Alright readers, please return your seats and tray tables to their upright position and make sure your seat belts are securely fastened, this is going to be a bumpy ride. I’ve had a good portion of this post in the ‘can’ so to speak for some time, but as of yet hadn’t the purpose to publish it. I understand the potential for misunderstanding this essay is going to have, but as most of you know, unplugging guys from the Matrix is dirty work, and I’ve always been one who likes to get his hands dirty.

In the time I’ve spent writing in the manosphere both as a blog writer and a forum commenter I can only remember a handful of instances where I’ve read any attempt to define how Game is applicable to homosexuals. For the most part, personal ideologies tend to prevent Game-aware writers from objectively addressing how homosexuality actually validates a universal application of Game.

It’s kind of a shame that a lot of Game proponents would rather avoid how a larger understanding of Game is confirmed in homosexual relations. I’ll admit to some hesitancy as well, however one of my earliest posts, Sexual Fluidity, addressed exactly how an evolved  template for heterosexual gender roles is still the applicable one in homosexual relations. I also defined the dominant / submissive dynamic all intergender relations establish in Master & Servant.

Before I get myself into the inevitable morass this post will likely generate, please have a read of the Rational Male policy about morality. My purpose in setting this out isn’t to persecute anyone, nor should an objective grasp of Game be limited by personal ideologies. I realize bias in both observations and interpretation is always going to be unavoidable – I can’t scroll through my Twitter feed without reading personal perspectives regarding gay marriage these days. Just understand my point here isn’t to pass judgement on anyone (readers will do this for themselves), but rather to illustrate the universality of Game and gender dynamics.

Finally, I have to add that my interpretations here are going to be limited by experience. I tend to write from an authoritative perspective in all my posts, however, my interpretations here are rooted in my knowledge of Game and intergender dynamics not firsthand knowledge. I’m not gay so if you think my perspective is incomplete or I haven’t addressed something you think is important please feel free to make me aware of them in the comments hereafter. This is very much a work in progress and I’m open to anyone’s corrections.

The following story was related to me via email about 4 months ago by a gay male reader. With his permission, I’m going to repost it here, but I’ve changed his name to ensure his anonymity:

Hello Rollo,

I just wanted to start this message off by saying I absolutely love your blog and I am now in the process of ordering your book off of Amazon.  However, I have a very interesting question I was wondering if you could assist me with.

I am a 23 y/o gay male, and as you may have guessed, my best friend is an attractive 22 year old female. We have both dabbled in stripping since we were 18 but as of recently we have begun to make the transition to “sugar babies” to pay off our tuition.

The mind games involved in crafting a sense of “oneitis” are certainly true. Prior to even finding your blog, we have been exercising these realizations with great success. Thus, I was very excited to see a blog with 100% similar views to how we both view the standard STRAIGHT relationship.

See where I’m going with this? Men and women have clearly defined “roles” and personality types due to years of evolution. If you are a young and attractive female, men almost instinctively understand the need to compensate with cash and or providing a sense of security…especially if you are playing your cards correctly.

The issue at hand for me, however, is that the same principles don’t seem to be working. “Strip club” hustle is far different than the mind games involved in a relationship, and when I do strip, I leave with a healthy amount of money. However, when trying to cross over into “sugar baby” territory, I feel as though I am playing with a different set of rules.

Essentially, gay people are a hybrid between man and woman. I feel as though, in some cases, I posses a very “feminine” view about certain things, but due to my extensive testing and researching of human psychology, I have adopted a much more “alpha” and “masculine” personality type as well. This “alpha male” persona originally started out as an “act”, but through sheer perseverance I can honestly say it is a part of who I am now. Since then, I have a long list of gay men who want to date me. In hook-up culture gay world, finding sex is as easy as signing onto a website or downloading an application. Thus, getting a gay male to actually feel the need to “date you” is an art form in itself.

However – because gay men operate off of feminine mindsets by DEFAULT, they are attracted to my Alpha personality. But due to my “alpha”, and or “male” personality type, they simultaneously do not feel the need to spoil me with cash. I’ve hung out with a multitude of gay millionaires, I’ve gone on a few vacations, etc. however, I can’t achieve the same success as my friend.

She has had “allowances” as high as 3,000 a week…has had her tuition paid off, and has been purchased a brand new 30,000 car. She’s been all over the world. Granted, she “understands” the game and plays it well. However, I want a slice of this pie.

Do you have any experience with gay/lesbian mind sets? Do you have any tips to cross over from “alpha boyfriend” to “spoil me”. I have been having a difficult time in regard to hustling. Gay men, ironically, prefer “normal” relationships. Unlike straight men who are more than willing to spend some extra money to jump to the next league, if you understand what I mean.

It seems as though I must fabricate a “loving relationship” for 6 months before I am ever going to be handed any sort of allowance. The “trip for two” vacations are fun, but at the same time, I do not actually ENJOY their presence and they can sense this. Any suggestions?


First off, any ‘advice’ I could offer is going to come from my understanding of heterosexual dynamics. After having worked in the liquor and casino industries for almost 20 years now, I’ve had the opportunity to work with and market to a gay demographic, and to this day I still have homosexual friends I’ve made who hit me up for advice. I’ll tell you what I tell them, Game is universal, but I think the disconnect comes from thinking that being homosexual in someway disqualifies a person from the strictures of how the sexes evolved and how they interact.

Naturally Mark’s stripper girlfriend will be the control for this study; as with most attractive strippers she understands (and capitalizes on) the natural dominant-submissive gender architecture, and the provisioning / protector aspect men innately apply to a high SMV mating prospect. Mark also correctly identifies how ONEitis influences and reinforces this dynamic, as well as its utility to transactional sex.

I will however disagree with Mark’s assertion that homosexuals are in some way ‘hybrids’ of men and women. If you read through my Sexual Fluidity post you’ll come to realize that even in homosexual relationships there is almost invariably a dominant and submissive partner, either of which reflect the evolved natures of intersexual relations – dominant, masculine male to submissive, feminine female. It’s not that a homosexual is gender-role indecisive or is some hybrid of the two, it’s about determining who’ll be the male and who’ll be the female.

In many posts I’ve made the point that the soul-mate myth and the fallacy of the ONE are founded in a popularized ideological normalization. For instance the Carl Jung idea of anima & animus is so embedded in our culture that we take it for granted. For the past 70+ years popular culture has operated from an unquestioned idea that men and women possess both masculine and feminine aspects of their personalities. Why? Because at some point Carl Jung proposed the theory and a culture embraced and perpetuated the idea that “men ought to get in touch with their feminine sides” as a means to an end for another agenda. No one even thinks to question the origins of this concept much less the veracity of it. Small wonder that so many women and too many men get agitated and hostile at the idea that this basic of their identity understanding could very well be horse shit.

I had a very depressive lesbian friend once cry to me about how she kept falling in love with various girlfriends, but the template for her breakups was always the same. She was a very tall, and attractive, short haired woman. The vibe she projected was obvious to anyone, a butch, dominant extroverted impression, however when she got into (or thought she was getting into) a monogamous relationship – something she very much wanted – she would do what most Beta men do in their LTRs. She presented an ‘Alpha’ dominance that appealed to more fem lesbians, but when she got into an LTR that Alpha presence faded to fem Beta dependence much in the same way men who learn Game will “backslide” to their comfortable Beta ways – and much to the disappointment of a woman who believed she was going to play the submissive role.

And just like a backsliding Beta, my lesbian friend’s girlfriends would predictably leave the LTR, confused as to why they’d been sold into playing the dominant / decisive role with a woman who appeared to be the pants wearing partner. Cue the heartrending ONEitis endemic to a Beta mindset, get depressed and repeat the cycle again.

The sexes may be the same, but the roles either play don’t. This dynamic is perhaps the most damning indictment of gender equalism. Even when both sexes are the same the Game doesn’t change. For all the equalist cries that men and women are fundamentally identical, just with different plumbing, the nature of a committed relationship still reverts to an unequal dom/sub footing.

Mark’s frustration rests in his inability to convince the men he ‘hustles’ to get ONEitis for him. I’d suggest that part of this is due simply to men’s sexual strategy and appetites being prone to variety, but also because he can’t pull off the submissive, provisioning-necessitousness message his girlfriend naturally does. No gay man (as yet) wants to assume this role with him, but damn near every heterosexual man with a heartbeat and normal testosterone levels will fall in line to provide for an SMV peaked 22 year old woman with a body nice enough to be a high end stripper.

A Gay Perspective

For the record I believe homosexuality is a nature vs. nurture issue.

So with that in mind, here is the Rollo Tomassi take on homosexuality: Until such time as biologists can empirically prove a ‘gay gene’ (or genetic combinations that predispose a person to homosexuality), I believe the root of homosexual sexual expression is behavioral. Human beings have a biological need for sexual expression: masturbation is usually the first, then we move on to more complex socio-sexual behaviors. In short, we like to get off. It feels good, it’s a stress relief and orgasm (plus the resulting endorphin release) has health benefits.

Sexual behaviors and patterns become progressively associated with environmental prompts, situational stimuli, as well as a multitude of reward/reinforcers and punishments depending upon the social acceptability or unacceptability of the that sexual behavior.

That’s not to say there isn’t a biological aspect to this; when I see a semi-nude woman (conditioned stimuli) I get a hard-on (unconditioned response). My body reacts in preparation for sexual behavior by flushing my system with a cocktail of hormones that increase my heart rate, heighten my senses and gives me an erection. However it’s the associations, and prior rewards or punishments, that prompt the biological response. For instance, why do I get turned on by a naked Jessica Alba, but disgusted (physical revulsion) when I see a maggot filled animal carcass?

When I hear homosexuals tell me “I can’t help being gay”, I believe them.

Through any set of circumstances their sexual expression has been reinforced to the point where it has become normal for them – they literally can’t help but be gay, because that’s what prompts sexual response for them. They also, literally, do not make a choice to be gay; their sexual response was brought about from circumstances that rewarded (or more so than from what wasn’t) that behavior. The obvious criticism is that for the most part homosexuality is viewed as a deviant or perverted sexual expression and is discouraged. However it’s just this taboo that makes the sexual expression an even more tantalizing reward.

As I stated above, sexual release is a biological need. Heterosexual men entering a male only prison population, can and do engage in homosexuality and then resume heterosexual behavior upon their reintroduction to society. Are they gay or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression they had available to them in their given environment?

What about bi-sexuality? Do bisexuals have only half the genetic material to make them half-gay or has their sexual conditioning been such that they’re aroused by both genders?

There are some people born with both male and female sexual plumbing, what gender should they pursue in life? Is this their choice when you consider it’s their parents who decide to raise the child as a boy or a girl?

Feminist Gender Decisions 

The problem with even attempting to define gender into a genetic vs. behavioral answer is further complicated by the people trying to define it. Just by even asking the question “Is homosexuality a choice or a genetic predisposition?” casts the one asking into one camp or another. You’re either a ‘homophobe’ or you’re an immoral hedonist by choice. Both sides are equally polarized and equally misled because they aren’t encouraged to look for answers, and when they do, the bias of their motivations for doing so become suspect.

Is gender itself biological or behavioral? This is an issue that Feminism struggles with to this day.

If gender is primarily a learned behavior then the issue of being oppressed by design is valid, but homosexuality as a genetic cause is invalid (or certainly less valid). But then, women’s biology, and the degree to which their innate hormonal differences play (estrogen, oxytocin) and the behavior manifested due to them, in molding their gender must also be taken into consideration.

The problem with asking questions like this now becomes one of polarization. Neither homosexuals nor moralists really want a definitive answer as to whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. The longer it goes unanswered, the longer each has to effect their own agenda. If homosexuality is proven not to be primarily genetic, then homosexuals as an oppressed underclass lose in their bid to make their status a civil rights issue.

If it is proven to be genetic, then moralists are forced to reevaluate not only their position on homosexuality, but also their philosophical concepts of predestination and personal accountability. So it’s really not in the interests of either faction to look for real definitive answers. The longer we all remain in limbo the longer either have to try to change minds.

You see feminism relies on the idea that gender is taught, not innate. It’s a classic nature vs. nurture paradox. And they’ll use this conveniently and interchangably.

To feminists, little girls are little girls because society defines their gender in their upbringing (play with this pink dolly), but ask them to explain why gays are gay and it has nothing to do with their behavior or their environment, now it’s genetic – they can’t help it they, were born that way. The problem is that this contradicts itself. If gender is learned, then homosexuality is all learned/reinforced behavior, but if gender is inherent then feminism is a sham as women are fighting against a psycho-biological order. They can’t help it, women were born that way, right?

Gay Animals

Yes, homosexuality does have parallels in other animals. However, what’s conveniently overlooked is that most instances of this animal homosexuality often occurs in social animals that rely on a collective group for survival (like penguins). Homosexuality is almost non-existent in predatory animals. Among these social animals, homosexuality is generally exhibited in higher frequency only when the population of the collective has excessively higher proportions of one sex. Homosexuality is also exhibited in lower order animals such as insects and amphibians, however it’s postulated that this homosexuality is an instinctive survival mechanism necessary to prompt sexual amorphism. Certain animals (particularly fish and amphibians) have an ability to change sex (sexual amorphism) when high frequency or exclusively same sex members dominate a breeding population.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to define homosexuality based on the amorphous breeding habits of fire toed newts, but in principle there may be environmental triggers that prompt homosexual behavior.

Earlier I made the example of heterosexual prisoners resorting to homosexual behavior in jail and then returning to heterosexual behavior after their release. Is that person a “homosexual”, or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression available to them in their controlled environment? Are post-Wall women who resort to Sexual Fluidity due to an inability to find a suitably dominant male really gay or are they also responding to the pressures of the sexual environment they find themselves in? Is the (subjectively) higher incidence of human homosexuality a response to environmental pressures that have developed in the past 60 years? With greater female “independence” and feminine hypergamy dictating the social / breeding  environment in the sexual marketplace I think a strong case could be made.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

128 comments on “Homosexuality

  1. Very interesting post. Homosexuality combines several interesting psychological and sociological topics.
    In analyzing some 22 year old “exploring” sexuality, it seems easy to apply hormonal/sexual dynamics as well as use the term “confused”.

    What I have always thought of as being the definitive explanation is explaining the kid we all knew when we were kids. The boy who was effeminate at an early age.

    Someone I knew, who grew up in a very religious household, raised similar to his older brothers, and was “gay” before he was thinking about guys. This was not sexual confusion, not a hardware issue, but seems to be a software issue from early on.

    1. In my high school class I was that effeminate seeming guy that everyone thought was gay. I was terrible at sports but excelled in drama club and art class (and also math). Yet I’ve never had any interest in men what so ever. Now I’m in my 30’s, I make great money, I’m fit and women notice me far more than they used to. Not every girlyman is homosexual, some of us grow up into men, albeit artsy/literary men, but just like any niche: if you’re very good it’s a living.

  2. Just for reference, the twin studies on identical twins (homozygous) show that approximately if one twin is homosexual that the other has about a 40-50% chance of being homosexual. If being homosexual was purely genetic then you’d expect 100% of the homozygous twins (given that they have the same genetic material) to be homosexual. That’s not the case.

    This indicates that there is likely some genetic component while there is also likely some behavioral or environmental component.

    It’s not polarized just like males and females aren’t polarized. I believe research shows that you have to be in the top 15% of emotional men to be more emotional than the average woman.

    There’s a high amount of fluidity in biological systems.

  3. Rollo,

    There is a third mechanism which both sides don’t acknowledge. The pregnancy itself. There are some idea is that the pregnant mother is stressed, which causes the “boy” to be less of a “man”. She releases androstendione, a weaker form of testosterone. Innersex “birthdefects”, occur at a rate of 1 for 2000, this is part of the physical manifestation of the stress.

    My understanding is there are different times during the pregnancy in which the mind, body receive chemicals to trigger different areas of growth of the fetus during pregnancy.

    This ides makes some sense, with your idea that homosexual orientation occurs given population ratios. Also I remember some lab experiment as they increased the population they had more homosexually oriented rats.

    I am only learning about this today, I have believed not that theres is a “male” “female”, but a bimodal distribution of what is male and females, this goes with mind, and body. This does not take away form the gender role idea.

    I “suffer” from hypospadias, I have held this belief for along time, but only now am I learning of the details of the reason why it occured.

    It is, I believe a population control mechanism.


  4. In the case of homosexuality I feel it is primarily a result of opportunism. Exclusive biological homosexuality is too harmful of a trait evolutionarily to not be weeded out in a few generations… much less millions of years.

    As for the rise of homosexuality… Sex is becoming harder and harder to obtain for the average guy… thanks to hyper-hypergamy of women further enhanced by online dating, etc. In such a harsh and competitive environment many straight men are resorting to some sexual relief from other men anonymously. Don’t believe me? Go on craigslist personals section for your city and see for yourself. Compare the w4w and m4m section and explain the difference. And yes I myself am personally guilty of this.

    This is not to say that there are no individuals who might have a hormonal/psychological issue resulting in genuine exclusive homosexuality… but that would be an exception, not the rule. So lets not waste time talking about that.

  5. She had allowances upwards of 3,000 a week? He’d better be gettin’ some at least 10 times per week for that (at 300 a pop), and each session had better be mind blowing. That is insane.

  6. My childhood was very sheltered, and for the longest time, I thought boys and girls both had penises. I didn’t have sisters or female cousins to show me their parts, so I assumed we’re all alike down below. I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and I didn’t have cable TV. When I saw my uncle’s posters of naked women in his garage, I was confused, and I assumed they had tiny penises hidden under all that bush. Well, to be honest, and considering the disadvantage of being sheltered, I’m not exactly sure how I turned out to be as straight as I am. When I was a kid, I fell, “in love” with little girls, not little boys. This is in spite of the fact that I thought we both had the same parts. From my earliest of childhood memories thru ’til today, I’ve not felt any lovey-dovey feelings for males. For males, I look up to some as role models, heroes, or father figures, but not once have I felt burning desire of that nature. I don’t necessarily understand biology vs. genetics, or where the lines cross, but would it be possible that there are no genetic factors, but just a chemical biological difference? In time, I guess we’ll find out.

  7. Demand and supply. Lots of horny but discriminating heterosexual men / few hot women; lots of horny indiscriminating homosexual men / lots of horny indiscriminating homosexual men. Or maybe I am wrong….

  8. When I hear homosexuals tell me “I can’t help being gay”, I believe them.

    Through any set of circumstances their sexual expression has been reinforced to the point where it has become normal for them – they literally can’t help but be gay, because that’s what prompts sexual response for them. They also, literally, do not make a choice to be gay; their sexual response was brought about from circumstances that rewarded (or more so than from what wasn’t) that behavior. The obvious criticism is that for the most part homosexuality is viewed as a deviant or perverted sexual expression and is discouraged. However it’s just this taboo that makes the sexual expression an even more tantalizing reward.

    I think we should interrogate first what do those who identify “being gay” mean by that. I think there’s a bit too much hand waving with respect to the meaning of homosexuality and not enough interrogation of the concept itself which can reveal quite a bit of ambiguities within it. Needless to say, our contemporary concept of homosexuality or even sexual orientation itself is nothing like the past practices of homosexuality.

    If I maybe so bold as to quote myself on this:

    Suppose we accept the prima facie definition that to possess a homosexual desire/orientation means to be simply “attracted” to a bodily form of their own sex and/or desire a person of their own gender. Suppose now we ask, what does it mean to say that they are “attracted” or that they desire such and such a bodily form or person? Do they just want to admire the beauty of their physique and stare at their bodies? Or intercourse? The answer is however not as obvious as might seem which I shall illustrate with an example.

    A friend of mine once said that someone was gay if he wanted to have sex with a person of the same gender, and thus, not just take pleasure or enjoy the image of the person’s physique. Then I ask what does it mean to want to have sex with the person of the same gender, is it to desire to have anal sex, oral sex, or simply masturbate in the presence of another person of the same gender? While understandably grossed out by the question, my friend just answered yes to all of them. Then I asked a further question, if a person masturbated in front of a mirror naked, being aroused by this image of his own body, would that mean a person had a gay “sexual orientation”? To which he then answered yes.

    The problem with this answer is that postulates that it is sufficient to be “gay” or to have a “homosexual orientation” just to be aroused by the physique of one’s own gender, to take sexual pleasure in the image of bodily form and physique, but without the actual desire for bodily engagement or “intercourse” with the other person. Thus, in a very strange and odd sense, to be gay just means to take pleasure or appreciate for the bodily form or physique of one’s own gender, to the point of ejaculation.

    However, the more interesting question is whether or not one could “consummate” such a desire even in a heterosexual relationship. After all, remember, on this conception, it is not the intercourse which constitutes the gay desire, it is merely the pleasure and appreciation for the bodily form or physique. One could simply consummate one’s pleasure and desire for one’s own bodily form in the opposite sex’s desire and “worship” for his own body.

    Let us now turn to the class of gay pornography which consists exclusively of heterosexual sex, but catered for a gay audience. Thus the videos mostly focus upon the guy instead of the girl in these types of pornography and are recorded for the pleasure of gay audiences. But herein is the curious thing, according to my friend definition, if being gay means to want or desire to have sexual intercourse with a person of one’s own gender and/or to take sexual pleasure in it, then technically, there can be no such pornography. That is, technically it is impossible for there to be “Straight Guys for Gay Eyes” because by definition no gay will ever want to watch a guy have straight sex. But that there does exists such porn would force this either-or:

    (1) Having a “gay” sexual orientation is compatible with desiring, appreciating and even taking pleasure in a straight sexual intercourse and relationship. Therefore “sexual orientation” merely defines the bodily form which one appreciates or takes pleasure in, but does not by itself define the sort of sexual relationship one desires.

    (2) Homosexuality by definition must be restricted and confined to those who desire gay relationships and gay intercourse, not merely take sexual pleasure or appreciation for the bodily form or physique of one’s own sex. Thus, there cannot possibly be such a thing as gays who want to watch guys have heterosexual sex! Those people are not gay!

    I am not interested one way or another in wrangling over the meaning of the word “gay” or “homosexuality”. The point is simply to note that the category and concept of “sexual orientation”, especially in relation to “sexual desire”, is in fact more ambiguous then we think, denoting more of a range of attitudes and mindset rather than a “fixed” course or “desire”, and might actually be more fluid than we imagine it to be.

    If the consideration of straight porn for gays demonstrates that “homosexual desires” are much more complicated than we think and are in fact perfectly compatible with desiring heterosexual intercourse and even relations, then the existence of Gay-for-Pay goes a step further and demonstrates that even being able to enjoy gay sexual intercourse and take pleasure in it does not by itself constitute a gay sexual orientation. In the former case, you can be “gay” and yet still like heterosexual sex and relationships, in the former you can like homosexual sex and still be “straight”.

    This is how we can have an open gay man who nevertheless has chosen to enter into a heterosexual marriage, and even a Rabbi whose has a ministry dedicated to pairing gays to lesbians.

    You can read an extended exposition of these considerations here.

    Thus, I am not denying that those who identify themselves as gay do experience homosexual feelings, they do. But the question rather is to interrogate the sense in which they are using those terms.

  9. He can’t get paid like his female friend since casual sex is far more easily available from gay men than straight women.

    I think homosexuality must have a large genetic/biological aspect. I’ve also seen children that you thought would turn out being gay or lesbian, and they tended to do so when they grew up.

    I’ve also thought that bisexual men are fundamentally gay while bisexual women are fundamentally straight.

  10. That was another great post. You generally were careful with the wording of Gender and Sexuality. However when you describe (I think correctly) that gender is nature not nurture, why is sexuality the other way around.

    You said that being Gay is a result of something in the behavior side, but discount the same in gender roles. How then does a gay man become the submissive partner, how does he bury the masculine “provider” side?

    I just have interacted with too many Gay men to not think that there actions are so feminine as to suggest that this is their natural state, not a learned behavior?


    My advice to your friend (from someone who has experience with having a male provider, while being male) is that he has to play the feminine role. Gay men expect sex and (in my limited experience) pay or take care of someone when that carrot is dangled just out of their reach.

  11. “The mind games involved in crafting a sense of “oneitis” are certainly true. Prior to even finding your blog, we have been exercising these realizations with great success. …Do you have any tips to cross over from “alpha boyfriend” to “spoil me”.”
    “Mark’s frustration rests in his inability to convince the men he ‘hustles’ to get ONEitis for him.”
    Apparently he knows what works to get the things he wants – i.e. be more like a girl, but he doesn’t want to do it. “I’ve hung out with a multitude of gay millionaires, I’ve gone on a few vacations, etc. however, I can’t achieve the same success as my friend.” This doesn’t seem like realistic request for advice, more like humble bragging. “I’m only a 9.1 as opposed to my fwend wh’s a 9.4. Any tips on bagging richer men than she does?”

  12. “What about bi-sexuality? Do bisexuals have only half the genetic material to make them half-gay or has their sexual conditioning been such that they’re aroused by both genders?”

    I’m bisexual, and I believe this type of sexuality most of all is conditioned. Even if they do end up finding a “gay gene” I’m fairly confident that they will never find a “bi gene”. Perhaps people who are bi have different levels of estrogen/testosterone than most, but that’s about as far as I’d go. Note that, just like in homo and hetero sexuality types, bisexuals don’t automatically find every man and woman to be attractive…I’ve encountered this belief in my own life and am confused by it. There’s also a tendency to believe that bisexuals are all slurs/players because of our increased pool of potential mates. However in the vast majority of cases, my own included, it would seem that promiscuity is still highly individualized. For example, my first kiss was in 9th grade with a girl my age, but then I waited till I was 22 to share my virginity with my male FwB…who is also the only partner I’ve ever had in my nearly 30 years. Just because more sexual partners are ready and willing, doesn’t mean that one also becomes ready and willing for every Tom, Dick, and Jane. The media is to blame for a great deal of these misconceptions…

  13. “Are they also responding to the pressures of the sexual environment they find themselves in?”

    For men porn mitigates a lot of the environmental factors, if it weren’t for digital sex simulation homosexuality rates would have presumably skyrocketed.

  14. “I’m open to anyone’s corrections.”
    Fair play, chief .. here goes

    The Curse of the Autocomplete strikes again!
    para. 4, line 5; “bother”>both

    wandering apostrophe in para. 14, line 5; “want’s”>wants (and “provisioning-necessitousness message” give me a funny feeling in my tummy, but I expect it’s creeping dialect divergence either side of the Atlantic yet again. I’d chop the “-ness” bit. But what do I know?)

    para 24; (if I haven’t miscounted by now), line 4 ; “cast”>casts

    para 26; “women’s biology, and the degree to which their innate hormonal differences play (estrogen, oxytocin) and the behavior manifested” something funny going on here, but damned if I can figure it out. Word gone AWOL maybe? Need to ask someone smarter than what I are.

    Last para., line 2; “jai”>jail

    I’d be obliged if you vaporised this post after checking it, it makes me look like a picky old twat of a kind I particularly detest (and would cheerfully murder). “Removed at author’s request” or some such, eh?

    My only excuse is that this crap was literally flogged into me as a prepubescent child, by the teachers’ thick leather straps, day after day, along with 12-times tables (Old Money, pre-metric) and copperplate cursive (and woe betide the child who fumbled the dip-pen and inkwell!).

    So, as you say, conditioning. Misplaced punctuation=massive adrenaline blast, like a poke in the eye if I’m reading. But I am no longer able curl up under the desk 🙁

  15. @Tam re: “para 26; “women’s biology, and the degree to which their innate hormonal differences play (estrogen, oxytocin) and the behavior manifested” something funny going on here, but damned if I can figure it out. Word gone AWOL maybe? Need to ask someone smarter than what I are.” That whole part is handwaving appeal to knowledge not in evidence, and is the sort of thing that would be summarized in a scientific paper like “As discussed in Smithers et al. [37] and Baifong and Chungwu [38], the interplay of estrogen and oxytocin” etc.

  16. I find it, I don’t know, either interesting or amusing, whichever gets me in least trouble (ha!), that a gay man finds it annoying that he has to calibrate his girliness. Color me not entirely convinced.

  17. Who knew I would have so much in common with a lesbian? Your friend’s plight exactly mirrors my own experience as a straight guy … “killing the beta” was not an easy or pleasant process and something I still occasionally struggle with in my weaker moments …

  18. jf12 oo er it’s still there ..
    .. about the actual content, I have not a scooby.
    To be pursued elsewhere, when the confounded interwebs stop crapping out on me (Easter Moday, is everybody facebooking their granny or something?).
    I was only pointing at literals and other grammar-type drudgery, and noticed a bit of broke stuff in there but couldn’t work out what it was supposed to be. If anything..

  19. @Tam, yes but my point is that I think it’s shorthand intended to be semaphoring something. Although I agree that paragraph suffers from a crunchiness, it is rather typical of Rollo’s style, which includes a great deal of hard bits cemented loosely together.

    This is not the same as “cobbled together”, which is probably closer to my own style. Often my intended style, my as-yet-unmanifested destiny, is piles of smoking rubble which would destroy anyone who got close enough to vainly try to unpack.

  20. Rollo,

    the thing that bothered me about the article is that for some reason you felt it necessary to use three full paragraphs to excuse yourself for writing the article, lest the group you write about falls into uncontrollable fits of hysteria, when it is known to most adults that hysteria is co-morbid with the homosexual condition.

    Anonymous Conservative proposes in his book on r/K selection theory and politics that homosexuality is an extreme r-type, competition- and violence avoiding mating strategy used by males less able to compete with the (K-selected) alphas who get the females and actually procreate – see http://bit.ly/1eVDnrb. AC also proposes in his book that homosexuality is the result of a defective, under-developed amygdala which in turn is linked to a gene called DRD4-7r, which, according to AC, has been linked to a host of mental and behavioral problems such as narcissism, borderline, paedophilia, ASPD, psychopathy …

    I understand that in Russian the term “pederastov” (pederast) is used interchangeably with the term “homosexualist” (homosexual) – perhaps for a reason. I grew up in South America and the view that homosexuals liked young boys more than what is socially acceptable was also common.

    1. Grunion, I’m less concerned about offending a certain demographic than I am in maintaining my policy of morally neutral objectivity (or at least the attempt of such).

      That disclaimer was for my own benefit, not homosexuals, and not for manospherean’s who think I shouldn’t tread these waters.

  21. Just for fun, I’m going to kick in my theory here, that homophobia is simply thinly veiled jealousy.

    The real reason straight people get upset about a small group of men and women achieving special, positive recognition for being gay, is that they are jealous gay people are getting special permission to be sexually deviant, and they’re not. The straight people are jealous their fetishes aren’t getting similar positive press.

    Per internet meme Rule 34, “if it exists, there is porn for it”. The natural extension of Rule 34, is that I believe it’s likely every human has a unique combination, like a fingerprint, of preferred sexual stimuli (whether born or learned, or most likely, a combination).

    If that’s true, and suddenly one deviation gets special attention, is it any surprise that the straight dude hiding his sheep sex porn stash might get grumpy that gay men and women get acceptance for their deviance, and he doesn’t?

    Why not, for instance, give privileges to women with a leather fetish? Don’t underwear fetishists deserve special tax breaks too? What about the man who desires children? Don’t put him in jail, give him a pride parade!

    If sexual preference is genetic, and the foot fetishist is born with his fetish, shouldn’t he be welcomed into society, like the gay man?

    The fuss about gay marriage is really all because those particular deviant gay people – but nobody else born with their own particular sexual preference – are the only ones allowed to be different.

    Morality be damned, maybe everyone just likes what they like, and that’s what they like.

    Homophobia is really jealousy that someone else’s sexual deviance is socially acceptable, but yours isn’t.

  22. I think your Genes vs Environment dichotomy is lacking one small, but important fact: The womb, and the hormones that we are exposed to therein, fall under “Environment”, but most people are unaware of this.

    The absence of a “gay gene” does not mean that homosexuality is a result of post-birth conditioning/environmental factors. The research I’ve seen builds a very strong case for the womb argument.

    I highly recommend that you give the lectures on this Stanford University playlist a watch, particularly all of the ones with “Behavior[al]” in their title. You’ll thank yourself for doing so, Rollo. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=848F2368C90DDC3D

  23. @Tam, after the school system deemphasized Easter many years ago it’s become something of a tradition to celebrate Bad Monday in these parts by playing hooky the day after Easter. On my way home for lunch today I passed by, rather rapidly, a neighbor daughter and her two friends who decided to be partly-sunning on too-small bath towels on her front lawn. My wife greeted me with what I initially thought might have been an accusation “Did you see what little Miss So-and-so was doing?” “Um, me? see? um …” “She was Smoking!”

  24. Cripes, jf12, is that the missus expressing an interest in the HB-rating of young ladies? “Smoking” inna Jim Carrey/Mask stylee? I’d take her to task if I were you, about her sexual orientation. :¬p
    Or was it merely inhaling, like wot Slick Willy never done?

    [sub for il maestro; I’d certainly give it a go. Thing is, it’s not the ones I manage to spot that give me nightmares. It’s the iceberg of unrecognized “errors” that chafe (don’t you like how hard I try to regularize my stuff for you guys? Mutual comprehension, that’s the ticket).

    I only know what I know. The English in its modern form is a simple creole, a trade language like Swahili, originating in the need for a medium of negotiation, exchange of hostages, taxes and military commands among the benighted inhabitants of the sea-rocks of Europe. My own family in the paternal lines, the traceable ones, only finally jacked in (a very barbaric form of) French among their peers during the wars of Henri Beauclerc for obvious political reasons, and the Church reckoned Latin was off-limits for the peasants, although it would have probably been easier, especially for the celts.

    Who knows what madness they would have contrived, having been given access to the Bible and the ancients? You can see a pale imitation of the likely consequences in the post-Reformation/printing-press explosion of the late medi[a]eval period.
    Then there’s the problem of me not recognizing when I’m going all retarded and dialect. I learned it from my folks, who learned it from .. you get it.

    If my ISP-access holds up, and if the Reaper holds his hand, well yes maybe. You got my email addy. TBH it’s more of a kind of crowd-sourced “bombing-run” you need. I’ll do mine, and then educated folks can take a few more passes. Or t’other way on .. ]

  25. @ Deep Strength

    No you got it wrong. What that indicates is that there is not a meaningful genetic component. People differ so genetics play a role in everyone but clearly “nurture” is the overwhelming factor.

  26. Without getting into the description and causes of homosexuality, one of the best things about having a large gay community is that it provides a “control group” for social observation.

    For instance: “Porn is all about degrading women you say? Let’s have a look at gay porn, oh look, it’s pretty much the same, just with guys substituted. Maybe it’s about what turns guys on, and not about women at all!”

    “Spousal abuse is a male-on-female thing, you say? Well, let’s have a look at lesbian couples. The same rates of domestic abuse? Maybe it’s a relationship thing, not a male/female thing!”

    I, for one, have great hopes for the gay community. Once they shed the political alliances with feminism, they will be the one area of society completely beyond women’s social control. This has great potential.

  27. Tarrou said: “I, for one, have great hopes for the gay community. Once they shed the political alliances with feminism, they will be the one area of society completely beyond women’s social control. This has great potential.”

    You ignore the STDs, the psychological illnesses, and general depravity of this ‘community’. Honestly, they don’t care for feminists, and transgenders have even gone after Gloria Steinem for catering to naturally born women. The revolutionaries eat their own. As it is, there is no benefit to having a gay community whatsoever, and if you want to see a classic example, look at the TDSB. Homosexuals don’t want rights; they want their lifestyle accepted and paraded around, and it is they who love pornography and sexual abuse because they themselves have been sexually abused.

    They have no need for women’s ‘social control’ because they’re already re-defining what it means to be a woman, and they truly are the misogynists because they believe mothers aren’t needed in a stable relationship.

    In the end, this belief system is still liberal and politically correct thinking in coming to the aid of homosexuals.

    In regards to the animal homosexuality myth, no animal is programmed for that behaviour, so it isn’t genetic; it is, however, a sign of dominance. Bedbugs also reproduce through incest. Let’s not resort to that, now.

    Tarnished said: “The media is to blame for a great deal of these misconceptions…” – yes, yes. We must bow to your altar. Our dearest apologies. But no, there is no gay gene. If genetics are involved whatsoever, it is the cause of genetic malformation, such as extra estrogen or testosterone or the actual rare hermaphrodites.

    For a site called Rational Male, all I see are liberal MRA theories on game and other silly things. And I also see support for self-castrating, emasculated males that feel society is against them.

  28. Concerning sexual environment, Asian American males have homosexual rates several times larger than any other ethnic group.

    Since Asian males are on the lowest rung of the SMV sexual totem pole it certainly makes sense that environment is a factor.

    Of course the issue is whether single motherhood, divorcess, sluts, hyperagamous high earners, Alpha harems, obesity and those that have left it too late will significantly diminish the pool of ‘available’ women and contribute to higher homosexual rates.

    The inordinant attention attractive women have in the Western market does seem to express an under supply of available women

    It’s interesting that Western women seem to have a lower floor of attractiveness than the rest of the world which may indicate the under supply of available women and contribute to the increasingly higher rates of homosexuality in the West.

  29. Well, you certainly bit off on a controversial topic here. I just finished a piece that I posted called:
    Bonobos: The first hairy lesbian feminist sluts

    It details how bonobos are a matriarchal dominated species who are quite promiscuous and have far more sex, sex of all kinds, hetero and homo, in many different positions, oral, kissing, and masturbation than is considered “natural”, meaning based on reproduction. Bonobos and chimps are the two animals most close to humans genetically. And the largest majority of the homosexual sex occurs between females. Which is considered the basis of female bonding in creating cliques and coalitions to use in agonistic encounters with others, especially males.

    The bonobo is held up as this extremely close ancestor, possibly the most direct in our line of evolution, and that its behavior could and should broaden the basis of what could and should be considered human nature, and is especially loved as the “PC” monkey by feminists and gays and something of the “truth” of our true selves. Feminists and gays insist the bonobo shows that female domination and homosexual behavior is actually “natural”.

    But the nothing in the behavior of the bonobos contradicts anything you say, that homosexual sex could be socially produced. Social conditioning is as much a reason that Bonobo females engage in the frequent homosexual sex that they do.

    But I do reach some conclusions in my paper. Homosexual female sex leads to coalition forming that leads to social abuse and exclusion of males, at least as demonstrated in Bonobo society and can be seen in Human.

    And repression of it is necessary for maximization of social capacity. It is strict monogamy that leads to maximum social and cultural productivity.

    I reason that the base trunk line of Orangutangs, Gorillas, Humans, Chimps and Bonobos was some female dominated bonobo society. And the branching from it was lead by bigger, smarter males, that moved out of that original area, into more varied terrain, and created groups more adaptive, more robust, and either dominated via force, or through survivability via provisioning and care, developed tools, bigger brains, and basically ruled the world.

    Basically, that evolution occurred when great ape males said to those lesbian bitches, “I have had e-fucking-nough” and used male aggression to gain access to resources and social control that had been denied them by this clique of lesbos.

    Sort of the first Males Going Their Own Way.

    And the pussy tickling hairy lesbian bonobos still live in the fucking trees south of the Congo, in an evolutionary dead end.

  30. Also your base assumptions, vis a vis, female sugar babies vs male ones, is backed by work by social and evolutionary antropology using the Tullock Competition Success Function and Evolutionary Invasive Analysis in determination of the path from promiscuity to monogamy.

    The assumption is that ancient men divided social efforts between mating, mate guarding, care, and provisioning.

    The mathematical models show that with data to reach what is called Evolutionary Adaptivness Equilibrium, then …

    The High Value Males will spend 100% of time mating to extend Paternity, (offspring).

    The majority of conceptions will go to high status males. (What we see in the manoshere top 20% dominating 80% of conceptions, the top 5% of high status controlling of 30-40%) and I repeat, in a promiscuous environment.

    The second level that get access to mates spend 100% of their time mate guarding against equal or lower status males. They can do little to prevent the encroachment of the higher status males.

    And care and provisioning, especially the later is the domain of the lowest status males.

    And the assumption was that monogamy caught on at the lowest levels, the lowest status males offered provisioning to females as a form of mate access. And a heavy little math function predicted when the female fore went the benefit of promiscuity in exchange for the benefits of provisioning in exchange for monogamy.

    So the lack of sexual access on the part of men, as you say, lends itself to female sugar babies and that tendency is encoded in the heads of men after eons of time as means of obtaining some paternity. And backed up mathematically via modeling.

    But even in homosexual men, the possibility of increasing paternity favors more partners where possible, and the nature of homosexual sex, even with the availability of marriage and monogamous relationships, precludes provisioning as a baseline strategy.

    Rational Male mathematically proven, rationally.

  31. Re: bonobo. There is little enough sex qua sex, especially between females. The lone matriarch captain of a troop allows a few privileged females to groom her in order to establish those lieutenants’ positiona in the troop. Some of that grooming extend to genital areas. But it’s really just touching, sensual at best, not sexual. Essentially none of the female-female genital contact is more than merely comforting, and almost all of the activities logged were extremely fleeting. The matriarch consumes the majority of grooming of females by females; it is not at all egalitarian.

    Almost all of the sex as sex per se, not necessarily involving just penetration but necessarily involving genital stimulation with pelvic thrusting leading to orgasm, is hetero and involves dominant males, usually the matriarch’s sons, with fertile females. These are the only alpha males. The alphas do not bother with foreplay. There is not a lot of sex between males, although most of the betas masturbate often. The nonprivileged females enjoy grooming by the betas.

  32. JohnnyCL: “the increasingly higher rates of homosexuality in the West”

    Maybe that’s got something to do with us decadent westies not eagerly stringing the poor old poofs up?

    Like they do in glorious islamic republic of Iran, to pick a particularly egregious case. I think similar BDSM nastiness occurs in “advanced” eastern states such as the great screwdriver plant of Malaysia, but I’m not sure and can’t be fussed to google it.
    If not them, then another one or two nearby. They’re always at it.

    It’s always possible that such a state of affairs might lead a chap to conceal his shirtlifting tendencies, what?

    Although it’s a shoe-in (shoo-in? never can figure that one out) for asylum status and never having to work again, as far as my notoriously limp-wristed nation is concerned.
    Thus leading to the awkward situation of migrants increasing the numbers of avowed gaylords hand over, er, fist.
    While not actually being of teh ghey themselves ..
    Also used by murderers, to avoid deportation from our soothing climate to the hell of a Caribbean island beach. Again officially upping the uphill gardening quotient. Unless they get caught raping grannies after release (a popular criminal pastime).
    Work the stats on that one out.

    The more, the merrier, I say. Literally adds to the gaiety of the nation. Bring it on.

  33. If homosexuality is, at least partly, behavioural in origin, then the incessant promotion of gay relations as being ‘equal’ to heterosexual relations (witness the sickening criticisms of Russia over this issue) then the logical consequence is that more young boys will turn into homosexuals.

    The greater sex drive of boys, compounded by figures in authority encouraging homosexual relations, and the ‘go-girl’ empowerment mentality will ensure that this happens.

  34. “The majority of conceptions will go to high status males. (What we see in the manosphere top 20% dominating 80% of conceptions, the top 5% of high status controlling of 30-40%) and I repeat, in a promiscuous environment.”

    Wow! Two-three iterations of that, and Men shall truly be as Gods.
    Wonder why it’s not happened before??

  35. @Cad and Bounder, the reality of governmental promotion of homosexuality is still a taboo subject, at least since Haldeman’s “The Forever War” (1974), and probably before. Predictably, even back then the controversies about its “homolife” concept centered around whether we should draw the line in the sand when homosexuality becomes mandatory, rather than acceptable, since acceptable was already considered a lost cause. This moving of goalposts is always problematic.

  36. Often wondered why those two grievance industry heavyweights (feminists with their “everything is a social construct” trope, and the LGBTQ set with their “born this way” mantra) haven’t duked it out yet.

    The answer is, each can only lose by doing so. Both groups still benefit enormously from whipguilting their host: the civilization largely built by human beings who do not “identify” as either one.

    So there must still be some meat on that particular carcass.

    Others profit enormously from the misdirection all this creates, so it’s in their best interest to promote both feminist and gay agendas, while carefully making sure the glaring contradiction at the root of the ideologies is never brought into direct sunlight. Guilt is a powerful means of controlling people.

    If there’s a middle ground to be found, I’d look in epigenetics. Environment can cause genes to switch on and off, with multigenerational effects.

    I’d agree that regardless of the particular X/Y config, roles tend to be universal, it’s pretty easy to see.

    What’s appalling is how coolly and casually the hustle is copped to. These poor, oppressed minorities. CisEuroMan I usually blame you for everything but fix it for me! Please Mr. Game, help me fuck over hapless fools as smoothly as evolution equipped a 22 year old whore to!

    Ask yourself, why aren’t feminists more vocally angry at gold-digging whores? They’ll even twist their way to DEFEND them and blame the poor girls’ predicament on YOU if they can wring another drop of guilt-blood out.

    “I do not actually ENJOY their presence and they can sense this.”

    Wake up suckers!

    1. Re: Feminists vs. Gays, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      The only way either will address the fundamental differences in their gender philosophies will be when they’re required to fight over the same resources eventually.

      I’ve actually brought this up with both feminists and feminism-supportive Gays. Lesbians will naturally lean to the gender-as-social construct to rage against the Patriarchy, but fluidly revert to genetic determinism with regards to their homosexual preferences. I should also note that it’s Lesbian women who are often the most dismissive of bi-sexual identifying women.

      Gay men don’t really have occasion to support Lesbian’s feminist affairs or really even consider the genetic vs. socially learned dichotomy of homosexuality. They tend to support any ideology that facilitates their lifestyle and that primarily includes anything that counters hetero-male dominance. Thus they’ll endorse, if not advocate, for feminist ideology.

  37. @Cad and Bounder

    The greater sex drive of boys, compounded by figures in authority encouraging homosexual relations, and the ‘go-girl’ empowerment mentality will ensure that this happens.

    The influence of parents, especially a strong father figure complimented by a good mother, negates social conditioning to a very, very large degree. This is the reason for the constant push to destroy the traditional family, as we stand in the way of their various agendas. And it’s true, my son and daughter are, under my guidance and our family’s demonstrations through actions and words, hardcore, reality focused conservative-libertarians and they’re not even out of high school yet. The area we live in is affluent and has many intact families, and the kids seem much more immune to the propaganda than you’d find in poor areas or areas with lots of broken families.

    Society can do a lot, but the core of society, its base unit, is the family, and that’s where 95% of the real power and education come into play. We are not defeated yet.

  38. The “gender as social construct” ideology – which is just Soviet-era Lysenko-ism applied to psychology and sociology – will have to yield to the growing evidence validating Game, Evo-Psych and the immutability of gender roles in the gay population as gays and lesbian coupling becomes more common.

    To wit: how in a stable parenting couple, one parent takes on the nurturing “female” mother role, while the other takes on the “male” disciplinary role. If gender were a “social construct” one could change like a pair of socks, that wouldn’t keep happening.

    To wit: how the gay male singles scene is simply an amped-up version of the general SMP. Lotsa lotsa hookups, Game is rampant in the service thereof. Lesbians do it as well, though their Game capabilities sometimes switch off in LTR’s, resulting in what one (lesbian) sociologist termed “lesbian bed death.” But the point is: Feminists who shame straight men for their “predatory” patriarchy in the SMP are not allowed to criticize, or speak to, such practices in gay male culture. To do so would not be appropriately “intersectional.”

    The evidence of some degree of gender-fluidity is also compelling, i.e., temporary homosexual behavior in places like prisons or other situations where the two sexes are separated for lengthy periods. (It is rampant in Wahaabist Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, where the sexes cannot mingle in public but men can adjourn to a private room anytime they want without the social police batting an eye). There is a danger in taking the temporary fluidity concept too far. More radical thinkers posit that gender, and orientation, can be changed like a pair of socks. To say that is to admit that the Religious Right gay-bashers are right: if orientation is a pair of socks one can easily change, then it follows you can pray away the gay. (Which you can’t. I’m just showing the fallacy in the “social construct” meme here).

    All in all this is a most thoughtful and nuanced essay. The disclaimer, though wordy, is appropriate to describing what the behaviors reveal; perhaps a better reduction of it is to paraphrase Lenny Bruce: “There is only what IS. What SHOULD BE is a dirty filthy lie.”

    Notwithstanding all the noise about LGBT folks, the ratio of straights to LGBT remains around 95% – meaning the fears (or hopes, depending) of those who say that just talking about it will “convert” people into raging queers and butches have not, and will not, pan out.

    1. When I wrote the Sexual Fluidity post, I was struck by the degree of cognitive dissonance needed not to make the connection that previously heterosexual ‘feminine’ women were becoming homosexuals by necessity.

      Either due to an inability to attract sufficiently masculine men to satisfy the need for that role, or some self-convinced narrative that “maybe they were really gay all along”, the message is still the same – a person can ‘become’ (by choice or by necessity) homosexual.

      The ‘born this way’ mantra that validated a homosexual sexual expression is completely invalidated and even the ‘butch’ dominant Lesbians in that article aren’t interested in the contradiction.

  39. Rollo,

    Re: Sexual Fluidity

    How fluid can male sexuality be in the aggregate when 5% of the population is LGBT and so very many more straight men are incels?

    I’d think prison populations would be less than ideal groups to study. You’d have to account for numerous behavioral issues that are concentrated in that population like impulse control, need for instant gratification, incoherent or incomplete moral/ethical structures, past abuse histories, etc.

    1. 5%, good point. I find it interesting that the trend of reinforcing the acceptance of Sexual Fluidity is far more pronounced in women than men.

      It’s entirely possible that homosexual men are simply responding to the stresses of the SMP (such as the asian male increase) rather than having a genetic predisposition, but this ‘fluidity’ isn’t something widely reinforced or ever acknowledged in popular media.

      Heterosexual women frustrated with their prospects of marriageable, dominant, masculine men, are graciously and enthusiastically embraced not only by Oprah, but the butch Lesbians eager to take them as a ‘wife’.


  40. wow ballsy article topic to tackle in the Manosphere enviro where people tend to be super anti anything-that-isn’t-straight-white-and-male lol

    I totally don’t have a dog in this talk at all except to offer a PUA perspective on it. We’re notably way more tolerant of different people/types because we go out and we meet and socialize with SO many literal THOUSANDS of new different people each year, that we gain a very broad perspective on things (since we meet so many different viewpoints and meet good/bad people of all types and learn to get inside people’s head to figure out what makes them tick) compared to the basement dweller who approaches a couple girls a month in-between posting rants about how blacks and mexicans are ruining the world lol

    So this is how you tend to see it when you go out enough:

    Everyone’s got like a 0-10 scale for being attracted to different shit (genders, kinks, etc.). For this topic specifically there’s a 0-10 scale for being attracted to women and a 0-10 scale to men. Most guys are like a 10 attracted to girls and a 0 attracted to men. We know that girls tend to be more bisexual so girls are generally like a 10 attracted to men, but like a 1-7 attracted to women. Asexual people are like a 0 and a 0. Bisexual guys are like a 10 and a 10. Straight up gay dudes are a 0 attracted to women and a 10 for dudes.

    But I’d say there are a good chunk of guys (more than most people would be comfortable with) who are like a 10 attracted to women but also like a 1-7 attracted to men where in certain circumstances, with all judgement and consequence removed, they would fool around with a dude to some extent. A guy who’s like a 1 on the scale might just think it’s cool to bang a chick in the same room as a buddy who’s banging another chick. A guy who’s like a 2 might think it’s cool to bang a chick his buddy just banged. A guy who’s like a 3 might think it’s cool to pass a chick back and forth. A guy who’s like a 4 might think it’s cool to simultaneously double-team a girl with his buddy. A guy who’s like a 5 might think it’s cool to run a train with a group of his buddies on one girl. A guy who’s like a 6 might let a chick cross his sword with another guy’s sword while she blows them both or like, fool around with a tranny or something where it’s like “but it LOOKS like a girl so it’s not totally gay!!” lol

    Then it gets into the super-gay end of the spectrum, like a guy who’s a 6 might, if he was drunk and a girl was pressuring him to do it because she thought it was hot and like, no one would know and there’s no consequences etc., touch another dude’s dick. From 7 on up would be how open the guy is to doing other shit with a dude until you get up to a 9 or 10 where the guy would actively like to bang another dude as much as he likes to bang a girl which puts him into that 10 on both scales bisexual guy category I mentioned up above. Where you define what the label “gay” is (anything above a 0 on the scale, anything above a 5, etc.) comes down to personal opinions and social conditioning and shit really, that’s why you get guys doing super-gay shit but not admitting they’re gay lol or dudes who think if you watch porn where you can see a dick going into a chick getting railed that that’s gay etc.

    Girls are the same way, except that most of them are pretty open to fooling around with other girls. Is that because they’re biologically wired for it or because people cheer on girls who makeout in the bar but would kick the shit out of guys who makeout in the bar (aka social conditioning/reward/punishment)? I have no idea lol probably a bit of both. I’ve met girls who are definitely a 0 on the scale of being into other chicks (I always test for this) but they’re rare and quite frankly a turn-off to me.

    As far as choice goes, you really have to ask yourself: could I decide not to be attracted to whatever fetish I primarily google porn of? ‘Cause you couldn’t, it’s hard-wired to you. Maybe curvy chicks with big tits give you a boner and small petite athletic girls don’t…but the guy beside you gets a boner when he sees small petite athletic girls and thinks curvy chicks are gross fatties. This shit is just hard-wired. That dude who has some weird fetish like he’s turned on by kissing girls feet or spanking or being spanked or girls with hair vaginas or furries or something, he can’t control that shit…it’s just that for whatever reason his wiring in his brain registers “kissing a hairy-vagina’ed girls feet while being spanked in a squirrel costume makes me hard” lol

    So everything to me is on those 0-10 scales where wearing a squirrel costume is a 0 for most people and a 5 for some who’d try it for fun, but a 10 for others.

    I think if you don’t have at least a 1 on your scale for something, you can’t turn it into a 10…like needing a spark to start a big fire. Like squirrel costumes are a 0/10 for me, so there’s on way I’d be into it in any way, it’s fuckin strange to me and not a boner-giver at all. But a guy who’s a 1/10 on it, if he did it a bunch and had a bunch of good reference experiences with it, could probably stoke that spark up into a 5/10 flame or 10/10 raging fire down the road.

    I actually feel bad for people who have weird fetishes/kinks where most other people wouldn’t be into it because they’ll probably be stuck getting off to porn of it and never get to actually live whatever it is out since their selection of people who are into wearing a squirrel costume in bed is pretty small lol To me this comes down to just luck of the draw the same way some people find Seinfeld funny and other people don’t like that kind of humor or the same way some people find a rainy day depressing while others are energized by it.

    So I’m not saying every guy can be turned gay or anything, don’t worry everyone lol Most of us are a 0/10 on that scale and like personally I’m squicked out by the idea of even banging the same girl one of my buddies has banged years ago, let alone sword-fighting with a buddy in a gangbang.

    But I think there are a lot of 1-5/10 dudes out there who just don’t talk about it or don’t admit it to themselves who, in the right circumstances, could end up stoking that up into a full 10/10 bisexual lifestyle. I would guess that those guys are pretty much the bread & butter of tranny/gay hookers lol

    As far as gay relationships go: fuck if I’d wade into trying to help with that shit lol From what I’ve seen it’s all a shit-show rollercoaster of drama. Makes me appreciate my nice simple casual hetero fuckbuddy relationships.

    (for the record I’m a 0/10 on gay shit lol I don’t see the appeal of dudes bodies to men or women at ALL, like I literally don’t understand how they could be a turn-on, an army chick with a ripped 6-pack hit on me once and just touching her rock-hard stomach was a turn-off to me bleh…but I’ve met dudes who are from 0-10 on that scale and hey different strokes for different folks, long as they’re happy and not hurtin’ anyone it’s all cool to me lol life is short, let your freak flag fly)

  41. @Badpainter, true that prison populations are less than ideal. Even so, very very few prisoners are only gay behind bars. Although a much higher than typical (almost said normal) percentage of men in prison report *some* kind of homosexual experience during incarceration, there is much less sex, repeat much much much less sex going on in a prison than in a similarly sized ghetto outside.

    Correct that the correct question to ask is what percentage of hetero male incels turn to each other for sexual comfort at least sometimes. And the answer is zero or close enough.

  42. @Rollo – I think you would benefit by reading J. Michael Bailey’s “The Man Who Would Be Queen” and some of his more recent YouTube videos on the nature of sexual orientation. He offers a couple of new ideas in the book about transexualism, but along the way he reprises the known science on homosexuality. He’s a psychologist out of Northwestern who has studied homosexuality significantly and deeply. He explores the following ideas:

    1. He believes homosexuality is clearly biologically occurring. The strongest theory out there currently focuses on fetal homormonal exposure – there are some great twin studies on this. Basically a fetus is exposed to high doses of the “wrong” hormone in vitro. There are also some interesting gene markers showing up in research but nothing is anywhere near conclusive on that front. So at this point the epigenetic in vitro explanation holds as pretty strong. The reason you don’t hear much about this science is because it completely destroys a central tenet of Gender Studies Dogma – the social construction of gender. Funny how LGBTQ sings “Born that way” yet want to claim gender is just made up.

    2. Homosexuality is essentially about attracting males, hence the effeminate habits of homosexuals. This has been studied extensively and whether it’s voice inflection or tone, walk, posture – the habits of homosexual men is decidedly effeminate and why not – the point is to attract men. It’s also true that homosexual men are not only attracted to homosexual men – in fact another aspect of male homosexuality that doesn’t get discussed much is the phenomena of “tops” in the gay community. Tops are essentially hetero men who will receive sex from gay men who only “give” but never receive. This is much more common than most straight people realize – but any gay man will tell you it’s true.

    Over time, as a homosexual man grows up, other hormonal/biological factors of being male present and socialization enters in, so gay men adopt a mix of effeminate and masculine behaviors as an identity.

    3. Transexuals -They come in two types – The first is autogynephilic. This presents as an adult and is actually a fetish and pathological. Think of the serial killer in Silence of the Lambs – he gets off on female sexual parts being part of his body. These people almost exclusively have sex only with themselves, fyi. The second type is the one we hear about in the news. The “girl trapped in a boys body” (complete BS, no biologist or neurologist believes that – only gender ideologues). What Bailey posts is that this is an extreme form of homosexuality, and the desire to be feminine extends to dressing up like a girl. Fyi, most homosexual men report dressing up in girl’s clothes when they were children. The LGBTQ political and academic establishment wanted Bailey’s scalp for making this claim and he lost the dept chair as a result, but he was tenured and survived but was marginalized by these folks. Trans men of this second type are almost all homosexuals. Interesting, yes?

    I’m not saying he’s the end all be all but it all made so much sense. And the book is available for free http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/TMWWBQ.pdf I’d imagine you know of him already but I figure it’s worth sharing.

  43. @GhostOfJefferson

    Unfortunately the evidence is that the non-shared environment is far more powerful than the shared environment in determining the variance in behaviour. This problematic when considering the non-genetic component of behaviour.

    Naturally, if you raise your kids in an environment where you are, to a certain extent, determining their non-shared environment (which includes peers at school etc) then you can have an influence. However, not everyone can do this, and children have a multitude of channels of influence from the media and entertainment industry, not to mention the equalist mafia in education.

    James Q Wilson describes this point much better than I can here (5:30)…


    …and the reality is that teachers screaming about the normality of homosexual relations is likely to increase its incidence, IMHO.

  44. @Rollo, one well-known but exceedingly under-discussed aspect of butch lesbians is that they are the givers of sex and the fems are the receivers. Yes, it’s kind of obvious in a way, but if one took feminist’s propaganda seriously, then one ought to expect the “man” to be demanding, i.e. one ought to expect that the butch would tend to force the fem to satisfy the butch. But the opposite is true.

  45. I just have to add that I find some of the views about homosexuality expressed on this on this thread to be shockingly belligerent and ingnorant. I’m becoming more and more disappointed in the manosphere as I meet more white separatists, legitimate misogynists and homophobes all over the place. The deeper I go, the more I understand why many people dismiss the manosphere utterly.

    1. @Glenn, how so? It’s next to impossible to open a discussion like this without someone getting their toes stepped on, but like I said, Game needs a universal understanding – and this includes how it’s valid in other spheres.

      I agree for the most part, much of the manosphere will say queers are deviants, society is doomed, and move on to a new topic. I don’t agree with that, Game is universally applicable or it’s not.

      1. @ Rollo – I don’t debate knuckle dragging queer bashers so I’m not about to start parsing out the various ignorant comments made on this thread. As men we know lots of men have idiotic ideas about homosexuality and in the manosphere many supposed “seers” blather on about it in the most ignorant and boorish way one can imagine. It’s a blind spot for many game gurus, and demonstrates to me that they aren’t actually gurus and makes suspect most of the other tripe they spew as received wisdom to so many gullible men. This “web academic” pseudo-scientific pose stuff is rampant on the web today and in the manosphere, and many people claim science for their views in ways that would make real scientists cringe. Me? As for arguing about it, it’s not interesting, I don’t bother with such people in other areas of my life and won’t do so here.

        It seems you agree with me in that sense. As for game applicability wrt homosexuality, absolutely very interesting and compelling. Notice I didn’t take issue with your commentary, Rollo, it was interesting and well stated. I mentioned Bailey – are you familiar with him? I’d love to hear what you make of his ideas about homosexuality.

  46. Re: girl game for gays. A flamboyantly gay nephew of mine is nearing 50. A long time ago, longer than I’ve been married, so maybe he was in his early 20s like “Mark”, he decided the sugar daddy lifestyle was for him. He zestfully became the World’s Greatest Housekeepstress, making his own cute apron and matching oven mitts for example. He cooks really good food, from personal experience. I think he’s had only a couple LTR since, older men of course, but he has been “married” to a world-renowned but corpulent proctologist (not joking) about his own age for over a decade now.

  47. @Cad and Bounder

    Unfortunately the evidence is that the non-shared environment is far more powerful than the shared environment in determining the variance in behaviour.

    There are “studies” and there is real life. You can’t control everything they do and are exposed to clearly, and I’m not stating that they won’t be influenced in some way by others, but by instilling a clear, easy to understand set of axioms in them from the time they can understand language forward and helping them grow those axioms from general principles to morals virtues and ethics over time, you fight off a lot of those factors right out of the gate. I also think that there may be (possibly) some element of genetic component at work as well, which would likely counter the notion that it only takes a strong family (just thinking out loud here). My family is intensely independent to the last person, and I can’t think of one spineless statist in it, come to think of it, in fact where we err is to be too rebellious against society at times, so maybe that’s at play here.

    All I’m saying is, I did it, and it worked not just on one, but two children, producing identical results (clear thinking, rational, logical children deeply seated in a philosophy of Classical Liberalism aka libertarianism). My best friend is doing it and has three that are clearly against the current grain as well. I doubt this is happenstance, studies to the contrary notwithstanding.

  48. @GhostOfJefferson

    I can only quote what the research says on the subject, and there is a substantive body of work (James Q Wilson was the leading criminologist in the U.S.) demonstrating that non-shared> shared. Of course, we are talking about the non-genetic component here.

    Your personal example is a good one, and I think we agree more than we disagree on this subject. For example, earlier you wrote:

    “they’re not even out of high school yet. The area we live in is affluent and has many intact families, and the kids seem much more immune to the propaganda than you’d find in poor areas or areas with lots of broken families”

    In other words, you have a favourable non-shared environment too, whereby the affluent in your neighbourhood share a common set of values, and transmit them to your children. Is that a fair summation?

    The problem is that not everyone can be affluent, and the pernicious effects of educators in ramming certain ideas down children’s throats is inevitably going to have an effect. It’s interesting to think of Charles Murray’s Fishtown and Belmont in this context.

    Maybe, part of the cultural divergence between Fishtown and Belmont is coming from the greater influence of certain values (such as those promulgated by the education system) from their non-shared experiences?

    Unfortunately, a strong set of family values isn’t enough to ensure that Belmont parents and Fishtown parents (with exactly the same family values) will see those values transmitted to their children to the same extent. Sad, but true.

    1. @Cad – Love Murray’s book, “Coming Apart” and a great reference of it in your comment. Are you saying that the shared environment in Fishtown is relatively stronger because of the weakness of the non-shared environment there? Or do the values in Fishtown’s average non-shared environment more closely mirror the shared environment? My sense is the latter as I think to presume a cultural vacuum would be biased.

      As for Ghost’s insistence on the key difference his and his friends non-shared environment being attributable to some exceptional parenting on his behalf, I have no reason to doubt him. But I do offer this. Your wife has a gun to your head. She can take your children and your home from you any time she wants. None of us who it happened to thought it was going to happen to us. I’m glad you are avoiding it but don’t kid yourself, your continued existence in your family as a father depends on the good will of your wife. That said, I’m glad it’s working for someone…

  49. @ Boxster Paul.

    I would really like to see some more research done on this “stressed preganancy” phenomenon as whilst full gene expression cannot take place without the start up hardware supplied by the female during pregnancy (Stewart & Cohen) this effect seems too frequently used by women as an extortion tactic to control their partner during the pregnancy.

    “Oh, you’re stressing me out – don’t do that… do this”

    Which in the Fem-to-RealTalk translator, gives the implied threat as follows…

    “Do as a I say, or your son will have birth defects.”

    I know, because I have experienced this…

  50. @Glenn

    Note,we are discussing non-genetic factors.

    1. Non-shared (peers, classmates teachers, outside family influences) environment is more influential than shared (mainly family influences, or just things that siblings have in common) in shaping behaviour
    2. Belmont is more culturally homogenous than Fishtown. Everyone has similar values, so your Belmont child will pick up values, beliefs, behaviours from NON-shared environmental sources (other kids etc) that are similar to what you have.
    3. Fishtown kids will receive a hotch-potch of opinions and influences from the non-shared environment, all of which will dilute the kind of values that you have. These include feminism, pro-homosexuality, and whatever other positivist experimentation that left leaning teachers want to impose upon them. Many of which will run contrary to your beliefs.
    4. Remember 1

    This may all seem like statements of the obvious, but the point is that strong family influence (shared environment) is unlikely to be enough to counter the non-shared environmental influences in Fishtown. As for Belmont, parents may think it’s entirely their influence that their kids are being shapes well, but the evidence suggests its outside influences (non-shared) that are more influential.

    This is bad news for a ‘traditional’ (for want of a better phrase) family in Fishtown. However, it does mean that a family with ‘non-traditional’ parents, is likely to see their kids raised in a traditional manner even if they grow up in Belmont.

    This is why traditional Fishtown people, should resent being lectured to by liberal do-gooders living in Belmont. It’s okay for the Belmonts, their kids are being subject to more reinforcing and confirming influences ,and usually other sources than leftist teachers and Miley Cyrus’s twitching anus. IMHO, deep down, many educated liberals know this, which is why they send their kids to elite schools.

    Getting back to point about homosexuality. IMHO, this line of argument demonstrates that if teachers (again, non shared environment) promote homosexuality in schools (Belmont, Fishtown or wherever), than it will create more homosexuals (provided it stems, at least partly, from nurture) ,and there is a lot less than many think they can do about it. A strong set of family values isn’t enough.

    FWIW, I’m someone from a Belmont origin who was raised in Fishtown, and I had to sacrifice a lot to aspire to become anything in my life. I’m not sure it’s made me a happier person, and the cost was a lot of social isolation growing up, so trust me, I understand how strong the non-shared environment is.

  51. Chris Mackney committed suicide on December 29, 2013 because his ex wife was using the divorce courts in America to torture him and kidnap his children from him. He wrote a 4 page suicide note before killing himself.



    LATEST UPDATE: The ex-wife is such a psychopath that is she trying to copyright her ex husband’s suicide note, in order to prevent it from being circulated on the internet. She is using her lawyers to threaten legal action against websites that published Chris’s suicide letter.

    The website “A Voice for Men” also got a letter from her lawyers and wrote an article about it yesterday:


    Full info on his evil ex-wife here

    Her Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dina.mackney?fref=ts
    Her Twitter: https://twitter.com/dinamackney
    Her LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dina-mackney/6/331/54a
    Her personal website: http://dinamackney.com/

    Her email addresses:

    Her office address:
    Dina Mackney Designs
    11490 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 306
    Reston, VA 20191

    1. @ Chris M – Yeah, I’m not so sure that this doxing of the wife is a good idea. I could care less about her but what about his kids – now? Their Dad has just killed himself, do you think it’s great idea to now make an international social media event of it?

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m deeply sympathetic and his suicide note hit me deep – everyone should read it. But what I took away from it is how he internalized that his value to HIMSELF was being a father and a husband, that he could not face a life that didn’t define him that way. I know, I’ve faced the same existential crisis, and he had it even worse than my story – although mine has a long tortuous tail that includes my now 26 yr old daughter making claims that I abused her emotionally when she was a child – while that word was never used in the previous 26 years to describe my behavior towards my daughter. She’s been alienated so badly that her hatred of me now is palpable – after 400k, huge amounts of time spent with her up till she was 11 (her mom than moved her 1.5 hours a way, with the new husband who wanted me out of the picture – and they then proceeded to alienate and marginalize me) – and still was very present and responsible. I paid MORE child support than I was obligated to – 220k to my ex directly – and am treated like a deadbeat Dad.

      So I can relate in some ways. But there is always something questionable to me about blaming suicide on circumstances or other people that bothers me. Many people face the same or worse circumstances and don’t kill themselves. So there is something about that person that has had them give up. I also think that he may have done this out of spite – the last move he could make to show what an awful person his ex-wife is.

      His kids would have been better off if he just left and moved elsewhere instead of killing himself. He would be better off just starting over than he is by killing himself.I wonder, do you realize what happens to kids when a parent kills themselves? To a psychologist, it’s a huge marker and the children always have developmental and emotional issues as a result. Put a less charitable way, if this was all about Chris’s love for his kids – why would he do the worst thing he could ever do to them by killing himself?

      While what he want through is horrible, he has some responsibility for taking that final decision. We had a guy here in Keene, NH (near where I live) who set himself on fire on the steps of the courthouse after years of abuse by the system but nobody even remembers his name now, do they? He’s long forgotten. But his kids will be a mess when they are adults.

      Sorry, I don’t get pulled by emotional appeals. Also, in the final analysis, it would be one thing for Chris’s brother or people who knew him to stand up for him this way publicly – they knew him, they know what the actual circumstances were and are. Us? All we have are third hand and worse stories about what actually went on, and to now dox his wife – I wonder, do you want to help his kids or harm them?

  52. Re: shared diversity vs non-shared diversity. Provided it’s not the SAME diversity, I believe a diverse shared environment can offset the hodgepodge of the non-shared.

    Put in shoe leather, I mean that a boy raised among an extended family and good neighborhood continually seeing the socio-sexual success of a diversity of “our” good men – soldiers, farmers, engineers, scholar, ditchdiggers – will necessarily be less susceptible to influences from the non-shared that encourage “their” men to be bad.

    Naturally, the opposite is true if all he sees close by around him are men who are beat down emotionally by their wives.

  53. @Cad – Gosh, thanks for letting me know environmental factors aren’t genetic – oops, what about epigenetics? Fyi, this is why I don’t play “web academic” as I call it. Let’s stop with all the blathering about shared versus non-shared environments and get back to the topic at hand. Do you believe that homosexuality is caused by nurture? Is that the reason for you elaborately explaining your views on shared vs non-shared environments?

    Cuz that’s bullshit. Homosexuality cannot be imposed on a person. If you actually believe that, show me the experiments – don’t bother, you can’t. This has all been studied to death and sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of our identity which emerges in toddlers. The twin studies that have been done where the “non-shared environment” is identical show this as clear as day.

    If that isn’t your point, then what is?

  54. The original poster’s problem is that he is fishing with the wrong BAIT! His hot stripper girlfriend has the right bait. She wants a rich guy looking for a hot “girlfriend”. The OP is looking for a rich guy who wants a hot “boyfriend” however, these rich guys are either Alpha or Alpha in their mind. Alpha guys do not want a hot Alpha long term boy toy. He needs to start looking at guys who want his type. Maybe old money types that aren’t really Alpha. Also up that age range! Older guys may want to keep him around. If he really wants to do the sugar baby thing then swallow your feelings and go for the older, rich, divorced and widowed women. I’ve got a feeling he is looking for the “white whale” of gay relationships; a young, rich, good looking, guy that wants a hot Alpha on his arm to spend money on.

  55. All interested in the science, here is a recent interview with a leading academic, J. Michael Bailey looking at sexual orientation. He reprises what he found via twin studies and other research in this brief commentary. http://youtu.be/r9IHTFB0bAc

    He makes some basic distinctions that will help the ignorant people on this thread think about this issue more clearly. It’s not nurture – it’s completely inborn (just not totally or even strongly genetic).

  56. On the genetics of homosexuality: The fact that having an identical twin that is homosexual gives a 50% chance of being gay is actually evidence for the ‘gay gene’ being a real thing, for reasons that are not yet known, every time a genetic link to behavprove is found, the gene ‘expresses’ at a 50% rate (there is a 50% chance of developing schizophrenia if your twin does, for example).

    The woman in this example is probably as close as you can get to a female ‘Red Pill’, much as male PUA’s use the insight to get what they desire (laid a lot without attachment) a woman can use it to manipulate men into giving her their resources with no prospect of children or even fidelity (in fact, the implied competition probably drives them to be more generous).

    Part of his problem may be that because Gay culture tends towards promiscuity, the betas have simply had more experience with being used for their resources, and perhaps less vulnerability to feeling that if they don’t keep *this* partner, another won’t come along. But I’m speculating in a comparative vacuum, having gay friends doesn’t tell me what it is like being gay.

    1. Uhh, why don’t you take a scientist’s word on the genetics instead of “speculating” about genetics (kind of like speculating about physics, lol), ad the facts are plain. There is evidence of genetics being a driver but after 20 years of looking there is no “gay gene” – nothing of the sort. Note the that major point that Bailey is trying to get across to non-scientists is the difference between something being genetically determined and something being “inborn”. Homosexuality is still inborn – that’s the most important point the twin studies prove (because genetics are held constant as is the non-shared environment). It really doesn’t matter if it’s genetic or not – men don’t choose to be gay or not. Fyi, female sexuality is quite different and seems to be much more plastic, but the jury is still out as it’s a verboten topic among the social justice/gender studies ideologues.

      I’m starting to hate the internet more and more. The pattern seems to be that semi-smart people like to quote mine/web search for science that ‘proves’ their point and then pretend they are doing science. Particularly in the manosphere, there are so many people making commentary and claims about science that are literally laughable.

      Not Rollo – note he’s very careful about how he proposes ideas. He has some grasp on some of the science but also makes clear that he’s developing and explicating ideas and does so pretty carefully. It’s rare and I appreciate it.

      1. Glenn, my intent was to open a dialogue, and I still think it’s important since all of this has Game / Red Pill applications.

        As I wrote in Moral to the Manosphere, I’m not interested in moral /religious / ethical debates, but I am interested in them in terms of how they apply to Game-awareness and Red Pill theory in context to how they’re used or influence intersexual relations from an observable, naturalistic perspective.

        Same applies with homosexuality. I don’t care about issues of right or wrong, I want to know what IS.

        I’m starting to hate the internet more and more. The pattern seems to be that semi-smart people like to quote mine/web search for science that ‘proves’ their point and then pretend they are doing science.

        Cosign. I’ve come to the conclusion that you can find a study that will “prove” damn near anything you want online; and even when it’s not an exact match, ‘miners’ know that very few readers have the attention spans (tl;dr) to sift through what they cherry pick.

        My SMV graphs and essays being hashed out on Reddit have taught me this: people say they want science, but what they really mean is they want ‘their’ science in place of actually reading in depth anything that contradicts an ego-investment they hold.

  57. It’s clear that in our society today, the messages we get from western governments, education, and mainstream media are a push towards universal acceptance. It doesn’t matter to these groups whether the explanation for someone’s nature or behaviour is inborn, learned through exposure, chosen, or any combination thereof. And I agree with that for the most part. But we are not there.

    The problem is, it’s not taken far enough. It’s not universal. A certain group is not extended the same acceptance. (I can almost hear the groans as people read this, but what does that tell you about how deeply the message has been implanted?).

    Who gets zero protection from ridicule, and precious little sympathy for the crushed in their ranks, as Chris Mackney’s story so clearly illustrates, (even here on this board)?

    It’s open season, and the Apex Fallacy is all the excuse everyone else needs to gleefully gang up on their “oppressors”. Of course they’re blind to the hypocrisy they exhibit. Blaming everyone in a group for the misdeeds of a few is exactly what they purport to be against… but it’s exactly what happens. Everyone who fits the description is deserving of scorn and admonishment for their “privilege”… hell, even for not being aware of their “privilege”.

    If you type “cis male” into Google, the top suggestion is “cis male scum”.

    Scum who are now systematically discriminated against from birth, Harrison Bergeron style. Not just drugged against their will – their wills are chemically castrated and socially stunted, their beautiful inborn mental focus deliberately scrambled. To heap insult on injury, they’re told to express themselves, have the courage to expose their soft parts, then piled on further. Sold lies their entire lives. Pissed on and told it’s raining. It’s sadism.

    As we do this more, and as we release more xenoestrogens into our environment, food, and water supply, we might get more homosexuality. Fine with me. Great for population control… in fact many adopt, and bring their kids up to be generally good people. Another big plus, it reduces the competition for women (BTW every gay friend I’ve said this to has loved it).

    But sadly, we’re also likely to see more guys snapping.

    If it’s in my wiring to synthesize systems to conceptualize the world, (including the realm of human interaction, essentially Game), why should I be shamed for it? It’s my nature, dammit.

    So whether not giving a fuck is some kind of “mythical Alpha” baseline, or a logical zen-like state arrived at through careful consideration with one’s own sanity at stake, the result is the same.

    The only way to deal with it all is to not give too much of a fuck. If that makes me ignorant, well, I don’t give a fuck.

    1. Plenty of sympathy for Chris Mackney – just none for doxing his wife now based on doing what’s best for his kids. Can you tell the difference? It’s subtle, I know, and that’s hard for web gadflies, but try, I swear, it will be good for you.

  58. Aye, gotcha. Wasn’t advocating the dox. Though the kids are nowhere near out of the woods either way, and I’ve already forgotten the woman’s name.

    “What’s best for the kids” are 5 very dangerous words, and their misguided application is a big part of the problem, that’s what I was trying to say.

    When I said guys’ll keep snapping, I was thinking more of the different kind, the one that gets the ratings. In case you misunderstand, I’m not saying that’s good either; it’s more of a “what did you expect?”

    All goes to my point, guys need help developing the skill of Not Giving Too Much of a Fuck.

    btw don’t offer me any hemlock tea

    1. @ D-Man – You speak as though it’s unknowable whether the suicide of a parent is bad for children or not when that’s not the case at all. Let’s ask Rollo – you have training in psychology – what kind of risk factor for a wide range of developmental, behavioral, emotional and psychological issues is the suicide of a parent for young children? I know – I’ve spoken with mental health professionals about this – it’s probably one of the larger markers/risk factors for a child.

      So yeah, while I have huge empathy/sympathy for Mackney, he has fucked his kids who he claimed to kill himself over in the first place. It’s also true that depression can be treated, that if he had instead gone to the emergency room and checked himself in he might have been able to get some help. Note to all men out there – if you are making a mental plan to kill yourself (not just the idle thought but actual ideation or even visualization) just go straight to the ER of any hospital.

      Have you ever heard of Buckminster Fuller, the inventor of the geodesic dome? He “existentially killed himself” at age 33. He picked himself up and left his wife and children and metaphysically killed his old self off and went on to create a new and productive life for himself. Strange, yes – but better than killing oneself. Thinking about killing yourself? Try heroin first – do anything to put it off. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

      I have been suicidal, and had my family broken up and eventually destroyed over a long time – he hasn’t cornered the market on suffering. While it’s tragic, it’s also fucking stupid.

      1. I’ve gone into detail about my brother-in-law’s suicide, as well as my good friend Nick’s suicide in various past posts. Both were at least prompted by a divorce or a breakup with a woman they couldn’t live without.

        Nick didn’t have any kids, but my brother-in-law left behind my niece and nephew. He didn’t leave behind a note, he didn’t have to, it was pretty obvious as to why he did it to anyone who knew what he was going through with my wife’s sister.


  59. I have to admit that I don’t really understand the anger and bitterness expressed so frequently in the ‘Red Pill’ community. It’s less intense here than on many sites (where it can cross into flat-out misogyny as bad as any feminist could theorize), but it’s still present.

    When I had my ‘awakening’, my first thought was ‘Now I feel stupid’. I don’t feel like my previous beta-ness was something that was inflicted on me, but rather that I had done it to myself. Sure, I was responding to signals and outright advice that was wrong from top to bottom, but all of the evidence had been right in front of me the entire time. Every nice guy who has wondered ‘why do these women keep going for jerks’ potentially could derive the entire Red Pill from that alone.

    Maybe a lot of it is a matter of timing, most are making this realization at a time when the beta-game has spectacularly blown up in their face, rather than just failed to pay off. Their ‘How could she do this to me!?’ cry of pain, anguish, and rage gets all mixed up with their realization that they’ve been playing by a delusional set of rules.

    Maybe it was because I was over a year past the divorce when I found this site, but for me it was a liberating realization that I was responsible in exactly the same way she was; responding to stimuli and instinctual drives without the context to understand them.

    I don’t think that women generally are aware of their hypergamic drive, or that there is a deliberate plan to mold the behavior of men. Rather, what we see is a byproduct of a failure to understand the essential nature of people, an ideological blind spot common to many post-modern mindsets.

    1. @ Rick – Uh, our entire society has formalized a set of gynocentric female imperatives that have been shoved down your throat since the day you were born. Just like the horse doesn’t know he could spit the bit out, men are filled with lies and myths about women and their own identity. Check out http://www.gynocentrism.com for a nice overview of how romance, courtly love and chivalric ideas conspire to have men serve women and worship them. You did not get there on your own.

  60. “You speak as though”?

    You read as though. Watch what words you put in peoples mouths.

    Everything else you say is reasonable and I agree with.

  61. @ D-Man – Words straight from your mouth. ““What’s best for the kids” are 5 very dangerous words, and their misguided application is a big part of the problem, that’s what I was trying to say.” Hence my straightening you out on how the suicide of a parent affects children.

    And don’t tell me to “watch” anything like you are straightening me out or something. A better idea would be to keep track of what you say and you’ll be much better at conversing with people in the future – free advice.

  62. @Glenn: Followed your link, and I’ve read similar theorization, butthey seem to assume their conclusion: Gynocentrism is an active program that is actively hostile to the needs and desires of men. Frankly, I don’t see it, we come back to the perennial punchline of the Battle of the Sexes: Too much fraternizing with the enemy. It implies a fundamental impossibility for men and women to meet as moral equals. It’s just misogyny with a ‘She hit me first’ whining sophistry laid over the top.

    I don’t see the root of our problem in feminism, or even in birth control (although both may be contributing factors). Rather, I think it lies in modern medicine and sanitation. In the EEA, nearly everyone died young, and men more so than women. There was a comparative low ratio of fertile men to fertile women, and a comparatively low proportion of post-fertility women.

    Hypergamy optimized itself to these conditions, try to breed with the best male available (the number of obviously superior males in any given band of hunter-gatherers could probably be enumerated on your fingers), and if you couldn’t pair-bond with him, do so with a beta. You reach an equilibrium of female hyperamy, Alpha male resistance to the pair-bonding, and Beta males taking what they can get.

    Then technology comes along and blows up the equilibrium. Agriculture allows civilization, specialization, the emergence of a dedicated warrior class, feudalism, bureaucracy, etc. Female hypergamic instinct is creating a huge ratio of pursuers for the top Alphas, to the point where they go beyond merely resisting the pair bond (or even ignoring it entirely, engaging in polygamy) to simply not being able to service all the volunteers. Women that are trying to hold off on breeding until they have run through the Alpha roster are in danger of not finding a chair before the music stops.

    At the same time, surviving past the breeding window goes from being rare to merely uncommon. Older, wiser heads take control of the pairbonding process out of the hands of individuals, arranged marriages becomes the norm.

    More technology, more population, more extreme ratios of true Alphas to hypergamous females, you get the emergence of “False Alphas”, aka “Bad Boys”. Males who emulate the behavior of the Alphas, succeeding because there is such a limited supply of true Alphas that women will respond to someone who merely *acts* like a Alpha. They take the Alpha marker behaviors and turn them up to 11, essentially becoming aggressive mimics (apex predators that display a lure that draws in predators, like the Angler Fish).

    Since genetics simply can’t respond fast enough, culture substitutes. Older, wiser heads start putting more and more controls on hypergamous females, demanding more and more proof of cultural compliance from Beta males. Iterations on this theme continue through all of history.

    Then the 20th century blows all this hard-fought, incredibly tense equilibrium straight to hell. Modern medicine and sanitation means that nearly everyone lives past the female reproductive window. Modern appliances and manufacturing methods leave women time to wonder what the purpose of their lives is. Modern communications means that the bar for an acceptable ‘Alpha’ for the hypergamous impulse is raised to incredible heights, the ratio of “True Alphas” to fertile women goes off the charts at around the same time that contraception allows women to keep from being ‘forced’ to pair bond with a less adequate male.

    Feminism in this scenario isn’t the villain, but merely a side effect, pursuing goals of liberating women from the cultural artifacts that had been restraining their hypergamic instinct, without an understanding of what they were messing with.

    Women aren’t villains, but as much victims of the resulting chaos as anyone else. Driven to not settle for anything less than the half dozen or so apex Alphas the EEA prepared them for, they can’t all marry movie stars or potential Presidents. Urged by their instincts to reduce the SMV of the men they do pair-bond with, but not understanding that they are making themselves unhappy with their situation by doing so.

    It’s not a tragedy. It’s a farce.

  63. Hey Glenn, I can tell this is an emotional thing for you and I’m not looking to make enemies, but c’mon man, at no point did I say anything about suicide not affecting kids, nor did I even advocate doxxing the mom. Relax dude, no need to concern-troll. I’m glad you didn’t do it, and I don’t say that flippantly.

    All I’m trying to say is, the status quo is pushing inherently fallible human beings past their breaking point. No, it’s not an excuse for them to fuck their kids up even more just to make a point, I’m not arging he did the right thing or good for him or whatever.

    But that’s just the thing, we can say the guy was weak and selfish all we want, but he fucking cracked, you see… emotion overwhelmed logic. I’m talking about the problems that contribute to this, including how society has decided to indoctrinate boys, how men are treated by the courts as adults, and how women have been taught they can do no wrong.

    We’re constantly told to be strong and selfless all our lives, I’m saying maybe that’s part of the problem.

    So maybe game is selfish, but maybe it returns men to themselves for the first time in their lives.

    We can level the playing field, but we can’t level the players… and if we keep trying to, we’re gonna run into more problems…

  64. (by players, I don’t mean womanizers…, I mean if we try and make a society fair by hobbling half its members, everyone ends up worse off)

    RickRolls very interesting theory

  65. it’s a very long rambling article that brings up some interesting points, but never reaches any solid conclusion….

    The idea of sub / dom roles in a relationship is nothing new….

    Take it one step further though and what many people do in an LTR is try to recreate a version of their own childhood…. since all children are submissive to a large extent and since the soft relaxing side of being ‘taken care of’ is very much a part of a child’s existence, this is actually the goal of many people in an LTR whether they realise it or not.

    Thus you can well find two people competing for the relaxing submissive role….. whilst remaining conflicted that as adults they are being dominated by their other partner. ‘loss of freedom’

    Of course we understand that a man taking on the submissive role is likely to become increasingly unattractive to his wife, as she becomes unattractive to him when taking on a dominant role….

    Then you can go further down the rabbit hole and realize that a mother is naturally a very dominant role, since she is responsible for taking care of the kids alot of the time…… when momma turns that dominate personality onto the husband that’s looking for comfort and relaxation at home… he finds her as unattractive as she finds him….. he’s now a kind of extra over grown child in the home, while she’s the mother he couldn’t wait to get shot of as a teenager…… all the while, she also seeks her own submissive childhood.

    This is the polar side of competing for dominance…. we also compete for submission because it’s relaxing and easy….. (but of course no one wants to admit that).

  66. ……….. but your gay boy admits it…. he alphas up to get boyfriends, but is frustrated he can’t have the submissive advantages the girl was experiencing…..

    men can alpha up in a relationship and restore the balance and ‘put the wife in her place’….. but do they really want to…. and do they really have the energy to dominate 24.7.. … perhaps sometimes they want to chill in peace or even be ‘taken care of’.

    women can be happy in the submissive role, but that role lacks freedom of expression and liberty as it always defers to the ‘man of the house’ which can well become restrictive and limiting…. especially for an educated professional woman who can be expressive and dominant in her own right….

    suddenly we find the black and white of red pill concepts, the ‘terrible’ beta and the ‘ultra cool’ alpha are charades that no one really wants.

    game = living like an animal, to maintain the herd hierarchy. It can produce balance, but it’s also hugely exhausting, when the roles are not clearly defined in the first place AND OR the people playing those roles are not happy.

    The CEO of a company doesn’t have to come into work and ‘dominate’ to maintain his position as CEO…. he dominates because he IS the CEO, and his position is evaluated ONLY by his performance NOT according to a bunch of head games he has to play to maintain authority.

    Imagine if every CEO arriving to work every morning had to constantly step over shit tests and disrespect and etc. etc….. his work would be so arduous the company would fail – especially if he wasn’t happy in that role.

  67. If the guy who contacted you wanted to be a kept man or given a 3 grand a week allowance for spreading his cheeks he should have started 5 years earlier.

    Yer average rich gay guy with a penchant for Twinks might pay the way for an 18 year old lad, but not for a 23 year old guy.

    Plus some gender-based social mores, i.e. man can look after self (disposable), women needs looking after (protected), also come into play. Indeed he’s very lucky that those trips where his desire to not be with them was picked up upon didn’t result in them taking the huff and fucking off home, and leaving him behind stranded. After all, he’s a guy and can take care of himself, even if he does have to sell his arse a bit to afford a flight back.

  68. Your last few paragraphs/conclusion are a very objective assessment of homosexuality.

    Combining that with the concise dismantling of feminism’s core is a veritable ‘money shot’.

  69. What?

    You say Lesbians are lesbian because they don’t find a male dominant for them? – Come on, how do you explain “Butch”-Type Lesbians then?

    As for the rest? – Telling us that we are more or less incapable of rising above biology (meaning men need to be dominant and woman submissive? – I call BS on that (we should attempt to become more then the flesh we are!)…For I am dominant enough, but I don’t want to be dominant all the time in a relationship (that becomes kind of boring…there is no fire if your GF does not fight you if she dissagrees with you and does not decide things on her own and is independent!)…and no, I do not see myself as a provider Beta-Male – as this is the last thing I want (provider with family would be my own personal hell!)…

    But enough…answer me one question:

    Why does pro-male (men’s rights activism etc.) always need to be against feminism (I myself tend to agree with a lot of goals of feminism (at least the goals of back when feminism started: equality with men and freedom for women!) and I don’t think they have reached those goals yet…but at the same time and in certain areas it is actually the other way round: men are abused and unfree (seen as second-class citizens, disposable etc. – without having benefits of taking those roles (like soldier)), bias in favour of women is allowed…so yes, that needs to be fought…but that some wish to go back to the 50’s and earlier…sorry, without me!)?

    Can’t it be: Pro-Humanity (genders are in the end not important – at least when it does not come down to who impregnates who and who has to carry the child to term…in all other areas we are the same (yes, women might be a little weaker when it comes to carrying heavy things, but that’s not enough to have them treated as lesser beings IMO))?

    greetings LAX

  70. And me again:

    Why does your wife become un-attractive if she is dominant?

    Why do you all accept that there are no relationships among equals? (meaning: dominant/submissive – toss that crap out, if something is important to you, take the lead, if something is important to your partner: let her/him have it…why not? – as long as you don’t become a whimp, this works very well (my father and my stepmother are like that and it works great, he let’s her go wild if it’s really important to her, but also steps up to the plate when something is important to him)

    sorry, If dominant or submissive were the only possible positions, I would not date at all (I don’t enjoy either position at least not for permanence)

    greetings LAX
    ps: no, I don’t compete for submission (I don’t have to – at least not if I see an equal in all things in my partner!)

  71. Why does pro-male (men’s rights activism etc.) always need to be against feminism (I myself tend to agree with a lot of goals of feminism (at least the goals of back when feminism started: equality with men and freedom for women!)

    Well ‘pro-male’ is a rather broad brushstroke there, MRA’s and Game advocates are generally NOT in the same camp, and haven’t you really just answered your own question?

    Feminism is an ideology, if it’s goals are no longer equality of opportunity, then they’re something else. A lot of feminist rhetoric is explicitly anti-male to the point where some feminists have convinced themselves it is necessary to specifically deny any male children they have breast milk because it would add to their ‘inherent unfair advantage’, it frequently deliberately confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcome to the point where it uses the lack of the latter for evidence of the lack of the former (despite each form of equality being incompatible with one another), ignores or belittles problems faced by men, or in some cases overtly regards the hardship suffered as a positive development, – at what point do you write off a political ideology as being bad and corrupting for society, exactly?

  72. I have a tough time understanding men who fuck other men while in prison and then reverting back to women when they’re out.

    I’d settle for a lifetime of magazines/movies (whatever they allow in prison) then to begin fucking other men, as a heterosexual.

    I think you have to already have some tendency or curiosity to go through with it. A huge part of getting off for me is the act of dominating a feminine woman with all her smells, soft skin and general submissiveness.

    Men are absolute boner killers for me. The deep voices, adams apple, facial/body hair, narrow hips, muscles, aggression, etc. How in the hell can a genuinely straight man look beyond this?

  73. Very nice article. I think you touched on something important though and somehow came to a realisation about the truth of this nature vs. nurture debate. As I think you discovered without actually wording it; it’s a false paradox and not a valid debate as you can never really remove or ignore genetics or the environment when considering people’s motivations. It’s a meaningless debate because they both play a fundamental role in influencing behaviour. Your own examples prove this point. Also, through your eating habits, exercise and mental practices you can alter and improve or worsen your genetic makeup. Moreover, changing your environment and circumstances will have a profound effect on your psychology. Those two constructs are continually influencing and affecting each other, albeit the environment is much less stable than a person’s genetic disposition.

  74. It’s always remarkable to me in reading these Manosphere blogs the lack of historical knowledge most men with opinions seem to have. Heterosexuality and pussy addiction are modern plagues. Abrahamic religions are to blame for that. Historically throughout many Ancient cultures, especially Grecco-Roman, Persian etc, male-male love was the norm. I think innately we are all bisexual by nature. I am bisexual myself but lean towards men opting only to have relationships with other men for the past apx 15 yrs.

    Women were not valued as life partners men were burdened to love and forced to hate simultaneously. They were kept as wives to help around the home and offer a place where a man could deposit his seed with the goal of procreating. That was about it. The same was true before the rise of the Nazis. Masculine beauty and virtue were celebrated and honored as superior. The conversion to Christianity is what modern men can thank for the eventual downfall of men and the rise of feminism.

    As for why wimmin become lesbian, I think the answer lies in the fact that female’s are dominated by their corrupt nature which makes them want the power and position of manhood. Most men who identify as gay have either never been with a womin and are revolted by the idea. Where as it’s the opposite for the majority of lesbians who often use dildos and other substitutes for the penis.

    Here’s a link to a good article about some important male history in Europe.


  75. “Are they gay or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression they had available to them in their given environment?”


  76. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11548240
    “Those with a bisexual identity were more likely to have had homosexual experiences as adolescents and to describe their adult sexual behavior as predominantly or sometimes homosexual rather than predominantly heterosexual.”
    Mating with 8

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: