by Duke Newcomb
The natural rate of homosexuality for males is probably about 5%. About 5% of the male population regularly watches gay porn. Periods of time in which population density… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=497098244220404&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-01 01:48:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1190083103504687104
(ouch)
Ok, so horrible human behavior of the week, is superglue in the KY (gay), and chili powder in the vag (straight). That’s before we get to the usual south american, african, and asian beating, burning, and hacking human beings to bits for fun and profit.
Humans aren’t.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-01 00:43:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1190066754829111296
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201608/more-evidence-regarding-the-causes-homosexuality—“More Evidence Regarding the Causes of Homosexuality
“Genetically determined” and “choice” are not the only two options.”—
NET NET
1. Homosexuality is caused by an immune response, by the mother, in utero (we have known this for ages).
2. The immune response or insufficient immune response, fails to induce miscarriage.
3. The child is born under-developed and underweight. (Left handedness is caused by a similar underdevelopment.)
4. Prior presumption was immune response to y-chromosome proteins. Present presumption it is in response to defect in the child being interpreted as infection, and therefore miscarriage. Data is very, very, hard to argue with.
5. There is every reason to believe this is a preventable birth defect.
6. Individuals have no choice, however, trauma or insufficient socialization can exacerbate developmental problems causing expression (similar to body image mental illness issues). Humans are grown. We can grow them poorly.
I have seen nothing in almost two decades that would provide a superior theory.
FROM PSYCHOLOGY TODAY
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201608/more-evidence-regarding-the-causes-homosexuality
The logic underlying a Lady Gaga song, “Born This Way,” commits it firmly to the naturalistic fallacy. Specifically, many aspects of the development of homosexuality (both the male and female varieties) are not as well understood as they should be to make some of the claims that many people felt confident in expressing. Today, however, there is new—and very interesting—research that might pave the way for furthering that understanding. Many important questions still remain regarding how to interpret the results of this research, but researchers are certainly looking in the right places for useful leads.
There’s a lot to discuss regarding the results of the paper (Skorska et al, 2016): The researchers were examining the possibility that a maternal immune response might play a key role in the developmental of a homosexual orientation in males. This effect is said to be the result of the mother’s immune system having a maladaptive reaction to the male-specific proteins associated with the Y-chromosome during pregnancy. Effectively, then, the mother’s immune system would (sometimes) treat certain male proteins produced by the fetus as a foreign pathogen and attempt to attack it, resulting in outcomes that could include a homosexual orientation, but also fetal loss if the reaction was strong enough (i.e., a miscarriage). Already there is a lot to like about this hypothesis on a theoretical level, as it doesn’t posit any hidden adaptive benefits for a homosexual orientation (as such proposed benefits have not received sound empirical support historically). The question remains as to how to test for this kind of an effect, however. The method that the authors use is a rather simple one: examining maternal reports of fetal loss and birth weights. The logic here is that higher rates of fetal loss and lower birth weights both index perturbations in development. As such, they could provide indirect evidence for some kind of maternal immune response doing the causing.
The researchers recruited approximately 130 mothers and classified them on the basis of what kind of children they had: those who had at least 1 gay son (n = 54), and those who only had heterosexual sons (n = 72). These mothers were asked about their age, pregnancy history (numbers of miscarriages, stillbirths, and live births), the duration of their pregnancies, and the sex and sexual orientation of their offspring. These mothers were then classified further into one of five groups: those with gay male only-children (n = 8), those with gay male offspring that had no older brothers (n = 23), those with gay male offspring with older brothers (n = 23), those with heterosexual male only-children (n = 11), and those with heterosexual male offspring with siblings (n = 61).
First, the authors compared the history of fetal loss between these groups of mothers. In total, 62 instances of fetal loss were reported (60 miscarriages, 1 still birth, and 1 unreported). As predicted, the average number of fetal losses were higher in the first group (mothers of gay male only-children; M = 1.25), relative to all the other groups (d = 0.76), which did not significantly differ from each other (respective Ms = 0.43, 0.74, 0.09, and 0.39). When considered in terms of the ratio of miscarriages to live to births, a similar picture emerged: mothers of gay male only-children reported more miscarriages to live births (M = 1.25) than the other groups (d = 1.55), which did not differ from each other (respective Ms = 0.14, 0.24, 0.09, and 0.17).
Next, the authors sought to compare birth weight between the former groups. As birth weight tends to increase over successive pregnancies, the comparisons were limited to first live-born sons only (n = 63); this left 4 gay male only-children, 7 gay males with no older brothers, 14 heterosexual males with gay younger brothers, 10 heterosexual male only-children, and 28 heterosexual males with siblings. The results mirrored those of the fetal-loss data: mothers of gay male only-children tended to give birth to infants that weighed significantly less (M = 2970 grams), than all other groups (d = 1.21), which did not differ (respective Ms = 3713, 3489, 3506, and 3633). This was the case despite the duration of pregnancies not differing between any of the groups.
In sum, then, mothers of gay male only-children tended to have a greater number of miscarriages and give birth to significantly lighter offspring than mothers of other kinds. While it’s important to not get carried away with this finding given the relatively small sample size (I wouldn’t put too much stock in an N of 8), there is some suggestive evidence here worth pursuing further that something is atypical in fetal development in the case of gay male offspring. That said, I’m going to assume for a moment that these results are indicative of more general patterns in order to speculate about what they could mean.
In general, these results present us with more questions than answers concerning both what might be going on, as well as why it is happening. The first question that comes to mind is why this effect seemed to be specific to gay male only-children, rather than gay male children with siblings? Skorska et al (2016) posit that this might have something to do with some mothers showing a greater immune response against male offspring, resulting in more fetal loss, the net result being that such mothers are both less likely to have any children at all and more likely to have gay male children in particular. While that might have some degree of plausibility to it, it seems that such an effect should be male-specific, and not expected to impact the number of live female births a mother has. In other words, mothers with gay male offspring should be expected to have proportionately more female children owing to a greater male fetal loss. I don’t know of any data bearing on that point, but it seems easy enough to obtain. If mothers of gay men do not tend to have a greater ratio of female-to-male offspring, this would cast some doubt on the explanation (and, since the only data I’ve heard reports that gay men tend to have more older brothers, it seems they would have noticed the sister point by now if it existed). On the other hand, if this is a more general immune reaction against fetal bodies, regardless of their sex, we would not expect such a pattern (it might also predict that mothers taking immunosuppressants would be less likely to have gay offspring/miscarry, but things are unlikely to be that simple owing to the fact that other effects would result too).
Another piece worth considering is the twin data on homosexuality. Identical male twins—those who share both their genetics and maternal fetal environment—only show a concordance rate of homosexuality of approximately 30%. The extent to which this complicates the maternal immune hypothesis is hard to say: it could be possible that one twin tends to get exposed to the brunt of these maternal antibodies despite both being approximately as vulnerable to them, but that remains to be seen.
On a broader, theoretical level, however, the maternal immune response hypothesis raises an important question. As far as I’m aware, homosexual preferences (not the occasional behavior) do not appear to be well documented in nonhuman species; the only exception I’m aware of is Rams. If it is truly the case that maternal immune responses are the drivers of homosexual development in humans, it would be very curious that similar outcomes don’t appear to obtain across at least other mammalian species. I suppose it’s possible that these outcomes do occur in other species and it’s just the case that no one has really noticed it yet, but I doubt that’s very likely. So the matter of why humans seem rather unique in that regard is a question that needs answering.
This brings me to the final idea; one that I’ve discussed before. It is indeed possible that looking for something immune-related is in the right ballpark, but maybe in the wrong area. Perhaps what we’re seeing isn’t necessarily the result of a maternal immune response against male fetuses, but rather the result of an immune response against an actual infectious agent (or the result of that agent’s behavior itself). Admittedly, I’m no expert in the realm of immune system functioning or infectious agents, but two possibilities come to mind: first, perhaps mothers infected with a particular pathogen during fetal development might ramp up their immune response temporarily, a byproduct of which being that fetal bodies get fewer resources from the mother or caught up in the immune response themselves, both of which could plausibly affect development. Mothers more-chronically affected might have fewer children in general and more gay male children in particular, potentially explaining the current pattern of results. Alternatively, it is possible that some infectious agent itself affects the development of the fetus (such as how pathogens can render people blind or deaf). As a byproduct of that infection, if acquired during a particular critical developmental window, the child comes to develop a homosexual orientation (or is miscarried by the mother). At present, I am not aware of any evidence that speaks to this possibility, but it certainly accords with the known data.
References
Skorska, M., Blanchard, R., VanderLaan, D., Zucker, K., & Bogaert, A. (2016). Gay male only-children: Evidence for low birth weight and high maternal miscarriage rates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI: 10.1007/s10508-016-0829-9Updated Oct 31, 2019, 9:59 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 21:59:00 UTC
by Duke Newcomb
The natural rate of homosexuality for males is probably about 5%. About 5% of the male population regularly watches gay porn. Periods of time in which population density increases and the birth rate per woman gets over three will result in an even larger gay male population due to epigenetic changes. Then you have to factor in M2F transgenderism and the males who prefer M2Fs to biological women. I’d say we’re now up to 6 to 7% of all males at the least.
Then you have some proportion of the male population who will die before reproductive age due to risk behavior. Then you have males who are simply unmarriageable for a variety of reasons (e.g. temperament, disability, pathological indolence). Conservatively, I’d say even in the best of times 10% of the born male population will be unserviceable in marriage markets.
Then you have those who die in war. Which, in the worse of times, can be tremendous. Especially when there is a new paradigm of war, like WWI with industrialized warfare. This may be the case again when combat drones are fielded alongside human warriors at large scale.
So, what are we supposed to do with all the potential spinsters? You want to talk about instability, stagnation, and collapse. Have you ever talked politics with a cat lady? They’d throw open the gates without hesitation or mental reservation.
An excess of cat ladies is a social nightmare for everyone.
What is to be done about it if not polygamy?
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 21:48:00 UTC
FRIENDSHIP-FULFILLMENT MARRIAGE
European American Invention
1970’s
Possible due to (a) rise of consumer class as majority (middle class consumer majority) (b) women’s role in disposing of 70%+ of household income, (c) women’s targeting by mass media, (d) the pill (e) economic demand for women in work force in response to demand for female driven consumption. (f) end of necessity for marriage for economic means. (g) resulting in decrease in demand for male work productivity and participation, resulting in decline in quality and number of desirable males. (h) resulting in male exit from social economic interests in the polity.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 21:41:00 UTC
(ouch)
Ok, so horrible human behavior of the week, is superglue in the KY (gay), and chili powder in the vag (straight). That’s before we get to the usual south american, african, and asian beating, burning, stabbing, shooting, and hacking human beings to bits for fun and profit.
Humans aren’t.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 20:43:00 UTC
PACKS: WE ARE HUNTING THE LARGEST PREY. 🙂
(for Sheepdog Nomocracy folks)
—“Risk to predators hunting dangerous prey is an emerging area of research and could account for possible persistent differences in gray wolf (Canis lupus) pack sizes. … Our data support the hypothesis that the persistence of differences in pack-size may be perpetuated by differences in risk to wolves of their primary prey, and we highlight two important extensions of this idea: (1) the potential for wolves to provision and defend injured pack-mates from other wolves and (2) the importance of less-risky, buffer prey to pack-size persistence and year-to-year variation.”—
WOLF SUPER-PACKS (PAC’s? 😉 ) EXIST
—“In the winter of 2010-11, a “super pack” of wolves numbering up to 400 reportedly terrorized the Russian town of Verkhoyansk (population 1,300) in northern region of Yakutia, one of the remotest inhabited areas in the northern hemisphere. More than 30 horses were killed in just four days, according to local officials, and teams of hunters were established to patrol neighbourhoods and shoot the wolves on sight.”—
NORTHERN WOLVES ARE BIGGEST
—“Wolves increase exponentially in size the further they are from the equator. Wolves of the tropics are often no larger than medium sized dogs, but those of the far north (Alaska, Canada, and Russia) can be in excess of 120lbs. The largest wolf ever killed in North America was taken in Alaska in 1939 and tipped the scales at 175lbs. In the former Ukraine SSR, a still more massive wolf was killed that weighed 190lbs. There are unsubstantiated reports of 200lb+ specimens, presumably alpha males in areas that boast a steady food supply.”—
WOLVES IN THE AMERICAS ARE NICER
—“Wolves in the Americas are less likely to attack humans than elsewhere in the world.There are very few verifiable records of wolf attacks in the US and Canada, but in Europe and Asia, wolves are far nastier. Historical accounts indicate over 3,000 people killed in France between 1580-1830. In the Middle Ages throughout Europe, special structures were built along highways for travelers to take refuge from roving packs. The wolves of India and Russia are also particularly well known to claim human victims. During World War I, soldiers from the Allied and Central Forces were occasionally forced to join forces fighting off starving wolves attracted by the scent of blood on the battlefield.”—
NO MERCY
—“Wolves eat their prey alive.”—
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 19:03:00 UTC
—“I would like to know if there has always been a difference in the way women and men have voted, or if the women’s lib movement in the 60’s marked the time when women moved to the left.”—Susan Bigs
Short answer: Men and women have different biological functions, abilities, instincts, intuitions, and incentives. We always follow our incentives. We always organize to promote our group’s incentives. The family is a compromise where in we share the same interests. The market for cmmons in the state, and the market for goods and services outside of the state, allow those already in the family to compromise in a market of mutual exchange. And allow the classes of families to cooperate on means even if we share different ends.
The primary difference is between married women with children allied with husbands (conservatively), and unmarried, single mothers, and increasingly university indoctrinated women and men to vote left.
For the first generation, women voted conservatively. It changed after that. It changed radically when the jewish marxists failed to create class warfare due to the failure of marxism and the success of european markets under rule of law, and when those marxists in the frankfurt school switched from to cultural marxism to undermine our culture, then the jewish postmodernists switched to identity politics to undermining cooperation between us, and then when jewish feminists switched to undermining cooperation with the genders.
Birth control began it. The control over women over family spending and 70% of all spending and the influence of marketing to women increased promotion of it. The decline in economic necessity of husbands decreased it. The increase in entry of more women into the workforce, partly because of it increased it, the decline in births because of it also, the decline of marriages because of it, the decline in the duration of marriages because of it, and the decline in the two income household driving down average household wages did it. The increase in college debt -especially for women who took ‘gut’ courses (and mostly still do), provided incentive to the academy who promoted it. And the rest is history. In other words, men and women share the same interests in a famly, and historically, a married man, represented his family, if he and his family held property (and if he fought in the military when needed), then his vote was in the compromise interests of the family.
Our failure was in maintaining one house of parliament/commons instead of continuing the practice of adding houses for the classes. Had women had their own house, and had labor had it’s own house, then the ‘evils’ of majoritarianism would not have destroyed our country and our demographics as a side effect of female differences in voting by demanding more resources from the state, and devoted resources to the reproduction of the underclasses, instead of the production of commons from which we had so long enjoyed the returns.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 15:18:00 UTC
WORDS OF WISDOM: THE KING OF THE HILL EDUCATION
—“Riffing off each other creates the best teaching posts and the best learning posts… the best way to learn something is to teach it.. Thanks Curt and Bill..”—Tobias Darby
Multiple overlapping King of The Hill Games – over time – rather than under time pressure – are the optimum means of teaching men, and it certainly appears the optimum means of teaching women, who prefer not to climb, but to observe, support and criticize.
This is my vision of education, and it will mean only the best of us will be able to teach, and as such teaching weill become as it should be and is in other civilizations the most respected of positions rather than a clerical position largely one of babysitting.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 13:30:00 UTC
—“The agency that they currently possess is precisely the agency which we have afforded no more and no less.”—Leif Erickson
(The elegance of the statement is that it forces you to ask that question, and in doing so, demonstrate your bias, when the only unbiased answer is “all”.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 07:01:00 UTC