Preface
Whenever I join any community, I always serve as the dissident who plays devil's advocate, questioning assumptions and making whatever contrary arguments I can think of, to see if people can refute them. In this way, I hope to fend off complacent groupthink and help people either hone their arguments or reassess where they stand. So, today I tackle the topic of homosexuality:
Physiological aspects of gay buttsex, as compared with and contrasted to straight buttsex; and their social implications
Homosexuality is sometimes viewed as solely wasteful or even harmful, since sperm that gets ejaculated into male orifi doesn't impregnate women, and buttsex can cause injury and the spread of disease. Our community favors reproduction, which is one of the reasons we encourage marriage to girls younger than 25.
However, I would argue: what about oral and anal sex with girls, or sex with a condom; couldn't some of the same arguments be made about that? If you're coming in a girl's face or ass or into a latex bag, you're not getting her pregnant that way either. Fucking her up the ass also has the same potential to tear tissue as fucking a dude up the ass would. Arguably, from a reproductive standpoint, fucking a girl up the ass could be WORSE than fucking a dude up the ass, because if you damage a female, you're potentially causing a greater loss to society's reproductive capacity than if you damaged some gay dude. You might destroy her rectum to the point that she's sexually out of commission for awhile, while the gay dude already wasn't going to reproduce so it's no loss.
Some counter-arguments could be that, at least if you're having anal or oral sex with a girl, (1) the fact that you had to game her to get laid means that you picked up some skills with women that will help you to reproduce with a woman later; and (2) the non-reproductive sex may take place in the context of a relationship that WILL eventually include babymaking. In fact, you might be fucking her in the mouth BECAUSE she's 8 months pregnant. The possibility of oral sex with women, then, could actually INCREASE reproduction by giving men less of a disincentive to knock up their wives.
Following this same line of thought, there are a number of activities that aren't useful in and of themselves, but promote useful interpersonal bonding. The possibility of having sex with your girlfriend or wife every day even when she's not ovulating gives you another reason to go see her, or even live with her, for the sake of getting daily sex. This promotes the development of a relationship that can more effectively nurture children. What if gay sex serves the purpose of male bonding, and thereby promotes ties that can advance the development of civilization? Did this play a role in the success of ancient Greece, for instance?
Homosexuality as outlet for sexuality of omega men and men whose calling is to focus on great achievements other than family-building; and the connection to polygyny
I would also hypothesize that maybe in some cases, homosexual sex exists as a way of preserving the social order by appeasing people who (possibly for reasons beyond their control) can't get laid with the opposite sex. It's been noted that in prisons, many men fall in the category of GUMPs (Gay Until Making Parole), aka gay-for-the-stay; i.e. they just have sex with men because they're locked up in a facility that doesn't allow conjugal visits. So it's evident that ordinarily straight guys can sometimes be pushed into homosexuality by a lack of females.
One of the arguments against polygyny is that a small number of alphas will horde all the available women, while lesser betas are relegated to omega status. This supposedly will make them unhappy and less productive, and perhaps even lead them into criminality or armed revolution (similar to the cases of incel rage we've already seen like the Elliot Rodger shooting). Yet polgyny has a lot of advantages (see The RVF community should become a polygynous tribe), so anything that can help make polygyny socially feasible is perhaps to be encouraged. Many polygynous societies of the past had eunuchs to tend to the alpha men's harems; might not gays serve a similar purpose, without the need for penectomies and double orchiectomies to prevent their cuckolding their boss?
Our social order already is mildly polygynous, and there's a certain proportion of guys who are so defective as to have no hope of getting laid. Arguably, these perma-omegas may as well enter into gay relationships, so that they can contribute to society more happily than they would if they had to live alone. They might even be MORE productive than straight men in some ways, since they don't have to devote some of their efforts to raising kids.
Was Alan Turing able to accomplish more because he was gay, and therefore wasn't distracted by women? Would Thomas Edison have accomplished more if he had been gay, and hadn't been distracted from his work by his family? Children consume not only time parenting time but also resources, which requires the father to focus on stable sources of income that will bring in money more immediately to feed them today, rather than making long-term investments in risky endeavors. This is why single men in their 20s, not yet tied down by families, can be so productive. Look at what prolific writers some of the manosphere's leaders are, who are neither married nor in an LTR, and therefore can live a more minimalist lifestyle than what a wife or girlfriend might demand.
Society needs men to build civilizations; yet at the same time, heterosexual men like to have harems of women. Might our world not be a better place if we still had a 1:1 sex ratio, so that there would be plenty of men available to build our civilization; yet many of those men were gay, so that they would be removed from the competition for women? Then the remaining straight men could have more than one woman apiece. In a polygynous society, having a large number of gay men around doesn't decrease the number of women having babies, because straight men will simply have more than one wife.
You might ask, "What about high-status men like Rock Hudson, who could've had access to plenty of pussy, but instead were gay? How is that useful to society?" Well, maybe men like that are there to serve the role of alpha gay. Yeah, maybe if they hadn't been gay, they could've passed on some quality genes and used their resources to raise a family comfortably. But in any relationship, someone has to be the dominant partner, and communities (including the gay community) need leaders, so maybe that explains why nature produces a certain number of high-status gays.
As mentioned above, the fact that some high-status men go gay doesn't prevent high-status heterosexual men from marrying and impregnating all the available women, and thereby passing on their quality genes to the next generation. The sperm of high-quality heterosexual men, and the desire of heterosexual men to impregnate lots of women, is abundant; there will always be enough to ensure that all the women who want to be knocked up by high-quality guys, can be.
In fact, a small number of straight men can specialize in knocking up large numbers of women while their gay brothers help raise them and maybe even teach them masculine values, assuming they're the relatively manly, non-effeminate kind of gay. When it comes time to learn game, they can learn that from their straight alpha father. Maybe our species produces a certain proportion of gays to serve as surrogate fathers to those children who lose their real fathers (or whose fathers are busy managing (and impregnating the women in) their harems and running empires), hence the "gay uncle" theory.
Unintended consequences of gay-shaming
One of the downsides of stigmatizing homosexuality is that gay men (Tchaikovsky being a historical example) will marry straight women and try to pass as straight, while leaving two people sexually frustrated: their wife, and the guy who otherwise could've married and had sex with that woman.
Also, when there are large numbers of closeted gays around, it can create uncertainty as to whether ambiguous gestures and comments received by men from other men are gay come-ons, or just friendly affection, joking, etc. It becomes necessary to preface or suffix comments with "no homo" which would be unnecessary if all the gays out there wore their homosexuality on their sleeves rather than trying to pass as straight. (I even thought that perhaps I should've put at the end of the third paragraph's commentary about the relative disadvantages of fucking a chick up the ass, as compared to a gay dude, a clarification that I wasn't making an attempt at gay seduction, but just observing one aspect of the situation.) If gays are readily identifiable, then they can easily find each other and don't need to resort to hitting on straights in hopes that they'll either stumble upon another closeted gay or be able to convert one.
"Lesbians" as useful eye candy and a challenge for men who wish to put their seduction skills to the test; and bisexual women as allies in harem-building
Now, as for the question of what purpose do lesbians serve: I think it's partly for aesthetics. Lesbians are a source of porn that we can watch without having the view of female sexiness marred by having to look at other men's penises. In the case of ugly women who aren't suitable for the porn industry, maybe lesbianism helps keep them out of the straight bars where they'll likewise spoil the atmosphere. And in the case of beautiful lesbians, they offer a challenge to try to seduce her to the straight side (which is always theoretically possible, since it's questionable whether there are any true lesbians, as opposed to bisexual women).
Female bisexuality helps make male fantasies of having a harem of women who can participate in group sex, and/or provide live porn entertainment for the husband without cuckoldry, possible. Also, female bisexuality could help encourage women in a polygynous society to help build their husband's harem by finding additional sexy women to join the family as wives in a group marriage.
Conclusion
Thus we see, once again, the amazing power of our philosophy to explain even the seemingly inexplicable phenomena we see around us. When patriarchal institutions such as polygyny are reintroduced to society, once-mysterious aspects of the human condition such as homosexuality begin to make sense, and it becomes evident how everything works in harmony for the good of heterosexual men. It's similar to how the seemingly pernicious grandly collective shit test known as feminism has proven to be really just a way of encouraging (even forcing) men to become more masculine so that errors in behavior and thinking could be corrected and everyone could fit into their proper role in society.
Whenever I join any community, I always serve as the dissident who plays devil's advocate, questioning assumptions and making whatever contrary arguments I can think of, to see if people can refute them. In this way, I hope to fend off complacent groupthink and help people either hone their arguments or reassess where they stand. So, today I tackle the topic of homosexuality:
Physiological aspects of gay buttsex, as compared with and contrasted to straight buttsex; and their social implications
Homosexuality is sometimes viewed as solely wasteful or even harmful, since sperm that gets ejaculated into male orifi doesn't impregnate women, and buttsex can cause injury and the spread of disease. Our community favors reproduction, which is one of the reasons we encourage marriage to girls younger than 25.
However, I would argue: what about oral and anal sex with girls, or sex with a condom; couldn't some of the same arguments be made about that? If you're coming in a girl's face or ass or into a latex bag, you're not getting her pregnant that way either. Fucking her up the ass also has the same potential to tear tissue as fucking a dude up the ass would. Arguably, from a reproductive standpoint, fucking a girl up the ass could be WORSE than fucking a dude up the ass, because if you damage a female, you're potentially causing a greater loss to society's reproductive capacity than if you damaged some gay dude. You might destroy her rectum to the point that she's sexually out of commission for awhile, while the gay dude already wasn't going to reproduce so it's no loss.
Some counter-arguments could be that, at least if you're having anal or oral sex with a girl, (1) the fact that you had to game her to get laid means that you picked up some skills with women that will help you to reproduce with a woman later; and (2) the non-reproductive sex may take place in the context of a relationship that WILL eventually include babymaking. In fact, you might be fucking her in the mouth BECAUSE she's 8 months pregnant. The possibility of oral sex with women, then, could actually INCREASE reproduction by giving men less of a disincentive to knock up their wives.
Following this same line of thought, there are a number of activities that aren't useful in and of themselves, but promote useful interpersonal bonding. The possibility of having sex with your girlfriend or wife every day even when she's not ovulating gives you another reason to go see her, or even live with her, for the sake of getting daily sex. This promotes the development of a relationship that can more effectively nurture children. What if gay sex serves the purpose of male bonding, and thereby promotes ties that can advance the development of civilization? Did this play a role in the success of ancient Greece, for instance?
Homosexuality as outlet for sexuality of omega men and men whose calling is to focus on great achievements other than family-building; and the connection to polygyny
I would also hypothesize that maybe in some cases, homosexual sex exists as a way of preserving the social order by appeasing people who (possibly for reasons beyond their control) can't get laid with the opposite sex. It's been noted that in prisons, many men fall in the category of GUMPs (Gay Until Making Parole), aka gay-for-the-stay; i.e. they just have sex with men because they're locked up in a facility that doesn't allow conjugal visits. So it's evident that ordinarily straight guys can sometimes be pushed into homosexuality by a lack of females.
One of the arguments against polygyny is that a small number of alphas will horde all the available women, while lesser betas are relegated to omega status. This supposedly will make them unhappy and less productive, and perhaps even lead them into criminality or armed revolution (similar to the cases of incel rage we've already seen like the Elliot Rodger shooting). Yet polgyny has a lot of advantages (see The RVF community should become a polygynous tribe), so anything that can help make polygyny socially feasible is perhaps to be encouraged. Many polygynous societies of the past had eunuchs to tend to the alpha men's harems; might not gays serve a similar purpose, without the need for penectomies and double orchiectomies to prevent their cuckolding their boss?
Our social order already is mildly polygynous, and there's a certain proportion of guys who are so defective as to have no hope of getting laid. Arguably, these perma-omegas may as well enter into gay relationships, so that they can contribute to society more happily than they would if they had to live alone. They might even be MORE productive than straight men in some ways, since they don't have to devote some of their efforts to raising kids.
Was Alan Turing able to accomplish more because he was gay, and therefore wasn't distracted by women? Would Thomas Edison have accomplished more if he had been gay, and hadn't been distracted from his work by his family? Children consume not only time parenting time but also resources, which requires the father to focus on stable sources of income that will bring in money more immediately to feed them today, rather than making long-term investments in risky endeavors. This is why single men in their 20s, not yet tied down by families, can be so productive. Look at what prolific writers some of the manosphere's leaders are, who are neither married nor in an LTR, and therefore can live a more minimalist lifestyle than what a wife or girlfriend might demand.
Society needs men to build civilizations; yet at the same time, heterosexual men like to have harems of women. Might our world not be a better place if we still had a 1:1 sex ratio, so that there would be plenty of men available to build our civilization; yet many of those men were gay, so that they would be removed from the competition for women? Then the remaining straight men could have more than one woman apiece. In a polygynous society, having a large number of gay men around doesn't decrease the number of women having babies, because straight men will simply have more than one wife.
You might ask, "What about high-status men like Rock Hudson, who could've had access to plenty of pussy, but instead were gay? How is that useful to society?" Well, maybe men like that are there to serve the role of alpha gay. Yeah, maybe if they hadn't been gay, they could've passed on some quality genes and used their resources to raise a family comfortably. But in any relationship, someone has to be the dominant partner, and communities (including the gay community) need leaders, so maybe that explains why nature produces a certain number of high-status gays.
As mentioned above, the fact that some high-status men go gay doesn't prevent high-status heterosexual men from marrying and impregnating all the available women, and thereby passing on their quality genes to the next generation. The sperm of high-quality heterosexual men, and the desire of heterosexual men to impregnate lots of women, is abundant; there will always be enough to ensure that all the women who want to be knocked up by high-quality guys, can be.
In fact, a small number of straight men can specialize in knocking up large numbers of women while their gay brothers help raise them and maybe even teach them masculine values, assuming they're the relatively manly, non-effeminate kind of gay. When it comes time to learn game, they can learn that from their straight alpha father. Maybe our species produces a certain proportion of gays to serve as surrogate fathers to those children who lose their real fathers (or whose fathers are busy managing (and impregnating the women in) their harems and running empires), hence the "gay uncle" theory.
Unintended consequences of gay-shaming
One of the downsides of stigmatizing homosexuality is that gay men (Tchaikovsky being a historical example) will marry straight women and try to pass as straight, while leaving two people sexually frustrated: their wife, and the guy who otherwise could've married and had sex with that woman.
Also, when there are large numbers of closeted gays around, it can create uncertainty as to whether ambiguous gestures and comments received by men from other men are gay come-ons, or just friendly affection, joking, etc. It becomes necessary to preface or suffix comments with "no homo" which would be unnecessary if all the gays out there wore their homosexuality on their sleeves rather than trying to pass as straight. (I even thought that perhaps I should've put at the end of the third paragraph's commentary about the relative disadvantages of fucking a chick up the ass, as compared to a gay dude, a clarification that I wasn't making an attempt at gay seduction, but just observing one aspect of the situation.) If gays are readily identifiable, then they can easily find each other and don't need to resort to hitting on straights in hopes that they'll either stumble upon another closeted gay or be able to convert one.
"Lesbians" as useful eye candy and a challenge for men who wish to put their seduction skills to the test; and bisexual women as allies in harem-building
Now, as for the question of what purpose do lesbians serve: I think it's partly for aesthetics. Lesbians are a source of porn that we can watch without having the view of female sexiness marred by having to look at other men's penises. In the case of ugly women who aren't suitable for the porn industry, maybe lesbianism helps keep them out of the straight bars where they'll likewise spoil the atmosphere. And in the case of beautiful lesbians, they offer a challenge to try to seduce her to the straight side (which is always theoretically possible, since it's questionable whether there are any true lesbians, as opposed to bisexual women).
Female bisexuality helps make male fantasies of having a harem of women who can participate in group sex, and/or provide live porn entertainment for the husband without cuckoldry, possible. Also, female bisexuality could help encourage women in a polygynous society to help build their husband's harem by finding additional sexy women to join the family as wives in a group marriage.
Conclusion
Thus we see, once again, the amazing power of our philosophy to explain even the seemingly inexplicable phenomena we see around us. When patriarchal institutions such as polygyny are reintroduced to society, once-mysterious aspects of the human condition such as homosexuality begin to make sense, and it becomes evident how everything works in harmony for the good of heterosexual men. It's similar to how the seemingly pernicious grandly collective shit test known as feminism has proven to be really just a way of encouraging (even forcing) men to become more masculine so that errors in behavior and thinking could be corrected and everyone could fit into their proper role in society.
![[Image: jaguars-fan-cant-believe-it-nfl-fan-gifs.gif]](http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jaguars-fan-cant-believe-it-nfl-fan-gifs.gif)
![[Image: biggrin.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![[Image: facepalm.png]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/facepalm.png)
