NY Times Points Out It Is The Age Of The Twink?

A commenter pointed it out:

But the latest twinks — many of whom are straight — are what you might call “art twinks,” building upon an aesthetic legacy established by Ryan McGinley’s turn-of-the-millennium photographs of the sloppily skinny, or last decade’s leather-pant-clad Saint Laurent models chosen by the designer Hedi Slimane. And yet they are more culturally mainstream: a growing cohort of famous (and famously small) boys who stand in opposition to the lumbering, abusive oafs who have been dominating this year’s headlines…

Female body types have always cycled in and out of style; yet with men, alternatives to the ideal of imposing physicality have usually been ignored or lampooned. But as women continue to use their voices to undo that legacy of toxic masculinity, a different kind of change is taking place from within the culture: These twinks, after all, aren’t just enviably lean boys or the latest unrealistic gay fantasy, but a new answer to the problem of what makes a man.

Women are growing more aggressive and dominant, and undoing “that legacy of toxic masculinity,” and as that occurs, men are becoming smaller, thinner, and more effeminate. And now K will return, and in twenty years, we will be back to masculine men, and nice, feminine women who want to nurture children, and all of this will look bizarre.

What I always find interesting to imagine is how many cycles of K to r it took, to find those individuals in whom dopamine receptor transcription would change epigenetics just right with dopamine elicitation to change the sensitivity to dopamine. Those in whom dopaminergic activity would be linked, in the genetic blueprint, to neuroendocrine peptides which would affect testosterone, like GNRH/LHRH, as well as stress hormone neuropeptides like CRF and ACTH, and though I’ve never heard it, I will bet even Growth Hormone and TSH and even the neurotransmitter receptors and related enzymes which affect psychology.

Then, that one change in dopamine activity could alter the entire physiology and psychology of the human machine, switching it back and forth between the K-model and the r-model.

The number of cycles it must have taken, to find those few humans where those processes were linked in the genetic blueprints and in the biology, who would even shift in physical constitution in the K to r shift by getting smaller, thinner, and more effeminate males and larger more muscular, man-jawed, aggressive females must have be immense.

But that is how it naturally works with Darwin. In each shift of the cycle, those humans who went from a K-form, with large aggressive men protecting families and feminine females, to an r-form with masculine females protecting families and effete males scurrying from promiscuous mating opportunity to promiscuous mating opportunity had the advantage. They were able to explode in number during r, and then revert to K to try and preserve those dominant numbers in times of K. Then they were left in greater numbers after the cullings, and exploded faster during the gluts, and on and on.

It offered favor, so Darwin churned through human model after human model, finding what worked best, and producing that specific suite of traits all interlinked in the genes, with everything related turning on and turning on and turning off in tandem, and then working together each way in r and K.

Here today, after a massive influx of free resources and dopaminergic stimuli, we have ended up seeing a major media outlet talking about this change as if it happened spontaneously, as part of a random change that just happened to produce progress toward something better. “Twinks” are a sign of progress and evolutionary advancement that has arisen by chance.

From their rabbit perspective, I suppose it is. Now for the pendulum swing back.

Tell everyone about r/K Theory, because the evolution is not done yet, it just needs a little more Darwinian selection