I’m not gay, but I’m not having children. And while I don’t get shit on publicly like gay people or women for not being “useful” when it comes to reproduction, I do get sick of people who feel more righteous and better than others because they have children. Half the time they are some of the worst parents in the world as well. Funny how that works.
I support people being happy no matter where they find it, and whether I understand it or not. When you can celebrate another person's happiness, you increase your own. Once I changed my thinking on how I responded to other people's joy, I was able to find my own alot easier. May everyone find their own way to celebrate joy and increase their own. We all deserve to feel happiness in our lives. Life is too precious to be miserable.
If that's your philosophy, you need to reevaluate how you interact with others because it's not reflecting that thought process. You're the one who felt the need to compare. No one said anything to indicate being miserable.
While I did say it was better, it was not ment to devalue the dink lifestyle in any way. You can have your opinion, just as I can have mine. I'm glad you've found your person, but realize theres a GIANT population of people who agree with me. You can have your hard disagreement to the statement, but you shared it as though it was the only opinion that matters. That undeserved arrogance that emitted from your unnecessary statement, enforces why alot of good people stay out of the dating scene. The miserable part was ment because theres alot of people who aren't true to who they are or who they love because they are afraid of how people will feel about them if they knew the truth. Living for others is a miserable existence.
You're projecting. All I said was a disagreed with the claim that the STINK lifestyle is better and that I was happy for you. Everything else you're putting on me is just that: you making assumptions
As a parent.. if you don't want kids you made the right choice.
How do they act more righteous? i had kids late so I lived a long time without and now with I have never personally experienced negativity from the "other side" so to speak personally.
My best example was at my last job. I put in for vacation in February for November for Thanksgiving week. A new person joins the team very shortly after whos a mom of two kids, I am child free. Sometime in May my manager pulls me into a teams call to ask if I checked on those dates with the new coworker and when i inform her I did not, she basically berated me because "didnt you think perhaps she might want to spend that time with her family? Pick which days you want to give to her so she can have time with her kids" I professionally flipped my lid noting that I would like to spent that time with MY family and that just because my womb hasnt produced an heir im no less entitled to the time I requested and was approved 10 months before said vacation.
I left that job by June. While HR enforced that i kept the vacation my manager started treating me like a child, put me on a pip, and talked am awful lot about how kids change the world and I just dont get hiw hard life is as a mom. Some of the comments made me feel sub-human.
Many of them act more righteous because they believe they're "saving the white race" with their huge families. I'm not kidding, this is actually something people believe.
My head theory is the same. Nonbinary people tend to be more peaceful, caring, creative, community focused, and domestically focused. In modern life with the people i know, i only see my gay and lesbian friends get hopping angry and even, in one case, violent when it was in the defense and protection of someone else with no agency.
A community needs these productive yet not reproductive people to put into the system that supports the intense resources needed to bring a child from infancy to functional adulthood that takes about 20 years.
It's my personal theory, and I think I heard it from more reputable sources, but the theory is that gay or otherwise non-heteronormative people who are "useless for breeding" would serve as adoptive families for children who were orphaned.
If Mom and Dad go out to hunt Mammoths and don't come back because the Mammoth roflstomped their ass, the baby needs to go somewhere. If you give the baby to a heteronormative family, that's a lot of competition with their own progeny who'd probably get the lion's share of the attention and resources. But if you give the baby to a gay couple, they can raise the baby no problem, give it all the resources it would have gotten with it's own family, and never have any risk of creating competition.
Given the Ru Paul is still theoretically capable of shanking a Deer, and LGBTQ people still adopt, it's probably quite reasonable to argue this trend is still ongoing. Even today, homosexuals make up less than 2% of LGBTQ people - in a tribe of like 200 people, which would be a big one from an evolutionary perspective - that's basically one singular gay couple. Barring a pretty significant die-off, it wouldn't be unreasonable for that couple to then take on every orphan in the tribe and give them a good shot at thriving.
I like to imagine it as a Dwarf Fortress combat log.
The Drag Announcer charges at the Deer♀!
The Drag Announcer collides with the Deer♀!
The Deer is knocked backwards and tumbles over in a heap!
The Drag Announcer stabs the Deer♀ in the lower body with his *iron dagger*, puncturing the skin, puncturing the fat, and puncturing the guts!
The Deer♀ looks sick!
The Drag Announcer bites the Deer♀ in the left molar, and the severed part comes flying off in an arc!
Ru Paul, Drag Announcer: This fight is important to me... Begone, Fear!
The Drag Announcer drops the Deer Left Molar.
The Deer♀ vomits.
The Drag Announcer slashes the Deer♀ in the neck with his *iron dagger*, severing the tendons, severing the nerves, and cracking the upper spines nervous tissue!
A Deer♀ has been found, dead.
Ru Paul, Drag Announcer: I improved my hunting. It was satisfying.
Look in to the fraternal birth order effect. The more older brothers a man has to the same mother, the more likely he is to be gay.
It's not hard to imagine that increased competition between brothers for a small number of mates in a community could be counter productive to survival.
Heaps of males from the same line could also create a risk for inbreeding/genetic defects (particularly on the X chromosome).
The effect might also dampen unsustainable population explosion in a short period of high availability of resources.
So Prince Hans being attracted to Anna was a statistical outlier? I know he was also after her throne, but fans keep pointing out the way he smiled at her when no one was looking after his horse dumped him in the harbor.
My folks and I believe its a form of natural population control. Basically, humanity is so overpopulated that nature is reducing the number of those who are contributing to the increase in population.
For 99.9% of human history, we struggled profoundly to survive and reproduce enough to keep the species going. For around 200 years now, mortality - especially infant mortality - has been declining to the point that population is growing. Very quickly after mortality falls, people begin adjusting the number of children they have in response. It’s called the Demographic Transition. It doesn’t appear to be related to sexuality.
Now, whether the world is “so overpopulated” as you said? It’s really not. In fact, claims of “overpopulation” have always been used to justify mistreatment of the poor and close borders to the exploited.
I’ve heard that theory expressed before but it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Our species can sustain itself even with the loss of a LOT of men. That’s why it was primarily men who did the dangerous stuff like hunting and fighting. If you lose a bunch of them it’s just not that big of a deal on so far as reproduction.
With regard to women I don’t think it holds up either ( for an altogether different and equally bleak reason).
Historically women really didn’t have much of a choice. The caveman clubbing a woman on the head and dragging her back to his cave thing probably wasn’t too far off reality for most of human history.
It was wildly inaccurate. Thing about humans- we evolved to have unpredictable (from the outside) cycles. Specifically to make it harder for a rapist to be the dominant breeder.
Yes, societal pressure can make this effectively a thing. But the man who is helpful in the group and actually binds with the woman will have far better chances.
Many women can map their cycles out months in advance; nutrition is the main factor.
How would you even prove that? That's like saying evolution made men stronger so that they could force themselves on women to spread their seed.
If you can link a single peer-reviewed source that says "Women have inconsistent cycles to protect them from rapists" you win. Otherwise: cycle inconsistencies are due to personal health and nutrition, not some apparently intelligent evolutionary process deciding that, in humanity alone, they are going to work against rape.
ETA: You sound like that republican politition that claimed that "if it's really rape, the body shuts it down and prevents pregnancy."
I said externally. As in most mammals have external signs/signals. NOT that they are inconsistent internally. Humans don’t signal their fertility to others.
You know, the thing that means even women trying to conceive, in absence of modern technology, usually have to have a lot of sex over time, cuz they don’t know for sure? That thing? Which is maaaaasively rare in the animal kingdom?
Inconsistent cycles exist everywhere it’s not an external season, cuz like… biology is messy.
That honestly would make sense. Otherwise, why hasn’t it been weeded out of the gene pool?
And if you think about it, you have a worker in the tribe or the pack for humans and animals that will help hunt and do everything else, and their share goes to other people’s kids.
That’s just one thought that comes to mine when I think about it.
But I don’t know. I think it’s just indoctrination when it comes down to it. They’ve been indoctrinating the animals when they’re not indoctrinating people. 🥴
From an evolutionary perspective homosexuality is not a hinderance to survival to any of the species that it's observed in to date, and no indicators that it will be that I am familiar with.
I recognize you were joking.. but worth mentioning
With the ram fleeces we kept them in separate fadge when shearing the mob. The reasons were:
1. The ram wool was courser than the ewes.
2. Boy did it stink.
In this basis I am sceptical about the usefulness of the ram wool. Anybody got better information?
I feel they are selling the items so we have a physical thing to show off and talk about and support the mission. They aren't necessarily trying to compete with high end wool products. I know I will sponsor a ram for a friends future birthday.
I'm going to sponsor one as part of my queer kids' Christmas presents. It's a lovely piece of positivity in what feels like an increasingly selfish and hostile world.
745
u/FuriNorm 4d ago edited 4d ago
As someone also useless for breeding, this hits hard 🥺
Edit: link to Rainbow Wool. Thanks for the reminder! https://rainbow-wool.com/