It makes for an illogical syllogism.
Premise A: Lesbians are sexually attracted to women only.
Premise B: Women cannot impregnate women.
Conclusion: Lesbians have higher pregnancy rates than non-lesbian women.
It’s contrary to all reason, but it’s true. Lesbians have significantly higher pregnancy rates than their heterosexual peers. It’s also true for teen gay males. They are substantially more likely to impregnate their sexual partners than are heterosexual males.
Gays are r-strategists who have just gone a little too r. Male preference for aggressive females with masculine features who could raise offspring alone, overshoots to preference for an actual male. Female preferences for weak, conflict-avoidant, feminine men who other men would feel bad about braining wantonly overshoots into a female preference for actual females.
Regardless, even with that impediment to reproduction, the reduction in sexual discrimination and the drive to promiscuity still produces higher rates of impregnation than in normal K-selected humans. It even explains the gay reproduction conundrum.
I don’t know how much clearer it could be.
Spread r/K Theory, because it explains a hell of a lot about what is going on
[…] Gays Are r-strategist Overshoots […]
Wow.
I’m in the middle of reading your book and it’s all becoming more and more clear. Obvious even; in “hindsight” of course. It sure does explain a lot about our f’d up world.
Wow
Curious, how do you give an explanation to the masculine gay men, because there’s no denying there is some.
You can’t look for perfect carbon copying in nature, because that is actually disadvantageous in many cases. There is an advantage in mixing and matching, and the chaos that creates that.
Case in point. A single virus can very quickly produce billions of offspring – so many that many virus-offspring will not reproduce because there won’t be opportunity or time. So a virus that perfectly copies its DNA in every offspring will see maybe 80% of its identical billion offspring simply fail due to chance.
Compare that to what you see in nature, where viruses actually evolved DNA repair machinery that purposely makes copious mistakes when reproducing its DNA. Instead of producing a billion perfect copies, with 800 million just failing to compete due to chance, most viruses produce fewer perfect copies, say for example 200 million perfect copies. The other 800 million have defects, or mutations. Most will fail to succeed, but if just a thousand of those (.000125%) have an advantage, all it takes is one out-competing a non-mutant, and reproducing, and now you have 200 million mutant viral particles floating around with a significant advantage, and that will quickly become the standard bearer of the viral population.
So I never look and see mix and matches and immediately write things off, because that is natural in nature, and under certain conditions, the mix and matches could outnumber the standard as part of the plan, though Here I would expect them dialed back due to fewer offspring.
Regardless, I’d have to ask, how many gays are very manly? I can’t say I have seen specific statistics, but the gays I mostly see anecdotally run along the Carson queer guy lines and Milo lines, neither of which seem prone to cage-fighting or taking up arms in the revolution the way Based Stickman might. So manly gays, if a minority, don’t really affect the mechanism as I see it.