L.POffline dating


NeurotypicalCoolCharismaStoicAssholeDark triadNice guyApproach anxietyConfidenceAsperger's SyndromeIQRationality

Pick Up Artists

Ross Jeffriesr/TRPReal Social DynamicsRooshVOwen CookPlayer SupremeWinston WuList of fraudulent people in the seduction community


HypergamyCasual sexPump and dumpRapeBodyguard hypothesisBetabuxReproductive successSex driveBateman's principleFemale passivitySexual conflictSlutFeminine imperativeNonredamancyAdverse effects of inceldomMaslow's hierarchy of needsHomosexualityHomocel hypothesisDemographics of inceldomPolygynyPolyandryMonogamyMate guardingIntrasexual competitionFisherian runawayCreepiness

Other theories

Timeless quotes on womenFemales are socially ineptWomen-are-wonderful effectGynocentrismMatthew effectApex fallacyClown worldFeminismSexual revolutionFemale subordinationFemale hypoagencyFemale solipsismFemme fataleBriffault's lawJuggernaut lawHalo effectVariability hypothesisAntifragilityTriggeredScientific BlackpillScientific Blackpill (Supplemental)Evolutionary mismatchMutationBehavioral sinkPolitical correctness‎Virtue signalingEugenicsEnvironmentalism