Heartiste On Sexual Dimorphism-Related Sexual Preferences

He sums up the study he cites thusly:

The more masculine the man, the greater his desire for feminine women. The less masculine the man, the greater his tolerance (if not desire) for masculine women.

Heartiste’s site is the best mix of brilliant science, and riotously funny, brilliantly crafted humor. This is the former.

This is just more evidence for the K-selected masculine-male/feminine-female, and r-selected feminine-male/masculine-female sexual reproductive model. You see it in animals, and you see it in humans. Since rabbit women raise the promiscuously borne spawn of Mystery-like Alphas alone, they need to be stronger, manly, and more aggressive. Meanwhile the r-men become flashy to attract mates for short duration relationships, and effete to facilitate conflict avoidance and to avoid being killed .

Again, homosexuality is likely just a periodic accidental overshoot of that model, where masculine r-selected, ball-busting feminist SJW females prefer feminine features in their beta/leftist SJW boy toys – to the point they one day realize that even the SJW Mystery-like males are not feminine enough, and they switch over to outright female partners.

Likewise, those leftist, r-selected, SJW males prefer more and more masculine, ball-busting females, until one day they desire such masculinity that they make the jump to having sex with outright males. It doesn’t happen everywhere, so the overall advantage of the moderated r-strategy, where feminine men promiscuously mate with masculine females who raise the twisted clutches of rabbit offspring alone keeps the strategy alive even when the accidental overshoots here and there fail to reproduce.

My guess is this overshooting arose because humans have a history of shifting from such numbing levels of massive resource availability, favoring the r-strategy, to such brutal, ruthless K-selected wars and depopulations when things turned harsh. Instead of gradually developing a precise reproductive strategy that was perfectly adapted to a constant environmental condition, we adapted an adaptability. That ability to shift from r to K and back again meant a shifting reproductive strategy that could periodically overshoot the mark in a small number of cases.

This is why I think r/K will eventually be known by everyone. So many things which otherwise defy explanation suddenly become completely understandable, and even predictable.

Tell everyone about r/K Theory, because manly women and womanly men making babies is just wrong

This entry was posted in Conservatives, Homosexuality, K-stimuli, Liberals, Politics, Psychology, r-stimuli, rabbitry, Rearing Differences, Sexual Deviance, Sexual Dimorphism. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Heartiste On Sexual Dimorphism-Related Sexual Preferences

  1. Pingback: Heartiste On Sexual Dimorphism-Related Sexual Preferences | - Top

  2. Iprefertostayanonymous says:

    I keep saying that homosexuality in its current prevalence is a sign of our decadence and that the ancient greeks, romans and japanese empires showed that as they had rising men-love in their last days as well.

    So many people deny that and “muh feelings are being attacked”. It’s incredible.

  3. JB says:

    Otto Weininger elaborated this theory 100 years ago in his ‘Sex and Character’.

  4. ERTZ says:

    Evolutionary theory states that we are today what was successful in the past.
    K+r clearly was and is an underlying concept.

    In terms of sexuality, however, I suppose that most people do not realize how fundamentally different today’s sexual environment is compared to that of our whole past.
    We live in extraordinary, disruptive times, in terms of sexual selection:

    In the past, every instinctive (genetically determined) behavior that led to evolutionary success (impregnation and surviving offspring) was selected for – among other things, in women: Self-presentation (desire to sing/dance/travel/work as actor/make art/make clothing – everything that includes a high probability to be seen by, ideally, superior (=desire to get near high-status men in the higher social strata) males – and in men – everything from showing off one’s (hopefully superior) skills and resources and social status to woman; but also faking love or outright rape – whatever was successful in achieving insemination lead to reproductive success.

    I repeat:
    Every behaviour, “moral” or not, that led to insemination most of the time lead to evolutionary success.

    These days are over.

    With the advent of low-risk abortions and comfortable-to-use contraceptives (hormonal birth control) the direct causal connection of insemination-reproduction has been broken.
    Having sex is not any longer connected with having babies.

    This is most novel, a completely new evolutionary pressure, that must lead to new reproductive strategies – but almost everybody today is using “old firmware”, that is, still pursues the eons-old sexual strategies that have evolved, but have become duds today:

    Simple rape no longer leads to babies; a common means for evolutionary success of the past has become useless, due to advancements in medicine (no woman will give birth to a rape baby if she is not forced to).
    Billions of people waste their time in bars, discos, dance halls and other places that only exist to get the sexes closely together and allow for mate-finding – and they then have sex – but nothing relevant, no babies – result from all that time- and money-intensive activities.
    The whole dating and sex scene has been largely made into sterile entertainment,
    that has been disconnected from its real purpose: procreation.
    People waste loads of money and time, again-and-again dating, having sex – in endless, unproductive loops. Their instincts were genetically imprinted in a past where every insemination had a high probability of impregnation and birth – today, while they are sexually active, they could as well be sterile, with the same result.

    Analogy:
    If eating would have undergone the same revolutions like sex and reproduction,
    people would today eat fine meals in fancy restaurants that are very tasty and cheap,
    but contain zero nutrients – just like those people would starve to death while eating happily as much as they can, most people today have more frequent sex than ever before in history with many more different sex partners, they get through all the moves and feel all the pleasure – but they fail at making babies, therefore “starving” sexually to death while having all the sex they can possibly have.

    Our contemporary environment is revolutionary novel in multiple ways – in terms of sex, exposure to the quality and quantity of chemicals, food quality and quantity, entertainment and information density, physical exercise level etc. – we are actually, evolutionary, living in a period of a multi-revolution.

    How exactly this affects r+K is not a trivial question, but a highly complex one.
    Rs seem to have more sex than ever, but also less kids than ever, especially in r-women that are “career-first” types – they have an education and some form of career – but seem to become evolutionary failures, dying out (along with their traits, perhaps including r-tendencies) for lack of making babies, because they postpone finding a “suitable” mate and getting pregnant – towards what more and more seems like never.
    On the other hand, the low-IQ-r-type women from the underclass seem to thrive very well on social welfare, which basically is an incentive to have more sex and more babies, because they get more free money for having more babies.
    Perhaps high-IQ rs, therefore, are in the process of being evolutionarily culled,
    while low-IQ rs increase their share of the population.
    If that is true, then we witness the last phase of having smart rs, the “liberal-artsy” type, around,
    while rs in the future will become simply equated with “underclass”.

    I have less ideas about what may happen to Ks under this type of multi-revolutionary evolutionary pressures – porn and contraceptives and all the other novel things we are exposed to only for the last two or three generations affect them, of course, too.
    The highly religious Ks (for example, perhaps Mormons) are among the groups that have, by far, the most babies. Their share of the population may reach higher and higher levels.
    Among the less-religious Ks there seems to be a divide in terms of IQ:
    Low-IQ Ks struggle with the costs of having a big family;
    high-IQ Ks, perhaps quite identical with upper and upper middle class, seem to still have many children, only a little lower than the high-religious Ks.

    Generally, I have the hypothesis that we are in the beginning or even middle of a bifurcation of humanity – homo sapiens superior might be in the making:
    Because beauty, health, IQ and character traits are all highly heritable, the genes for all those good qualities should, over the generations, drift towards the upper class – because natural and sexual selection, now even more than in the past, is governed by ever-growing dominance of mental and cognitive traits as basis for socio-economic and sexual success, and less by chance (past: famines, wars, mate-selection hindered by limits to travel far and wide and limits of information distribution etc.).
    Given freedom of choice, superior women and superior men can be expected to procreate mostly with each other, leaving the whole rest of lower-quality reproduction partners to the lower classes.
    The divide in social class, already largely based on genetic superiority of one class over another, could lead to the creation of a homo superior from the upper class.
    I wonder if the opposite would happen to the under class – ever more reduced to an animal-like, sub-human state by overfeeding-induced obesity and cognitive destruction by electronic entertainment, but made to reproduce because of welfare-payment incentives – artificial removal of all fitness-increasing selection pressures – could lead to underclass humans that are to the future homo superior much like chimps are to average contemporary humans.

    • I agree entirely, though I think when there is a Great Depression type situation, there will be a great culling of the underclass.

    • rien says:

      Excellent observation. I was already developing a similar idea on my own based on the time difference in knowledge acquisition.
      “Elites” (for lack of a better word) have a knowledge advantage, they may well have been aware of r/K theory 50 or even 100 years ahead of the rest of us.
      In other words: The bifurcation may already have happened.

      • That’s an interesting idea.

      • ERTZ says:

        >“Elites” (for lack of a better word) have a knowledge advantage

        Yes. And where might that knowledge advantage have come from?
        Not from “science”, as that is public and free for everybody to learn.

        I think the advantage in insight stemmed from economic activity, from economic insights:
        Consider very successful businessmen, big traders, industrialists, bankers.
        (But do not forget they started small – as individuals or whole dynasties – so you might imagine them as small store owners in the beginning.)
        What was their informational advantage over other people?
        They knew what really sold, who really bought what and how much.
        Those who were intelligent should have started to notice patterns in “consumer behavior”, that is,
        receive privileged information, “real life”, true, honest data about how and why people buy what and when – a powerful basis for Behaviorism as science – before the very word was even invented for public use!
        Those who overlooked bigger business operations also gained private, early, privileged insights into how society as a whole, based on individually deciding agents (workers, consumers, legislators etc.), REALLY works.
        QUITE ABOUT NOBODY ELSE HAD INSIGHT INTO THIS SO EARLY AND SO COMPLETELY.
        I think it comes just automatically with insight into economic activity; you cannot become largely
        successful in business without a superior understanding of people and social processes – on a true, rational level, freed from ideological biases, because – things in business have to “just work”, have to function, or you, per definition, cannot be really long-term successful in business.
        The early very successful businessmen, if trader, industrialist or banker, therefore, seem to have been auto-selected, you could perhaps even call it evolutionary (one could even see a business as an “organism” that has to survive in an economic “ecosystem”) selected, to be of superior intellect.
        First, they had an information advantage because they were the only ones who gained insight into the REAL socio-economic, even psychological, processes that make people and society really work;
        then they would be auto-selected for being really smart;
        then they would become ever richer, by their information advantage and superior smarts;
        then they would be able to experiment a little with people, economy, the whole society, to test hypotheses – the whole world would be their experiment-making laboratory; thereby then gaining even more true knowledge advantage;
        and then they would, if successful, after a few generations, basically become the de-facto rulers of the world, based on their superior knowledge, superior genes for smarts, and superior raw wealth.

        Perhaps, therefore, it is absolutely not surprising that the true cognitive and power elites would emerge from dynasties of business leaders.

        After all, organisms, humans, do not just have to excrete intellectual babble (as so many “intellectuals” do) to survive and reproduce; they have to PROVE their ability and superiority, in every generation anew. Appearing smart and proving your smarts by being successful are very different things.

        And businesses and wealth need to be continually adapted to be kept or even grow;
        their superiority, their “fitness”, has to be PROVEN continually, in an extremely competitive environment. Talk is cheap (therefore we have so many “intellectuals”), continual, successful action is rare and excessively valuable.

        Maybe being successful in business over a long time can be seen as being successful at war over a long time – it REQUIRES a long string of ever-successful decisions, or you are, as a business, literally dead.

        • rien says:

          > Not from “science”, as that is public and free for everybody to learn.

          True, but what of 100 years ago?
          In those times the knowledge took some time to become distributed. And the early big companies had a habit of sponsoring research. Think of people like Bernays, they did not foster secrets (I think) but at the same time it was the early big corporations that took advantage of that knowledge.

          Also, I am thinking back possibly even further than that. The ‘blue blood’ idea. Inbreeding between power elite was fairly common. Mostly for political reasons. But I wonder if they might have happend to stumble upon something like the K-selection principles by accident.

          Mind you, I am just entertaining this idea. I don’t really know if it will lead anywhere.

  5. Pitcrew says:

    This site will analyze masculine to feminine face ratios in men and women. For best results a direct, clear portrait should be used- without hats, glasses or beards.

    http://www.pictriev.com/

Leave a Reply