something i've been saying half-jokingly for a long time, but i do unironically believe: homosexual relationships are more fulfilling. they lack the issues that for straight couples are either inevitable in current conditions, resulting from socialisation and life in the patriarchy, or inherent, biological, resulting from the anatomical and biochemical differences. i don't question that some people are happy in their straight relationships and not saying "dump your boyfriend now", but hear me out.
in general, same sex relationships are probably the better choice for bisexual people, and i believe bisexuality is more common than most admit. there's evolutionary reasons to believe humans would fall into the catergory of bisexual in good part species like bonobos, since same-sex connections and relations are relevant to the human social structure. freud believed the "everyone is bi" idea, which is disagree with and which, however progressive for his times, has currently turned into something harmful for homosexuals - as the straights just giggle at it and get into another unbothered straight relationship while we face coercion and pressure using that as an excuse, and sometimes use it to try and force ourselves into stuff we don't want. i am a homosexual and i will never do dick willingly, so i do respect there are likely people who are completely straight and that's the end of it, but as long as we live in a world with heteronormativity, homophobia, reproduction-focused religion and so on, we will not really know how sexuality works and what percentage of the population is bisexual. generally, though, i believe same sex relationships may be more common in future due to their fulfilling character, though relevance of biological sex in general may decrease if we do follow the transhumanist route.
yes, i am the person who unironically promotes "playing god" and counts on artificial wombs and separating reproduction from sexuality, and now i also promote homosexuality, as if it wasn't enough that they let us live. i am an officer in the ranks of "civilisation of death". no, the illuminuti do not pay me. i do it all because i'm evil and i do it all for free.
anyways, i do want to argument on why i believe they are more fulfilling, and there's essentially three reasons for that.
1. straight relationships are uneven
we live in a world of misogyny, where people of both genders are taught to perceive themselves and the opposite sex in a specific way, through the lenses of gender archetypes. that means men often internalise disrespectful, objectifying and otherwise misogynistic attitudes towards women, which they often also apply to their girlfriends, wives and women they find attractive. a very significant fact is that these attitudes do not have to be conscious malice and can still exist as subconscious bias in the "good men". that may include things such as dismissing women's emotions and being prone to perceiving them as irrational, downplaying their anger and agency in decision making, judging their sexuality differently to how they judge theirs and their male friends', or wanting to engage in sexual practices borrowed from porn based in ideas of humiliating women, expecting them to "naturally" take on most of the household work and childcare, expecting them to rein in their confidencde or intelligence to feed the man's ego and give him a chance to show off, holding women to higher standards of body grooming and hygiene, doubting their ability to learn and practice "masculine" skils, consciously or not perceiving themselves as more rational and thus more inclined to be right in arguments, and other things. a lot of the time these things aren't a matter of conscious malice, and don't have to be, because even without conscious misogynistic beliefs, the differences in socialisation are likely to put the woman in losing position. her boyfriend may love her a lot, but still find her the most attractive in uncomfortable, skimpy "feminine" clothes and with a full face of makeup, with shaved legs and heels, since that's what he's socialised to perceive as external expression of the female libido and sexuality, and that's what he was socialised to find the most attractive. in worse cases, love her a lot, but still find hairy legs on her gross or funny while perceiving his own fully neutrally. he may naturally tend to household chores less even without believing that they should be her job, just because he was never conditioned into cleaning and cooking as a routine in the way she was, and never held to the same standards, now as a result he doesn't feel uncomfortable when some clothes are on the floor and consideres it an acceptable state, while she was taught to perceive the same thing as a mess - as a result, she cleans more, and he gets "opportunities" to take it on more rarely. a lot of straight women push themselves deeper into this, as they take on more chores because the man is never doing them "right" or quickly, thus not letting him learn, on the other hand some men use weaponised incompetence to avoid chores. he may be socialised to pursue sex confidently, without worrying how he comes off or paranoia about not being welcome in his advances, while she has been socialised to have difficulties saying "no", and as a result she may end up having sex she doesn't enjoy. he was probably socialised to be more confident in his opinions and express them openly or even equate them with facts, having a proper, sensible perception of reality, while she was socialised to be "modest" and "humble" and doubt her own opinions, possibly laughed at for being a "smartass" in childhood; she'll be less inclined to defend her arguments and easier to be convinced, and will more often agree with him just because she wasn't taught to stand up for herself.
a lot of men just openly hold misogynistic attitudes, another part of men hold them, but hide them from their girlfriends and only express in "locker room talk" around other guys, and then there's a portion of liberal men, who consciously promote an egalitarian worldview, but still do no effort whatsoever to unlearn their subconscious bias - they feel offended when someone tells them they can be misogynistic even if they don't consciously hate women. to work on such a bias one has to recognize it first. of course, inclination to not believe they can be bigoted when it's not their intention is also a result of their socialisation to trust themselves, not second guess their own thoughts and feelings, and consider being told to do so an act of aggression.
on the other hand, a lot of things men perceive as "nagging" and "drama" on women's part and which makes them miserable is also a result of different socialisation, for example, the woman, bothered with household chores since childhood, is unsatisfied with anything less than the standard she herself was held to, while the man was taught it's ok to have some things lying around and ok to put the cleaning off when one is tired or sick, and as a result the wife "nags" him to do things he considers unnecessary. it's not necessarily a result of malice or lazyness, it may just be a result of being taught different priorities - he was taught having time for hobbies was more important than having a perfectly clean house, she was taught her house was a reflection of herself and the judgement will backfire at her. the man would probably be happier with someone who has the same standards he was and would just chill with him and maybe clean up a few days later when they both have free time. i get it! his wife may give him quiet time or be passive-aggressive about her needs because she wasn't taught to just demand things openly and ask people to change, and was never taught to communicate; meanwhile if he was her, he would just say what he meant and resolve the conflict as quickly and clearly as possible. he perceives her covert expression of being upset as irritating. this i also get! he doesn't want to express that he's terrified of spiders (for one i'm not) because she may think he's not masculine enough, since she was taught to base her attraction off the theatre of gender roles, et cetera. differences in socialisation give straight couples a good portion of grief.
whenever i bring this up i hear "but that's what we love about each other!" and that honestly sounds a bit like stockholm syndrome, but to each their own. by all means, though, it does seem they're not that happy, especially the women, who get most of the burn of it. multiple different reports consequently confirm that years into marriage, married women tend to be more miserable than married men and single women, most single women over the age of 30 are happy in their situation while most single men aren't, and single, childless middle aged women often come up as the happiest demographic. i used to find being against straight relationships unfair since i myself want to experience romance and sex, and i know how relevant having a healthy sex life is to one's personal happiness, but after witnessing sources i've decided a life of singledom is likely to make a straight woman happier than a straight marriage as long as she has close platonic and familial connections. bisexual women get the option of entering a same-sex relationship, which means getting to experience romance and sex without facing all the inconveniences of straight dating. i personally do not believe dating men is immoral or condemnable on women's part, it's not my business what people do with their lives especially as long as they feel happy; i'm not going to take your boyfriend away. i do encourage women to avoid dating men, however, and honestly, also encourage men to avoid dating women. yes, while a lot of men's complaining about the way dating women bothers and drains them is owed to misogyny, i do still see actual ground to these complaints; women aren't socialised to communicate, resolve conflicts and so on the same way as men - often women themselves suffer on it the most - and often have different expectations and goals in a relationship. you're right, steve, dating women probably isn't doing it for you. dedicating yourself to your hobbies and community might be a better idea, or dating another man if you have any gay bone in you. if not for the patriarchy, people would probably be happier with the opposite sex than they currently are. oh well.
as a lesbian i know one unfortunately cannot choose who they're attracted to; the project that was "political lesbianism" ended only with straight and women enroaching on lesbian spaces and culture and appropriating them. bisexuals can choose to date the same gender, though, and many straight people would be happy in more casual relationships, or dedicated to their hobby, job, friends, self improvement, art, sports et cetera. it's a truth many divorcees of both genders find, however after draining and miserable marriages, often left with children who will grow up torn between their parents and households. whatever makes one happy varies from person to person, and more romance-focused people could not be satisfied without engaging in romance, but good part of straight people are likely to be happier without a relationship than with a draining, tasking one that requires immense amounts of effort to bridge all the differences in priorities and communication methods.
especially since...
2. some differences between sexes are biological and they don't make things easier.
some examples? men and women get aroused at different types of the day, with men having a strong tendency for the morning, when their testosterone levels are the highest; women tend to be the horniest around 18:00 to 24:00. men and women have, as is fairly known so i'll allow myself to not give sources for this, different needs in regards to genitalia stimulation; different needs concerning pressure, speed, rhythm et cetera. i notice for women steady rhythm of stimulation is very important for achieving orgasm (hence why popularity of pulsating vibrators), which is not relevant for men and probably part of why they often fail to satisfy women; on the other hand, i also see men complain about women not knowing how to touch them, which is unsurprising. this is largely down to communication and willingness to make effort to satisfy the partner, but socialisation from point 1 makes men inclined not to care and women inclined to fear to express their criticism in bed, so heteronormativity is once again spectacularly shooting itself in the foot. most people have been masturbating since adolescence and know how to touch their own genitalia to make it satisfying, probably experimented with them and various methods of masturbation, thus making them way more inclined to know how to touch a same sex partner and be creative about it, even despite individual variety - as well as inclined to know what kinds of touch may be unpleasant ot even painful. gay people are also often more creative and open in bed just because they had to seek ways outside the "default" which is penis-in-vagina, this creativity usually wasn't enforced when it comes to straight people. same sex partners are also much more likely to synchronise in terms of preferred duration of stimulation, refraction period or lack thereof, preferred duration and form of foreplay - since erogenous spheres are to a degree biological - and contact or lack thereof after intercourse, less likely to be disgusted by ejaculation or menstruation since they produce the same bodily fluids, etc.
3. same sex emotional intimacy comes more naturally.
that's down to everything i wrote above, especially the socialisation aspect. most people prefer friends of the same sex, and most straight people look for different things in partners than they do in friends, which, upon logical examination, doesn't make that much sense - shouldn't one in general like the same things in people and want to date the kind of people they like to spend time with? i personally think the reason of this desire is that heteronormativity fetishises the differences and "opposites" narrative - the rhetoric of men and women being "opposites" and thus completely alien to each other is very relevant for upholding the patriarchal system and "role division" exploiting women for reproductive labour; this difference is also sexualised in patriarchal culture and painted as nearly a fetish, meant to make the person more interesting sexually at the cost of emotional connection. what straight poeople typically like about the opposite sex tends to be that they are not like them, alien, strange or different. it's probably mainly a cultural thing, even as it may have some biological component in the idea of wanting to emphasise one's sex; such behaviour isn't known in animals, however, they're capable to tell each other's sex by pheromones, sexual dimorphism or otherwise, and they don't need mating rituals that stress that they're male or female. i'm very much sure men would not penetrate each other accidentally before femininity was invented. there's no evolutionary need for this, so there's all ground to suspect it's mainly meant to enforce the system of power which grounds itself in this division.
most people seek friendships with people who have similar experiences, background, similar interests, goals and outlooks to life. myself i have had desires to befriend someone specifically because of reasoning far different to mine, but first we had to have enough in common that i could observe their reasoning in a conversation that would interest both of us.
due to having the same bodies, physiology and experiences with puberty and otherwise, there's more casual, nonsexual intimacy between men and between women, while more awkwardness, distrust, embarrassment and discomfort while men have to reveal themselves to women somehow or the other way around, especially since women also fear vulnerability to men due to widespread sexual violence and harassment.
now this is just me, but it seems like same-sex relationships have the potential to originate on the ground of the platonic friendship intimacy between close guy or girl friends, which is unique and probably a level of closeness very, very few straight relationships are able to ever achieve. it's an "extension" of bromance into romantic, sexual, more overtly libidinal area. not all gay relationships originate on ground of close friendship, of course, but even in one that began as a hookup there's this casual intimacy of people of the same sex who are at ease with their bodies et cetera, and that of course also makes sex and achieving sexual synchronisation easier.
4. no pregnancy scares
while straights like to claim gay relationships are "inferior" because they can't reproduce, this notion is pretty much outdated: with social security systems and childlessness being widespread, one doesn't rely on having a child for financial security in old age anymore, the planet is overpopulated - though better management of resources would help with this problem a bit - and social pressure concerning having a child is lesser. a lot of people are happy without children, adoption is a thing, ivf is a thing and if humanity follows the route i wish for it, then we'll develop from ivf and move gestation into technology-based artificial environment eventually, and then not having heterosexual intercourse won't make any difference whatsoever even for those who do want their own biological children for whatever reason; various methods of gene transfer are getting increasingly closer to the goal of giving same sex couples offspring who are biologically theirs, i support it, though i don't quite get the whole wanting a biological child thing, i don't want a child anytime soon at all. anyway, my point is that nowadays, with technology and incrasingly more technology-based route humanity is taking in its development, with the climate catastrophe and everything else, even complete antinatalism is reasonable and the ability to reproduce is hardly an advantage - i think we've collectively risen above deeming it a priority. while i support free and easy access to plan b and abortion for women who've chosen to have heterosexual intercourse (and rape victims of course), it's still often an obstacle and problem for many reasons. having sex in any circumstances, at any age (no, i'm not advocating for showing sex to 4 year olds now, i mean 17 year olds who obviously don't want kids and 46 year olds who don't want any new ones) and being safe from the pregnancy scare is a great upside of gay sex. while heterosexuals often bring up STDs in this context, the risk is increased for gay men because of microtearing during anal sex, but vastly decreased for lesbians, to the point it used to be (incorrectly) believed that lesbians are completely immune to hiv. weird how that part is always left out.
anyways, don't get me wrong, we are miserable, mainly for the reasons of homophobia. of our main 3 reasons of misery, only one is inevitable - that's alienation and problems finding a fitting partner which result simply from the fact we're a small minority; although even then, homophobia existing contributes to alienation of lesbian girls and gay boys in peer groups. other reasons include mainly: facing homophobia in adulthood, and having various mental issues with ourselves due to the homophobia and abuse we faced due to it in childhood; including distorted family connections, also often owed to homophobia, and bullying and ostracism in peer groups.
if asked if i would choose to be gay, if i could - i don't know mainly because i envy the straights the ease they find partners with and the giant pool they can choose from. if i run into a cute woman at the mall or on the bus, there's about 95% chance she's incapable of attraction to me. that's a pain... somewhere, and pretty obviously so - otherwise, however, i find that gay people in same sex relationships are happier than straights with their lives and relationships, and these relationships tend to be healthier, despite the mental health problems growing up gay often results in. some studies indicate that gay couples are happier even in current conditions, where they face homophobia, including internalised homophobia, after-effects of childhood homophobia and alienation, all that. it makes sense, all things above considered - relationships between people who share experiences, intimate spaces, body types and who have no unfair power relation are meant to be better, closer and more fulfilling, and may become more common in the future liberated and less reproduction-oriented society. sorry, straight people. sometimes i read fundamentalists talking about measures we can take to "live a straight lifestyle" - even if it wasn't inherently traumatic to us, why would we ever do this to ourselves? i'll pass, you can keep this stuff. thank you though, i guess.