Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Homosexuality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Fast life history adaptations
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Fast life history behavior is marked by a more primitive mode of competition e.g. through physical dominance, intimidation and [[dark triad|dark personality traits]]. | Fast life history behavior is marked by a more primitive mode of competition e.g. through physical dominance, intimidation and [[dark triad|dark personality traits]]. | ||
Hence, in a fast LH context, one would expect a brutish ''dominant-submissive'' dichotomy to be inherent to homosexual acts. | Hence, in a fast LH context, one would expect a brutish ''dominant-submissive'' dichotomy to be inherent to homosexual acts. | ||
In particular, sexual penetration can be identified as a high-status activity (implying more RS), whereas the role of the penetree is associated with low status (implying less RS). | In particular, sexual penetration can be identified as a high-status activity as it involves overpowering the penetree (implying more RS), whereas the role of the penetree is associated with low status (implying less RS). | ||
The low-status 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 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). | ||
It is further conceivable that homosexuality is a costly signal of high status as it evidences social status high enough so as to thwart said gossip (higher RS for either homosexual partner). | It is further conceivable that homosexuality is a costly signal of high status as it evidences social status high enough so as to thwart said gossip (higher RS for either homosexual partner). | ||
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 this theory, low status [[incel]]s can 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). However, such alliances could simultaneously be k-selected. | 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 this theory, low status [[incel]]s can 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). However, such alliances could simultaneously be k-selected. | ||