Homosexuality Is Merely A Degree Of r-selection

That is why the liberalism and homosexuality travel together:

Practicing homosexuality is a normal, if not vital, part of demonstrating masculinity for straight, white males, said Jane Ward, professor of gender and sexuality studies at the University of California Riverside.

Ward visited IU on Thursday to talk about the ideas covered in her book, “Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men,” specifically surrounding how homosexuality impacts straight, white men.

“I’m very interested in complicating our understanding of heterosexuality, because heterosexuality and queerness are mutually constituted,” Ward said.

For the new comers, when resources are free, the males who succeed avoid conflict and mate prodigiously with as many females as possible. The males, for efficiency’s sake stop devoting resources into becoming big and robust, since they never fight. Instead they become more delicate and more prone to flee conflicts, like the females in K-selection, only without the loyal and maternal urges.

Since males are mating with females promiscuously, r-selected females need to provision and protect offspring alone for the short time they devote to raising them, so the r-strategist females who best reproduce offspring and become the archetype of the ilk tend to become more aggressive, more robust, and more physically similar to the males of K-selection.

In short the behaviors and physical constitutions of the sexes reverse in r-selection, because it better facilitates each sex’s effectiveness at reproducing. Males begin to look and act like females, while females begin to look and act like males.

As the most effective reproducers in r-selection are wispy, effete males who flee conflict, and manly, robust females who want to knock heads, the most effective reproducers will develop sexual tastes that prefer these archetypes. That is, female r-strategists will prefer (from a K-strategist’s perspective) feminized males with feminine features, and male r-strategists will prefer (again from a K-strategist’s perspective) masculine females with masculine features. Each set of features, being optimized for r-selection, will offer offspring the best chance to reproduce in the r-selected environment themselves, and thus carry the genes of the family forward.

Full homosexuality is merely the periodic overexpression of these r-selected sexual preferences, in a way that is so exaggerated it becomes more of a liability than a Darwinian advantage. That is males will prefer masculine traits to the point that they find actual (K-selected) males sexually attractive, and females will prefer feminine traits to the point they actually prefer outright (K-selected) females as mates.

This relationship of homosexuality to the r-strategy is why you find liberals like this broad making the case that homosexual sex is totally normal, and everybody should be doing it. They literally can’t imagine seeing homosexuality and being sexually repulsed, because their mind is not programmed that way, and all they know is their own experience.

One thing that is interesting – liberals, being programmed for the ideal world of free resources, seem to often end up depressed in the real world, where harshness, adversity, and even failure can crop up at high rates. Look at the picture of this female’s face here, and tell me if she looks ebullient and joyfully engaged in partaking of a beautiful world, or if she looks like the kind of depressive who might need the dopamine rush of sex to momentarily return her to a normal level of emotional balance, before she crashes back into the depressed morass of being designed for a perfect world, while being mired in an imperfect world.

You would think this blog would begin to run out of examples of how liberalism is r-selection, but it never does. They just keep popping up everywhere I look, mostly courtesy of liberals who are entirely too kooky to even see how weird they look to other people.

You can tell other people about r/K Theory because everybody deserves to be as blown away as the reivews on this page

This entry was posted in Homosexuality, Liberals, Politics, Psychology, rabbitry, Sexual Deviance, Sexual Dimorphism. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

23 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
8 years ago

[…] Homosexuality Is Merely A Degree Of r-selection […]

Maple Curtain
Maple Curtain
8 years ago

I read not-so-long-ago that it is an open secret in homo circles that the homosexual world is made up of “a thousand bottoms looking for a top.” If true (and I have no intention of undertaking a research project), arguably, those ‘thousand’ are, psychologically, become women, and the ‘one’ is the insatiable sexual predator who finds it much easier to exploit male “women” rather than win real women. There are “men” as well as poofs in the homo world, even though few, if any, of the K-selected would consider those “men” to be men.

Also, and I believe this fits with r/K theory, I believe feminism’s open attack on men and masculinity, along with family laws neutering males, have led to open dominance of the female imperative in all walks of society, leaving many of the weaker males opting, psychologically, and sexually, to become “women” (with some going as far as to get some socio-pathic plastic surgeon to rearrange their bits).

Nathan
Nathan
Reply to  Maple Curtain
8 years ago

I’ve got a gay friend who happens to be an outsider/conservative libertarian type and he sometimes gives a window into the gay world and how it functions. So if you have any questions for me to ask AC let me know, lol. He’s in a bit of an odd position in that he’s aware most gays are socialists/democrats who are afraid of guns and barbecue but he isn’t for some reason.

Jane Doe
Jane Doe
8 years ago

Incorrect. If this were true homosexuals would not be the highly creative people we generally are and always have been. (Remember the Renaissance? Ancient Greece? A bunch of queers.) Homosexuals are people whose souls have evolved past the basest of animal needs and consequently form relationships with people we are compatible with rather than wasting our energy and time on the eternal and futile efforts of men and women to get along with each other.

Liberals hate us because we are creative (productive) and we’re harder to control as they can’t do it by disrupting the male-female relationship. They figured that pretending to be on our side was a way they could disarm us. (Shocking K heterosexuals was a fringe benefit.) Unfortunately, it worked; while homosexual behavior is mostly K, most of us have fallen for the rhetoric and vote for our enemies on the Left.

Of course, if liberals ever believe they’ve taken over once and for all, they will throw us under the bus instantly.

If the entire human race were gay, it would bring an end to this r-K cycle, as the slide to r requires irresponsible reproductive behavior. People who have to go to the trouble involved in getting pregnant without enduring the repugnant act nature inflicted on us would have K values. Just one more way in which the world would be a better place if everyone were gay.

ACThinker
ACThinker
Reply to  Jane Doe
8 years ago

Sorry, but having sex with everyone is by definition irresponsible sexual behavior, and is the default mode of homosexual men. One study in Toronto Ontario found that the average number of different partners in a year for gay men was over 300. That’s pretty irresponsible behavior. If they were hetro men with women, it would result in a lot of pregnant women.

In contrast hetro men in the same study had around 10 partners. As one gay man put it to me, it is often sex before first names in the male gay community.

Shooter
Shooter
Reply to  Jane Doe
7 years ago

Ancient Greece was not surrounded or created by queers. That is a gay myth.

“Incorrect. If this were true homosexuals would not be the highly creative people we generally are and always have been. (Remember the Renaissance? Ancient Greece? A bunch of queers.)” – Ancient Greece was not surrounded or created by queers. That is a gay myth. Sparta openly condemned it, and Athens’ punishment for it was death. Aeschines’ ‘Against Timarchus’ describes in detail what happened to Timarchus – a gay prostitute – and his gay lovers.

The Renaissance wasn’t dominated by gay men, either. That’s another gay-centric lie. If da Vinci was really gay, he was a pederast, as Salai was only 10 when he was caught with him. Michelangelo had written love letters to a woman, so at best he was bisexual. Either way, very few genius artists were homosexual, because homosexuals don’t understand the complexities of the world, aside from their own.

“Homosexuals are people whose souls have evolved past the basest of animal needs and consequently form relationships with people we are compatible with rather than wasting our energy and time on the eternal and futile efforts of men and women to get along with each other.” – That’s a lie. Homosexuals ARE adhering to the basest of their animal needs, which is sex. Look at their promiscuity rates; their sex-based culture. Your relationships don’t last more than six months before you have to move on to the next. Your ‘marriages’ don’t last as long as twenty years even in the most successful cases, and open marriages are the rule rather than the exception in homosexual couplings. There are no biochemical bonds bonding you to your partner as in heterosexual couplings, but instead, repeated rectal insemination causes infection and later HIV/AIDS.

“Liberals hate us because we are creative (productive) and we’re harder to control as they can’t do it by disrupting the male-female relationship.” – Number one: you’re not that creative. You’re subvertive, big difference. Number two: you’re still playing the liberals and conservatives. Don’t think we’re all idiots not to believe that because you don’t act like a screeching liberal that you aren’t acting in your own interest. You don’t care about us or our values. You care for your own.

“They figured that pretending to be on our side was a way they could disarm us.” – You already disarmed society. Why else are we seeing more American males practice homosexuality, and authors say it’s not gay to do so? (Shocking K heterosexuals was a fringe benefit.)

“Unfortunately, it worked; while homosexual behavior is mostly K, most of us have fallen for the rhetoric and vote for our enemies on the Left.” – HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Homosexual behaviour is NOT K. It’s r. You subvert and are diseased. Your culture is the epitome of r-type behaviour. Being K means that you’re interested in the group strategy as a whole – not subverting it and supplanting it with your own sex practices. Homosexuals are the definition of r-type behaviour because it is maladaptive all around.

Don’t lie to us here. You craft a gay history because you want a gay future. Liberals took a page out of YOUR book, remember. Don’t pin the blame on them to avoid criticism.

Zanjero
Zanjero
8 years ago

The most telling line: “I’m very interested in complicating our understanding…”

I’m sure you are, lady, I’m sure you are.

Michael Wittmann
Michael Wittmann
8 years ago

They literally can’t imagine seeing a member of the opposite sex and being sexually repulsed, because their mind is not programmed that way, and all they know is their own experience.

Did you mean to say “same sex” here?

cosplayconstruction
8 years ago

I just finished reading this article before I came here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-17/triggered-lena-dunham-checks-posh-arizona-resort-rehab-after-hillary-loss

Lena Dunham is definitely the type of masculiized female who craves dopamine (and who received such a hit after Hillary’s election loss that she needed to travel to a resort just to recover.) “Desert Vision Quests” is probably just a codewords for “slamming enough peyote buttons to see God and macking on a wide variety of dark skinned SouthWesterners.”

I highly doubt that Lena will be introspective enough to figure out the real reason behind her misery.

AmericanGraffiti
8 years ago

How dare she femmesplain to me

Brick House
Brick House
8 years ago

The more moving parts in your explanation, the less explanatory power it has. Think epicycles.

ACThinker
ACThinker
8 years ago

Couple of things AC.
1. have you read this by JayMan? he is a major proponent of HBD, and thus is looking for primary genetic reason for things. But with the distribution of male homosexuality, and a general lack of male bi-sexuality, he well here is the link
http://www.unz.com/jman/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/
I think your theory here and his there are in competition, and that yours has one mechanism to explain both homosexual behaviors, where as his has a genetic female and a environmental male cause.

2. I see people claiming that r/K is how many children people have as the defining characteristic(see JayMan and Jane Doe above), forgetting that it isn’t number of children but the PLANING of life for the success of children, and the desire for those children and the acceptance of having children. Thus the rabbits(animal) have children because they don’t have birth control. That doesn’t mean that they want them to stay. So when r humans have sex they can opt to NOT have the children. These people are not getting that r/K explains how different people solve the dopamine search. For some it drives them to lots of sex (r) and if they can find a way to not have children, then they don’t. It doesn’t make that behavior K. I know you get what I’m saying. But I suspect others aren’t.

3. As for creativity of homosexuals, I’d like to see links to studies that the Renaissance were generated by gay’s v by resource surplus. Same with Ancient Greece (don’t quote gay Sparta to me, most of what we see as really cool about Ancient Greece was Athens) Frankly Jane Doe’s first paragraph is all polemic.

ACThinker
ACThinker
Reply to  Anonymous Conservative
8 years ago

I agree with you on this. That is that Biology has one goal, and mechanism for that – have off spring, because making babies feels good. Anyhow, I had a longer post I thought I put in here, but either it wasn’t approved, or it didn’t upload. And it said similar to what you had, including that with modern tech, our r habit people can pretend that they are K’s.

ACThinker
ACThinker
8 years ago

A/C this post seems to go here, or maybe on its own. It is an expansion of my 2nd point above.

Most of what people look at for r/K theory is the number of offspring taking this as a proxy for the animal type being a r or a K reproductive strategy. First understand that for biology the goal is to reproduce and have more of the organism. Any organism not geared to doing this is from a biology point of view a failure. There are some situations where more children quicker is better, and others where K fewer children and slower is better. It depends on many environmental factors, the species, etc. K for instance is a hindrance if the species is facing many environmental pressures and needs to adapt or die off. More frequent generations may find a way out of the disaster.

Humans are generally a K species, but that doesn’t mean that the r/K tendencies are not present. Also it must be understood that technology has changed the “must children happen” part of the r/K. And that is where I want to go.

I started by saying the number of children is a good proxy, and it is, if and only if there is no birth control technology and were are looking at only reproductive sexual encounters (ie all sexual encounters have the possibility for reproduction. But taking a step back, humans have sex because generally it is enjoyable. This enjoyment is biology’s trick to get us to reproduce. And the major way it occurs is through the release of chemicals in the brain (dopamine being a key one).*

Biology set up in humans the amygdala to filter and process both external and internal inputs and noise for us. Its function is regulate our emotions and our motivations. Remember as a biological construct humans have the goal of reproducing, and if possible, staying alive as the individual. The amygdala is critical in the first and second part there. **

That said, how does this brain chemical thing affect the r/K theory. Recall that the goal of the chemicals is to trick us into reproducing. That doesn’t mean with technology or behaviors that we can’t get the chemical high without children. Non reproductive sexual interactions – either through technology or other means – tend to sooth the amygdala just as well as reproductive ones. For the r/K amygdala theory it doesn’t care about off spring, it cares about how the amygdala is soothed. In reality our reproductive urges are all about how to sooth the amygdala, and NOT about reproduction. For the individual, off spring is a by product, not a goal of the amygdala soothing through sex.

So in an age of accepted birth control and homosexual relations, we can get those free dopamine hits, without off spring. So now we have to look at those motivations for children and decide if that motivation is an r or a K motive. And birth control on its own is sufficient to explain why we have a decrease in some having children while they exhibit other r associated behaviors where as in the past it was other way around. A resource glut would have produced more r offspring. Today in the west that isn’t happening. ***

It is important today not to look at the number of children, but the other motivations a person has to determine if they are r or K. While Anonymous Conservative’s list shows 5 characteristics about r/K species, in humans I’d add a 6th, that being Planning for the future, and add it with a bullet (ie most important). It is the aspect of 1 is a person planning. 2 what are they planning for. 3 who are they planning for and 4 why are they planning for. As that planning focuses more towards the individual’s children that shows more K strategy in behavior. As that planning fails to exists, or focuses more on that individual, it is more r strategy.

* These chemicals can be released in other ways, eating is one of them, as are about all of the addictive behaviors.

** a long discussion could be had about the need to stay alive long enough to reproduce vrs just a goal or reproduction, and this is part of the whole life story- r/K evolutionary theory. It begs to be discussed in quantitative ways, which are beyond my scope here. suffice it to say that everything is a traded off against other items.

*** I had an example about how biology wants a product (off spring) and is paying us (dopamine) and in the past we could either produce more off spring for more dopamine, or higher quality off spring for more dopamine (I think there is some dopamine hits for a K parent with children when they reflect on their children). But today with birth control we’ve figured out how to get paid without having to produce. But the example struck me as odd or potential offending.

Mr_Twister
Mr_Twister
8 years ago

Gays have more free time (no kids)
Gays adhere to the bell curve of IQ like every other group
High IQ Gays have advanced societies (like high IQ in other groups)

Is that why gayness persists?

M.S. Leavelle
M.S. Leavelle
8 years ago

on the origins of same-sex attraction: A number of people I know of with same-sex attractions mention being molested/abused by a member of the opposite sex in their childhood, and it makes me think that their brain took away the message: “I cannot trust the opposite sex, so I must learn to find my own sex attractive instead.” Do you know anything about this, A.C.? And how it may fit into R-K Selection Theory?