Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Homosexuality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Dominant-submissive dichotomy
m (what i wrote here makes no sense. victim status exactly matches the result here (empathy)) |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
For one, penetration can be identified as a high-status activity (more RS), whereas the role of the penetree is associated with low status (less RS). | For one, penetration can be identified as a high-status activity (more RS), whereas the role of the penetree is associated with low status (less RS). | ||
The integral low-status aspect of the penetree results in intrasexual competition in shape of gossip and shaming, also affecting reproductive success (higher RS for the accuser and lower RS for the accusee). | The integral low-status aspect of the penetree results in intrasexual competition in shape of gossip and shaming, also affecting reproductive success (higher RS for the accuser and lower RS for the accusee). | ||
Relatedly, F. Muscarella proposed the so called ''alliance formation hypothesis''.<ref name="ref5">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v40n01_03</ref> In his theory incels | It is further conceivable that homosexuality acts as a costly signal of high status by thwarting said gossip (also RS for either). | ||
Each of these pathways is | Relatedly, F. Muscarella proposed the so called ''alliance formation hypothesis''.<ref name="ref5">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v40n01_03</ref> In his theory, incels turn into submissive homosexuals forming sexual alliances with higher status men to regain access to group resources and reproductive success ([[homocel hypothesis]]), with the higher status male also gaining some benefits, including sexual pleasure and support (RS for either). | ||
Each of these pathways is explained in detail below: | |||
<ul><li> | <ul><li> | ||