Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DRD4 7r A Genetic Correlate Between Liberalism and Homosexuality (Shortened Title)
Anonymous Conservative Website ^ | August 26, 2012 | Anonymous Conservative

Posted on 08/26/2012 9:06:54 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative

This post requires an understanding of r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology, and it's relation to our political ideologies. For a quick rundown of this, please see our main page here.

In a previous post we posited that homosexuality may be an extreme form of the reversal in sex specific behaviors which is seen in r-selected populations, where females become more “masculine,” so as to better protect and provision the young they raise alone, while males become more effete, so as to avoid the conflict which is dangerous and disadvantageous under conditions of r-selection.

In that post, we examined the similarities in the neurobiological correlates of gays and Liberals. We then postulated that in gays, the changes which occur in the amygdala as one goes from a K-selected neurobiological structuring to an r-selected neurobiological structuring accidentally go too far, and begin affecting sexual preferences, accidentally turning a merely effete Barack Obama into a full-on Little Richard.

If this was the case, one would expect to see the long form DRD4 polymorphisms, which are one genetic foundation of a Liberal predisposition, to also be associated with homosexual behavior. Of most interest would be the 7r allele of the DRD4 gene, which has been associated with a neurobiology predisposed to Liberalism. Enter the research on the DRD4 7r long form gene:

“About half of the subjects with the long gene had ever had a male sexual partner...” (among self-identified male heterosexuals)

(See: Hamer, D. (2002). Genetics of sexual behavior. In J. Benjamin, R. P. Ebstein, R. H. Belmaker (Eds.), Molecular genetics and the human personality (pp. 257–272). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. p266.)

Yes, you read that right. Half of the male DRD4 7r carriers who claimed to be heterosexual, in the sample Hamer used, had engaged in sexual relations with another man.

So long form DRD4 polymorphisms, such as the one associated with Liberalism are associated with infidelity, promiscuity, and homosexuality. The brain structures associated with Liberalism are eerily similar to those associated with homosexuality, and as the researcher in this article discusses, even research into the reversal of sex-specific behaviors and sexual dimorphism matches as well.

Interestingly, Hamer concluded the DRD4 7r allele was mainly about promoting “novelty” in sexual behavior, and not homosexuality, per se. He maintained that he felt DRD4-7r-mediated homosexuality was merely an outgrowth of the individual's drive to find a novel form of sexual partner. This is interesting, as it further supports our contention that Liberalism is an r-strategy.

K-selection is marked by an environment where resources are insufficient, and someone will have to go without. Here, individuals are very discriminating regarding mate fitness. The fitter one's mate, the fitter one's offspring, and the more likely such offspring are to succeed in the fierce competition for the extremely limited resources which are available. This is why on finding the fittest mate possible, the K-selected individual will monopolize that mate's fitness through monogamy, seeking to prevent others from benefiting from mixing their genes with this high level of fitness, to produce offspring. Those within a K-selective environment who do not focus solely on producing fitness in offspring see their offspring starve, and their genes culled from the population. Obviously all of these K-selected urges manifest clearly in the Conservative psychology, which favors careful mate selection and monogamy, and which is focused on giving children every opportunity through high-investment rearing.

By contrast, the excess of resources which marks the r-selective environment eliminates the need for offspring to compete for resources to survive. As a result, every offspring, no matter how unfit, will be able to survive and reproduce, since resources are everywhere. In the r-selective environment, since offspring need not be fit, individuals will focus on producing more offspring, instead of fitter offspring, in an attempt to out-reproduce peers.

To this end, the r-selected organism will seize every mating opportunity, no matter how unfit the mate. Since mate fitness is unimportant, extremely r-selected individuals will not bother with monogamy or mate guarding, instead following a strategy of mating as often as possible. This will result in individuals investing as little as possible in each offspring, through low-investment rearing strategies such as single parenting.

Here, what a researcher would term sexual novelty seeking among those who carry the Liberal gene is really the absence of sexual discrimination, combined with a drive to mate with any mate, regardless of fitness, or even suitability to reproduction (when accidentally over-expressed). Under the Extreme r-Hypothesis of Homosexuality, when carried to an accidental extreme, the r-selected psychology will produce a male individual willing to mate with anything - even another male individual.

Notice also, we maintain the r-strategy of Liberalism is produced by the diminished amygdala development which Kanai et al. identified. In Kluver Bucy syndrome, amygdala dysfunction produces an individual which is prone to mating with inappropriate partners and objects. Such a grossly indiscriminate mating strategy is only favorable under conditions of r-selection.

In summary, here we see a gene which reduces the individual's ability to perform a fitness discrimination in a prospective mate, while simultaneously programming them to follow an aggressively promiscuous mating strategy. That this gene is the only gene presently associated with the Liberal political ideology only strengthens the case for Liberalism as an r-selected reproductive strategy, as identified in r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology. That homosexuality correlates with all of this would offer an interesting case that homosexuality may, in fact, arise from a periodic accidental over-expression of Liberal neurobiology. In such a case, males become inordinately effeminate, and the neurological reversal of sex specific behaviors and urges so commonly seen in r-selected individuals bleeds over into mate selection criteria. That homosexuals tend to support Liberalism overwhelmingly, and that Liberals tend to support homosexuals overwhelmingly only further cements their linkage.

Again, I would urge Liberals to quash those feelings of homophobia which would lead them to denigrate Gay America by trying to deny the scientific correlates between between gays and Liberals (as if gays were somehow unfit to be associated with the modern Liberal). To Liberals, I say you should embrace your homosexual brethren (and honestly acknowledge your own bi-curious urges). Having honestly examined ourselves, then we can all move forward, together, towards a better understanding of political ideology and it's biological purposes.

Absent an understanding of how r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology has produced our modern political ideologies, we are all fighting blindly in a battle we do not understand. With an understanding of r/K Selection Theory, we see not only the purposes behind each ideological position, but we see how Conservatism embodies all that is good, by our species' K-selected mores and virtues.


TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Politics; Science
KEYWORDS: biology; genetics; homosexualagenda; psychology; rkselection

1 posted on 08/26/2012 9:07:01 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

Perverts have always existed here and elsewhere.About 45 years ago the Rat Party,as part of its coalition building efforts,has basically declared that “anything goes” and that “the 50’s were a repressive,despicable era”.After having specifically and proudly announced their acceptance of various misfit groups...from welfare parasites to illegal aliens to sexual perverts...members of these groups have gravitated toward the Rats and,in the case of parasites and wetbacks (at least) their numbers have grown substantially.It’s simple and,IMO,need not be explained by complicated scientific graphs and tables.


2 posted on 08/26/2012 9:16:38 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (The Word Is Out,Harry Reid's Into Child Porn.Release All Your Photos,Harry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

Absolutely fascinating theory, bravo to you for your research - which answers so many questions I have had about American culture and liberals for so long. Your website which I’ve been reading is like turning on light after light in a darkened room.

For example:

“To this end, the r-selected organism will seize every mating opportunity, no matter how unfit the mate. Since mate fitness is unimportant, extremely r-selected individuals will not bother with monogamy or mate guarding, instead following a strategy of mating as often as possible. This will result in individuals investing as little as possible in each offspring, through low-investment rearing strategies such as single parenting.”


3 posted on 08/26/2012 9:22:42 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

There is an advantage in this form of understanding though.

In looking at it as r/K selection, you are able to discern the majority’s K-selected views more clearly, and see exactly where the Liberal’s r-selected views diverge. Once you see that, you can better argue in such a way as to appeal to the Lemmings.

For example, Libs support single mom’ing it. They argue every woman should be able to do as she wishes as a parent, thereby trying to make it an issue of parental freedom. K-selected individuals value freedom, so this can make the argument tolerable to the uneducated.

In the r/K paradigm though, single parenting is merely low-investment parenting, designed to maximize offspring production, at the expense of the offspring’s rearing quality. Highlight in the debate that the Liberal doesn’t care about the children, and that they are supporting something which hurts children, simply because they are programmed to not care about children or their rearing, and you create a wedge between the Lemmings, who value K-selected urges, and the Liberals. K-selected individuals will always put the child first.

I am also exploiting Liberal Narcissism, using some interesting realities in science. If enough people are talking about how Liberals and Gays are the same, Liberals will reflexively try to avoid being labeled with the Liberal tag.

Liberals need to feel superior. And for all their talk about tolerance, and the embrace of their lessers, they are remarkably bigoted. They like gays - so long as they feel superior to them, and the gays are their lessers. Begin to associate Liberalism with homosexuality, and you will hear Liberals squeal.

I actually probably understand Liberals better than Conservatives, so a lot of what I am doing is pointing out ideas which will drive Liberals crazy, if they enter the dialog.


4 posted on 08/26/2012 9:33:48 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

I agree that there are real advantages to this selection theory: Not only adding biological underpinnings to political discourse, but it also resurrects Nietzsche’s psychology of slave-ressentiment of master morality and puts a 21st century scientific spin on that.


5 posted on 08/26/2012 9:44:49 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

First off kudos and thanks for posting the entire blog.

I liked it and will visit your site.

Second, liberals are soooo ghey...


6 posted on 08/26/2012 9:57:15 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1315 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

Homosexuals and liberals- perfect together!

HOMOSEXUAL, because there’s nothing GAY about it.


7 posted on 08/26/2012 10:00:15 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

I think if enough people see it, and begin using it, it could make a differnce. I’m just hopeful enough people will look at it that ti will ctach on. It seems like the technical nature limits it’s appeal to a smaller subset of Conservatives who have mechanically minded psycholgies.

Thanks for the kind words.


8 posted on 08/26/2012 10:05:12 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: null and void

“thanks for posting the entire blog.”

Thank you for reading it.

“Second, liberals are soooo ghey...”

Agreed.


9 posted on 08/26/2012 10:06:05 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

Why isn’t this just a very short step from eugenics, Master Race concepts and all that horrific stuff?


10 posted on 08/26/2012 10:07:08 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

LOL.


11 posted on 08/26/2012 10:07:08 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

Your site is now one of my small family of bookmarked sites.


12 posted on 08/26/2012 10:20:17 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1315 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3; AnonymousConservative

It’s really no different than avoiding an ugly, stupid, ill tempered, foul smelling, irrational and sickly date.


13 posted on 08/26/2012 10:25:15 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1315 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

So homosexuals and liberals should all be receiving therapy and genetic treatment to cure their problems. The kind thing would be to bring them back to normal from their insanity.


14 posted on 08/26/2012 10:47:18 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
He maintained that he felt DRD4-7r-mediated homosexuality was merely an outgrowth of the individual's drive to find a novel form of sexual partner.

Horses, cows donkeys, goats, sheep, dogs, and Democrat womyn.... Wonder which end of that spectrum they start at.

15 posted on 08/26/2012 11:01:12 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

In a previous post we posited that homosexuality may be an extreme form of the reversal in sex specific behaviors which is seen in r-selected populations, where females become more “masculine,” so as to better protect and provision the young they raise alone, while males become more effete, so as to avoid the conflict which is dangerous and disadvantageous under conditions of r-selection.


That explains a great any things.


16 posted on 08/26/2012 11:16:41 AM PDT by 98ZJ USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

The difference between this and Eugenics is this describes Conservatism and Liberalism, and explains what the underlying forces driving both are. This understanding doesn’t, per se create a prescription.

Now if you are K, what you want prescribed will be apparent. It is freedom, where each man rises and falls on their own merit. You can argue that is Social Darwinism, but in reality it is social K-selection. Everyone earns what they can produce in free interactions with others. It’s just freedom.

If you are r-selected, you will abhor this free environment, since you will be programmed to be horrified by any thought of free competition among men. You want that r-selected environment, where everyone has free resources available, all the time, regardless of ability, effort, or determination. This is not sustainable, as we are seeing now, and as a result, it will lead to desires for Eugenics, but only where the Liberal is the one who decides who breeds, and who get’s sterilized What the extreme left side of the spectrum wants, is in truth, Social Darwinism as well, but it is Social r-selection, where everything is apportioned to all equally, by force, and nobody enjoys any advantage. Absent aggressive Eugenics, it si unsustainable, and this is why the left has been so pro-eugenics throughout history.

The problem is everyone wants something “nice.” Nature, unfortunately isn’t nice. If you embrace Conservatism, some will invariably not demonstrate ability, effort, and determination, and they will not have as much as others. It’s not nice, but it isn’t cruel either, if private charity kicks in, which it will.

If you embrace Liberalism, the r-selected cohort will engage in promiscuity and single parenting, exploding their numbers on the freely available resources you provide. They will not contribute much, and they will feel entitled to a lot, and eventually, they will crash the entire system, bringing in K-selection with a bang, as we are about to see.

At this point, I am more about characterizing all of this than prescribing solutions, which I think are obvious to the Conservative intellectual.


17 posted on 08/26/2012 11:20:17 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: null and void

“It’s really no different than avoiding an ugly, stupid, ill tempered, foul smelling, irrational and sickly date.”

Perfectly said.


18 posted on 08/26/2012 11:21:27 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

“Horses, cows donkeys, goats, sheep, dogs, and Democrat womyn.... “

They are all the same, if you’re Liberal enough!


19 posted on 08/26/2012 11:22:37 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

*shrug* The horses are prettier and smell better...


20 posted on 08/26/2012 11:34:30 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1315 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

just find a cure already


21 posted on 08/26/2012 11:41:40 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
I'm back again for more :) Thanks for posting another exploration of the r-K difference.

A question. You use the term "abundance." Have you defined it as resource certainty? I'm asking because your r-strategy model fits best with the baby-daddy welfare culture. If "abundance" matched up with total resources, you'd think that affluent liberals would be having lots of kids and affluent/powerful liberal males would further father kids from a string of mistresses. From what I've seen, though, affluent liberal males tend to have one or kids; many have none.

That disconnect between affluence and offspring could be chalked up to liberal Malthusianism, but that ZPG stuff could be a rationalization of feelings of uncertainty: the fear that the good times will run out.

While I'm on the subject, have you noticed that the greatest fertility rates in the K end of the spectrum are found in Christian cultures that aren't all that affluent? Familes like the Duggans, for example.

Also, the r-and-K seem to be mixed. There are lots of upper-middle-class liberals who seriously think that kids aren't worth having unless the parents can afford an expensive home in a quality-school district, Ivy League college, a large budget for extracurricular activites like riding lessons, etc. In terms of resource deployment, that "pre-Ivy" track is consistent with your K-strategy - namely, deploying a lot of resources on one single kid and deciding that, in the absence of such resources, there's no point in having a kid. As I noted, many professional-class liberals follow that strategy.

Have you worked socio-economic class standards into your model?

22 posted on 08/26/2012 11:54:56 AM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Interestingly, there may be a cure. John Jost exposed people to various stimuli, and found fearful stimuli triggered ideological shifts towards Conservatism across all measures of ideology. So if I exposed you to a fear of bankruptcy and inability to support yourself, you would be less likely to support generous welfare – but you would also become more Socially Conservative, and favor marriage and family issues more.

Likewise, during the Depression, there was an emphasis on paternal investment, ie family values.

What it looks like is we are programmed. When things get harsher and more competitive, we develop to go more K, and become more Conservative, as a sort of Darwinian strategy adapting us to more competitive environments. It may have something to do with fearful stimuli triggering the amygdala, and developing it, and that development translating into K-type behaviors across the board. So fearful stimuli are like exercise for the amydgala, developing it, and actually creating the larger amygdala volumes seen by Kanai on the MRI’s of Conservatives, in the study above.

Now, looking at all of it, I wonder if that is why 4 years of Carter made Reagan a possibility. It may also be why the easy economy of yesterday left kids expecting to get out of college with a masters in Womyn’s Rights, and just have a six figure salary waiting for them.

And I suspect after the global economic collapse that is coming, when people are having trouble feeding their families, they are going to be a whole lot less in favor of paying money to government, to buy free cellphones for bums. By contrast, even the bums, forced to fend for themselves, will probably statistically become more Conservative, and more driven to go out and do something productive. They will have to, and that will change them psychologically, as a group.

It’s ironic, but if the environment is too easy, we revert to the r-strategy, as a population, and society will become more Liberal. Since Liberalism destroys the society economically, and makes things less nice, it is self limiting. I expect we will be heading back, very K, in a relatively short period, and ironically, we will have the Liberals to thank.


23 posted on 08/26/2012 11:58:40 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: null and void

“The horses are prettier and smell better...”

That is very true.


24 posted on 08/26/2012 11:59:23 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
I know.


25 posted on 08/26/2012 12:03:48 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1315 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

Marker worthy...


26 posted on 08/26/2012 12:19:18 PM PDT by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan

One hallmark of r-selection is diminished rearing drives. r-types don’t like kids as much, and it manifests in a lot of ways. Oddly enough one researcher tested Liberals and Conservatives and found females Liberals preferred the smell of coffee over newborn babies, while female conservatives preferred the smell of the babies. So it is probably a holistic thing. The other side of the coin is Elton John, who laments his child will be so horribly affected by not having a mother that he wants to get another kid who can commiserate with his current one about their horrible lives. Notice the female relatives of Homosexuals in the last post’s study had a diminished desire for kids, even as they had more offspring.

Now in a state of nature, without birth control, or abortion, or a knowledge of where babies came from, r-type drives produce a lot of mating, and fathers who aren’t driven to hang around to parent, and mothers who kick the kid out at the earliest moment for convenience, so they can begin on the next brood. That strategy maximizes r (the variable which represents reproductive rate in equations describing population dynamics), and doesn’t really have a downside. Your goal is to produce as many offspring as possible who go on to mate themselves. If resources are free, and there is no competition, the fact the kid was kicked out at twelve to fend for himself won’t be as deleterious as it would be if all the resources were taken by mature males, as they would be in K-selection.

So today, you have an r-type psychology, living in a world where having a baby is, for all intents and purposes, a conscious choice. Wealthy Liberals, who would probably score high on measures of conscientiousness, do what is necessary to avoid the child, and the costs inherent to it in our society. R-individuals who aren’t as conscientious don’t worry about anything but the moment, and they are the ones who end up with ten kids by ten different mommas.

I suspect in today’s world, the r-trait is going to adapt to the newer selection of easy birth control to be much less conscientious, maybe with a subset of individuals who really want kids, but don’t think too far ahead.

Of course, generous welfare is serving as an r-selective pressure, and it will favor the growth of a massive underclass of fast breeding individuals with low conscientiousness, as Charles Murray has been documenting.

On Liberals who hyper-invest, I see it as a confluence of variables. Notice, they don’t invest in a way which is personally costly to them. If they were poorer, I don’t think they would move to a more ramshackle house to have a kid. They tend to be mostly affluent, so the investing isn’t really personally costly to any measure of value to them.

Also the r-trait involves not wanting kids, so when you combine a hyper-affluent individual with one child, you are going to see a high level of investment, though I suspect it is superficial investment which isn’t personally costly, and which is more about competing with the Jones.

Personally, I see a woman who abandons her job to home-school as investing more highly (from a psychological perspective) in her offspring than a millionaire family who sends their offspring off to Andover, and only sees the child a few months a year.

But it’s worth noting, in nature, r and K are not clearly defined, with an ironclad line of demarcation between them either in individuals or species. Rather, you see it as you zoom out from the group, and statistics aggregate. At the individual level, it is possible for aspects of strategies to combine in an individual, and produce individuals who seem to follow hybrid strategies. Even many species, due to unique aspects of their environmental, can combine competitiveness with r-type mating strategies, or aversions to competition with K-type mating strategies. As you zoom out, they disappear, but they do exist. r/K is particularly noted as being density dependent.


27 posted on 08/26/2012 12:57:01 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
Thanks for the response. I asked because the scientific measure of relative fitness is the differential reproduction rate. By this standard, Bill and Melinda Gates are less fit than Leroy & Lurleen (if you get my drift.) That's why the term "social Darwinism" is vague and often unscientific - and not often accurate, either. It makes for a good accusation word :) but not much else.

Perhaps we need that mythical Martian biologist. If you apply the Darwinian standard of fitness, generally accepted in the scientific community, you get fitness rankings that are strikingly at odds with affluence ranks. Given that resource plentitude is s'posed to be translated into more offspring, it makes for a puzzle...

28 posted on 08/26/2012 1:30:03 PM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
From what I can gather people with that are more likely to have had sex of all sorts than people without it.

It looks like you're selecting the parts of the data that will support your creepy agenda, rather than looking at the whole picture.

29 posted on 08/26/2012 1:41:06 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
It's funny. Every one of those women has their mouth in the classic sad position, with outer corners pulled down.

It's tough to find a picture of Laura Bush not smiling, but here, she clearly doesn't carry that particular emotional indice.

Nor does Carla Bruni, though Michelle clearly has a whole different thing going on.

Yep, Horses are definitely better.

30 posted on 08/26/2012 1:44:03 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry,

31 posted on 08/26/2012 1:47:35 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1315 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: x

You’ve gotta read the post. I point out exactly how that exists as diminshed mate discrimination, and how that is exactly what you see combined with promiscuity in r-selection.


32 posted on 08/26/2012 1:47:56 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: null and void

The number of sorries was about ten fold too low.


33 posted on 08/26/2012 1:49:52 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

At least I didn’t post one of her ugly pictures...


34 posted on 08/26/2012 1:52:07 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1315 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
So long form DRD4 polymorphisms, such as the one associated with Liberalism are associated with infidelity, promiscuity, and homosexuality. The brain structures associated with Liberalism are eerily similar to those associated with homosexuality, and as the researcher in this article discusses, even research into the reversal of sex-specific behaviors and sexual dimorphism matches as well.

Once an experimental or alternative lifestyle is scientifically proven to be biologically determined from birth, libtards who want them to be considered equal to traditional lifestyles will have an additional argument to use.Pedophilia and incest may be next.

35 posted on 08/26/2012 1:59:36 PM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 98ZJ USMC

I think it does explain a lot. It’s kind of funny to look at r/K in evolutionary biology, and see them say r-selected psychologies need free resources for everyone (to avoid any competitive selection for fitness), and this produces aversions to competition and fleeing from conflict, as well as promiscuity, single-parenting, and earlier age of sexual activity. On top of that, r-selection produces individuals with no loyalty to in-group (since they avoid all competition, even in groups), and it produces manly females and feminine males.

You couldn’t describe the average Liberal any better. Much of their psychology is just bunny-rabbit like.


36 posted on 08/27/2012 9:56:37 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson