Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Homosexuality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Dominant vs submissive
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
One other shape is receptive and submissive homosexuality. In what Muscarella calls ''alliance formation hypothesis'', he suggested peripheralized men (incels) can establish social ties with horny men of higher social standing by homosociality and re-gain access to resources, and thus increase chances of [[reproductive success]] (see [[homocel hypothesis]]).<ref name="ref5"></ref> In particular, the submissive male can make himself into the female in order to appease dominant males and get access to some of their resources in return. | One other shape is receptive and submissive homosexuality. In what Muscarella calls ''alliance formation hypothesis'', he suggested peripheralized men (incels) can establish social ties with horny men of higher social standing by homosociality and re-gain access to resources, and thus increase chances of [[reproductive success]] (see [[homocel hypothesis]]).<ref name="ref5"></ref> In particular, the submissive male can make himself into the female in order to appease dominant males and get access to some of their resources in return. | ||
In both of these homosexual reproductive strategies | In both of these homosexual reproductive strategies, the penetree is associated with low status, so men can use accusations of gayness as means of [[intrasexual competition]]. | ||
Omega males are of no use for betas, so betas exclude and bully them to foil any competitive threat that may arise<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260515593546</ref> (see also [[Reproductive success#Violent_reproductive_strategies|violent reproductive strategies]]). | Omega males are of no use for betas, so betas exclude and bully them to foil any competitive threat that may arise<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260515593546</ref> (see also [[Reproductive success#Violent_reproductive_strategies|violent reproductive strategies]]). | ||
As a result, men of higher status can use homosexual or homosocial acts, not only as act of intimidation, but also as [[signaling theory|costly signaling]] as they risk being accused of gayness, but are confident in their ability to thwart such insults to their reputations, hence robust evidence of high social status. Evidence of such signaling may be found, for example, in a study by Robison and Anderson from University of Winchester in which highly confident and masculine men (sport athletes) did engage in homosocial tactility,<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184X17730386?journalCode=jmma</ref><ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/straight-men-cuddle-guys-study_n_5241953?ri18n=true&guccounter=2</ref> | As a result, men of higher status can use homosexual or homosocial acts, not only as act of intimidation, but also as [[signaling theory|costly signaling]] as they risk being accused of gayness, but are confident in their ability to thwart such insults to their reputations, hence robust evidence of high social status. Evidence of such signaling may be found, for example, in a study by Robison and Anderson from University of Winchester in which highly confident and masculine men (sport athletes) did engage in homosocial tactility,<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184X17730386?journalCode=jmma</ref><ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/straight-men-cuddle-guys-study_n_5241953?ri18n=true&guccounter=2</ref> | ||