Will people liking femboys cease to exist?

[vespertine]

It's a maladaptive trait. If you succeed at getting a femboy, you can't even get them pregnant; its an evolutionary dead end. Over time, natural selection will weed out this trait.

 

[dipenhydramine]

no whenever i look at a woman and dont see a huge throbbing cock i get filled with true incel rage ane go ER

 

[BigDihDiddy]

Femboy smv is at a all time high

 

[vespertine]

Femboy smv is at a all time high

yes but long term what will happen

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

It's a maladaptive trait. If you succeed at getting a femboy, you can't even get them pregnant; its an evolutionary dead end. Over time, natural selection will weed out this trait.

we have come to a point in society where we no longer bend the knee to evolutionary pressures.

 

[BigDihDiddy]

yes but long term what will happen

Femboys will eventually take over most men and foids won’t be able to cope so some of them will become masc girls

Eventually 90% of relationships will be gay and lesbian and foids will sell their bodies for artificial insemination so faggots can have kids and vice versa

 

[cindythetvisleaking]

 

[Kykas]

It's a maladaptive trait. If you succeed at getting a femboy, you can't even get them pregnant; its an evolutionary dead end. Over time, natural selection will weed out this trait.

Its unnatural anyways same can be said for homo

If so it can not fully genetic hormonal imbalance or culture might contribute heavily

 

[Kykas]

Femboys will eventually take over most men and foids won’t be able to cope so some of them will become masc girls

Eventually 90% of relationships will be gay and lesbian and foids will sell their bodies for artificial insemination so faggots can have kids and vice versa

Genetic editing will be widespread

 

[BigDihDiddy]

Genetic editing will be widespread

U guys act like this is gonna affect the average f*g

Guess what genetic editing will 1 only be for very rich ppl

And 2 not even the giga chad mutants who come from it will present a threat as they will be dating the rich giga stacies and not stealing anyone’s Becky

If anything genetic editing is gonna separate the rich from the poor a lot

 

[0das0ky0]

It's a maladaptive trait. If you succeed at getting a femboy, you can't even get them pregnant; its an evolutionary dead end. Over time, natural selection will weed out this trait.

actually, its a learned trait

 

[talktuahfanboy1]

It's a maladaptive trait. If you succeed at getting a femboy, you can't even get them pregnant; its an evolutionary dead end. Over time, natural selection will weed out this trait.

femboys are disgusting

 

[Kykas]

Your acting like it's some unk

U guys act like this is gonna affect the average f*g

Guess what genetic editing will 1 only be for very rich ppl

And 2 not even the giga chad mutants who come from it will present a threat as they will be dating the rich giga stacies and not stealing anyone’s Becky

If anything genetic editing is gonna separate the rich from the poor a lot

nown tech brother crisper ain't that expensive an above average income guy could save up and edit his kids jfl I actually calculated the cost,also we dont what will happen to the elite and considering isreal wants Jewish proficies to come true a lot will happen the next few years

Also the rich are gonna be doing it anyways

 

[limo8]

we have come to a point in society where we no longer bend the knee to evolutionary pressures.

not that close tbh

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

not that close tbh

obesity, retardation, etc

 

[Kykas]

obesity, retardation, etc

The existence of homosexuality is already proof

 

[Transposon]

Maladaptive if you only focus on reproduction itself, which is a very close minded way to look at evolution. Plenty of behaviors dont directly improve your reproductional fitness. This reductionist understanding of evolution fails to explain many things like altruism. Life is complex. Homosexual behavior can have many positive effects on a population, for example: social bonding, grooming each other, literally practicing sex, or raising abandoned young. In that sense there are many reasons why homosexual behavior might have a positive effect on a populations Fitness.

But even if it didn't: actual maladaptive behavior isnt any "worse" then is the actual adaptive behavior. Its just a different way to live. A black widow that isnt into being eaten after sex might live a very long life compared to its brothers, it just wont have any babies. This is what social darwinists get wrong about evolution. Things being maladaptive is a consequence of natural variability in a species. This variability is what makes evolution possible. If somehow, for whatever reason the Environment were to change in a drastic way, making homosexual behavior even better for fitness (in theory), a species without any homosexuals would die out, while one with homosexuals will live on. People being different isnt a bad thing.

Even if there was no advantage to being gay, trans, autistic or whatever (in reality there are of course advantages), and being this way had only negative effects on fitness, evolution works by natural selection. It doesn't produce "perfect" organisms. It produces organisms that exist. If that existence goes on to another generation it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Evolution isnt about "survival of the fittest". Its about reproduction of the reproducer.

 

[Transposon]

Maladaptive if you only focus on reproduction itself, which is a very close minded way to look at evolution. Plenty of behaviors dont directly improve your reproductional fitness. This reductionist understanding of evolution fails to explain many things like altruism. Life is complex. Homosexual behavior can have many positive effects on a population, for example: social bonding, grooming each other, literally practicing sex, or raising abandoned young. In that sense there are many reasons why homosexual behavior might have a positive effect on a populations Fitness.

But even if it didn't: actual maladaptive behavior isnt any "worse" then is the actual adaptive behavior. Its just a different way to live. A black widow that isnt into being eaten after sex might live a very long life compared to its brothers, it just wont have any babies. This is what social darwinists get wrong about evolution. Things being maladaptive is a consequence of natural variability in a species. This variability is what makes evolution possible. If somehow, for whatever reason the Environment were to change in a drastic way, making homosexual behavior even better for fitness (in theory), a species without any homosexuals would die out, while one with homosexuals will live on. People being different isnt a bad thing.

Even if there was no advantage to being gay, trans, autistic or whatever (in reality there are of course advantages), and being this way had only negative effects on fitness, evolution works by natural selection. It doesn't produce "perfect" organisms. It produces organisms that exist. If that existence goes on to another generation it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Evolution isnt about "survival of the fittest". Its about reproduction of the reproducer.

feel free to mark as solution

 

[vespertine]

Maladaptive if you only focus on reproduction itself, which is a very close minded way to look at evolution. Plenty of behaviors dont directly improve your reproductional fitness. This reductionist understanding of evolution fails to explain many things like altruism. Life is complex. Homosexual behavior can have many positive effects on a population, for example: social bonding, grooming each other, literally practicing sex, or raising abandoned young. In that sense there are many reasons why homosexual behavior might have a positive effect on a populations Fitness.

But even if it didn't: actual maladaptive behavior isnt any "worse" then is the actual adaptive behavior. Its just a different way to live. A black widow that isnt into being eaten after sex might live a very long life compared to its brothers, it just wont have any babies. This is what social darwinists get wrong about evolution. Things being maladaptive is a consequence of natural variability in a species. This variability is what makes evolution possible. If somehow, for whatever reason the Environment were to change in a drastic way, making homosexual behavior even better for fitness (in theory), a species without any homosexuals would die out, while one with homosexuals will live on. People being different isnt a bad thing.

Even if there was no advantage to being gay, trans, autistic or whatever (in reality there are of course advantages), and being this way had only negative effects on fitness, evolution works by natural selection. It doesn't produce "perfect" organisms. It produces organisms that exist. If that existence goes on to another generation it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Evolution isnt about "survival of the fittest". Its about reproduction of the reproducer.

your points about altruism, social bonding, or helping with orphaned young don’t apply directly to attraction to femboys.

i wasn't asking about the adaptive value of sexual diversity in general, just whether whether natural selection would "weed out" a preference that reduces direct reproduction.

the examples you mentioned like black widows or gay behavior aren't analogues to human preference for a non-reproductive behavior, they're examples of indirect or inclusive fitness.

of course evolution doesn't produce "perfect" organisms, but what you say is mainly a lecture on general principles unspecific to the point i brought up jokingly.

 

[Transposon]

just whether whether natural selection would "weed out" a preference that reduces direct reproduction.

That is, based upon the assumption, being gay requires very direct - genetic control.
Say, if there exists a 'gay gene', (as was hypothesized in the past), from a Darwinian angle, after a certain number of generations it would only make sense for this gene to die out.
In reality, you see homosexuality is a result of some polygenic inputs, coupled with epigenetic markers, pre-natal environment's hormone levels, and materialized into real life choices by social conditioning.

 

[vespertine]

That is, based upon the assumption, being gay requires very direct - genetic control.
Say, if there exists a 'gay gene', (as was hypothesized in the past), from a Darwinian angle, after a certain number of generations it would only make sense for this gene to die out.
In reality, you see homosexuality is a result of some polygenic inputs, coupled with epigenetic markers, pre-natal environment's hormone levels, and materialized into real life choices by social conditioning.

alright this is some actual nuance thats making me more inclined to believe the 99.997 iq percentile larp

 

[Vampi]

It's a maladaptive trait. If you succeed at getting a femboy, you can't even get them pregnant; its an evolutionary dead end. Over time, natural selection will weed out this trait.

there will always be a porn addict or new guy finding out femboys exist, they existed since acient rome and they will exist till the end of the world (2027)

 

[Justice_]

idk lil bro

 

[Vampi]

idk lil bro

we got an example of a living femboy right here it seems

 

[Kykas]

Maladaptive if you only focus on reproduction itself, which is a very close minded way to look at evolution. Plenty of behaviors dont directly improve your reproductional fitness. This reductionist understanding of evolution fails to explain many things like altruism. Life is complex. Homosexual behavior can have many positive effects on a population, for example: social bonding, grooming each other, literally practicing sex, or raising abandoned young. In that sense there are many reasons why homosexual behavior might have a positive effect on a populations Fitness.

But even if it didn't: actual maladaptive behavior isnt any "worse" then is the actual adaptive behavior. Its just a different way to live. A black widow that isnt into being eaten after sex might live a very long life compared to its brothers, it just wont have any babies. This is what social darwinists get wrong about evolution. Things being maladaptive is a consequence of natural variability in a species. This variability is what makes evolution possible. If somehow, for whatever reason the Environment were to change in a drastic way, making homosexual behavior even better for fitness (in theory), a species without any homosexuals would die out, while one with homosexuals will live on. People being different isnt a bad thing.

Even if there was no advantage to being gay, trans, autistic or whatever (in reality there are of course advantages), and being this way had only negative effects on fitness, evolution works by natural selection. It doesn't produce "perfect" organisms. It produces organisms that exist. If that existence goes on to another generation it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Evolution isnt about "survival of the fittest". Its about reproduction of the reproducer.

Mirin iq

 

[Spuffy]

same logic as: "will being gay cease to exist because they dont have babies?"

 

[deadmanwalkingドねゟ]

It's a maladaptive trait. If you succeed at getting a femboy, you can't even get them pregnant; its an evolutionary dead end. Over time, natural selection will weed out this trait.

We will never

 

[Mogden]

It's a maladaptive trait. If you succeed at getting a femboy, you can't even get them pregnant; its an evolutionary dead end. Over time, natural selection will weed out this trait.

 

[vespertine]

same logic as: "will being gay cease to exist because they dont have babies?"

this wasn't a serious post btw.

and its actually not the same.

homosexuality purportedly has indirect fitness benefits. kin selection, gay uncle hypothesis, or the same alleles boosting fertility in female relatives

being attracted to "femboys" is likely more byproduct of broad sexual plasticity. human arousal systems latch onto traits that aren’t tied to one sex, it piggybacks on existing mechanisms. which tbf could and probably does also help homosexuality persist.