The catch is that lesbians usually don't like men and prefer not to have them around; this is a substantial *asymmetry* between male and female homosexuals.
There are a fair amount of women who will get into 'male' stuff as a way of meeting men, whether it's athletic women getting into sports or chunkier women getting into nerd stuff where there's less competition. I don't actually see this as a problem, but it's notable they don't try to look particularly butch usually.
You are heading in the right direction on male sexual behaviours but way off base wrt females. John Maynard Smith knew that his model applied to humans but society was not ready. Still isn’t. Robert Trivers’s magisterial “The Folly of Fools” extends Smith’s game theory to self-deception but again pulled punches when it came to “homosexuality.” Under these (correct) models there is no such thing as homosexuality - it’s all signalling. Also lesbianism is really female intrasexual competition to suppress fertility in rivals.
Thanks for citing my obscure chapter on this; I'm surprised anyone read it! Your summary is great, and I enjoyed reading about some new research. I ran a study on this topic for my dissertation, if anyone wants a copy. Short story is, I found very little, and it's a hard question to investigate in the West.
I have access to a dataset of autogynephilic men (i.e., men who are aroused when they dress as women). If anyone wants to analyze such a sample to test sneaker fucker hypotheses, hit me up.
Jesse, I always find your work intellectually stimulating. What I admire is that you take ideas seriously even when they are uncomfortable or counterintuitive. Evolutionary psychology is most interesting precisely when it forces us to consider hypotheses that don’t simply confirm our intuitions, but expand what might be true. This piece is a good example of that. You don’t moralize or oversimplify. You keep the nuance, the plausibility, the role of signals and perceptions, and the crucial distinction between what is real and what people believe is real in mating psychology. Even when I don’t fully agree with a hypothesis, I still appreciate your writing because it pushes thinking into terrains that most avoid. Intellectual courage is rare. Thanks for continuing to exercise it. All the best
The catch is that lesbians usually don't like men and prefer not to have them around; this is a substantial *asymmetry* between male and female homosexuals.
There are a fair amount of women who will get into 'male' stuff as a way of meeting men, whether it's athletic women getting into sports or chunkier women getting into nerd stuff where there's less competition. I don't actually see this as a problem, but it's notable they don't try to look particularly butch usually.
You are heading in the right direction on male sexual behaviours but way off base wrt females. John Maynard Smith knew that his model applied to humans but society was not ready. Still isn’t. Robert Trivers’s magisterial “The Folly of Fools” extends Smith’s game theory to self-deception but again pulled punches when it came to “homosexuality.” Under these (correct) models there is no such thing as homosexuality - it’s all signalling. Also lesbianism is really female intrasexual competition to suppress fertility in rivals.
Hi Len. I am interested in your thoughts. Can you elaborate on that last sentence
https://youtu.be/1YGWxs0d_WI?si=8dCtzcBzIko0rREo
Thanks for citing my obscure chapter on this; I'm surprised anyone read it! Your summary is great, and I enjoyed reading about some new research. I ran a study on this topic for my dissertation, if anyone wants a copy. Short story is, I found very little, and it's a hard question to investigate in the West.
I have access to a dataset of autogynephilic men (i.e., men who are aroused when they dress as women). If anyone wants to analyze such a sample to test sneaker fucker hypotheses, hit me up.
Jesse, I always find your work intellectually stimulating. What I admire is that you take ideas seriously even when they are uncomfortable or counterintuitive. Evolutionary psychology is most interesting precisely when it forces us to consider hypotheses that don’t simply confirm our intuitions, but expand what might be true. This piece is a good example of that. You don’t moralize or oversimplify. You keep the nuance, the plausibility, the role of signals and perceptions, and the crucial distinction between what is real and what people believe is real in mating psychology. Even when I don’t fully agree with a hypothesis, I still appreciate your writing because it pushes thinking into terrains that most avoid. Intellectual courage is rare. Thanks for continuing to exercise it. All the best