5 ms·

So... gay men are descendants of gay men who were raped by fertile women? Edit: of course not. I'm just pointing out the conclusion coming out of this: >Men w

by amatic 5y ago

So... gay men are descendants of gay men who were raped by fertile women? Edit: of course not. I'm just pointing out the conclusion coming out of this: >Men who only sought sex with other men [...] have no descendants (unless a fertile woman raped them at some point [...]). So their genes died out

kragen 5y ago
That is not one of the leading theories, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_and_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation... Women rape men fairly rarely, and even a woman who raped thousands of men generally cannot have more than a dozen offspring as a result. By contrast, one in every 200 men today has Genghis Khan's Y chromosome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan This should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: the fact that rape can produce offspring does not make rape morally commendable or tolerable. It's true that the stubborn existence of gay people poses challenges to any kind of simple ev-psych explanation of human sexuality, and it's tempting to conclude that although sexual behavior in sheep and partridges is instinctual, sexual behavior in humans is purely culturally constructed, because humans are rational beings not controlled by instinct, and this is why some humans are gay. This explanation runs into several big problems: 1. Lots of sheep and partridges are also homosexual. Also several hundred other species at least. 2. If you have ever met a human, you know they are not very rational, and cultural conditioning is in a constant pitched battle with human instincts. 3. For decades in the US the standard treatment of male babies born with deformed genitalia was to perform sex-reassignment surgery on them and raise them as girls. If human sexual behavior were purely culturally constructed, then as adults about 90% of them would have sought male partners, like 90% of other children raised as girls. Instead, most of them sought female partners. 4. Homosexuality seems to be a cultural universal. So, the evidence in favor of the "born this way" hypothesis is pretty overwhelming, especially for men. So, how did "gay genes" not get wiped out? Among the numerous theories mentioned in the WP article: "There was genetic material being passed down on the X chromosome which both promotes fertility in the mother and homosexuality in her male offspring." (Camperio-Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi 2004) Another possibility is that being gay is biological and congenital, just not genetic, for example due to fetal hormone exposure or immune response by the mother's body. Historically, lots of gay men have been voluntarily married to women, had sex with them, and had children with them. This still happens today. I have known gay men who have never had sex with women, but they are very much the exception to the rule. (There are men who are exclusively attracted to postmenopausal women, too, just not very many of them.)
- sien 5y ago
  The probability of being gay increases 33% with each older brother. It's a startling finding. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/234 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/234
  - kragen 5y ago
    Yeah, it's astounding. I thought about mentioning that, since it's another piece of evidence for the Lady Gaga thesis, especially with the NLGN4Y antibody mechanism evidence. But it seemed like weaker evidence than the infant-reassignment-surgery thing, which is pretty conclusive, and my comment was already far too long for the kind of person who needs this stuff explained to them. (Similarly with the prenatal SDN size stuff.) I mean, boys with just four older brothers are also growing up in a pretty different environment from firstborn boys or boys with just four older sisters. Just because this would be precisely the opposite environmental effect that conventional postnatal environmental theories of homosexuality predict doesn't mean there's no postnatal environmental effect.
- foldr 5y ago
  > I have known gay men who have never had sex with women, but they are very much the exception to the rule. This isn’t at all the case these days. And anyway, it’s also quite common for straight men to have had gay experiences. Gay sexuality remains a puzzle from a narrow evolutionary point of view. None of the theories that have been proposed is really very plausible. As a gay man it is honestly quite amusing to see all of the bizarre alleged ‘explanations’ that people come up with. Especially since these always seem to be implicitly focused on male homosexuality - not because it’s any more in need of an explanation than any other kind of sexual behavior, but because it freaks people out. All research in this area seems to pose the basic question as follows: “Well obviously straight people exist, but what could possibly be the explanation for all these aberrant cases?”. It fails to recognize that procreation is just one function of sex. It’s like being surprised that people use their mouths for kissing as well as for eating and talking. A equally big puzzle is all the non-procreative sex that straight people have. That one doesn't get much research attention though, because straight people aren't considered to be an aberrant case.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by amatic 5y ago

kragen 5y ago

That is not one of the leading theories, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_and_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation... Women rape men fairly rarely, and even a woman who raped thousands of men generally cannot have more than a dozen offspring as a result. By contrast, one in every 200 men today has Genghis Khan's Y chromosome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan This should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: the fact that rape can produce offspring does not make rape morally commendable or tolerable. It's true that the stubborn existence of gay people poses challenges to any kind of simple ev-psych explanation of human sexuality, and it's tempting to conclude that although sexual behavior in sheep and partridges is instinctual, sexual behavior in humans is purely culturally constructed, because humans are rational beings not controlled by instinct, and this is why some humans are gay. This explanation runs into several big problems: 1. Lots of sheep and partridges are also homosexual. Also several hundred other species at least. 2. If you have ever met a human, you know they are not very rational, and cultural conditioning is in a constant pitched battle with human instincts. 3. For decades in the US the standard treatment of male babies born with deformed genitalia was to perform sex-reassignment surgery on them and raise them as girls. If human sexual behavior were purely culturally constructed, then as adults about 90% of them would have sought male partners, like 90% of other children raised as girls. Instead, most of them sought female partners. 4. Homosexuality seems to be a cultural universal. So, the evidence in favor of the "born this way" hypothesis is pretty overwhelming, especially for men. So, how did "gay genes" not get wiped out? Among the numerous theories mentioned in the WP article: "There was genetic material being passed down on the X chromosome which both promotes fertility in the mother and homosexuality in her male offspring." (Camperio-Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi 2004) Another possibility is that being gay is biological and congenital, just not genetic, for example due to fetal hormone exposure or immune response by the mother's body. Historically, lots of gay men have been voluntarily married to women, had sex with them, and had children with them. This still happens today. I have known gay men who have never had sex with women, but they are very much the exception to the rule. (There are men who are exclusively attracted to postmenopausal women, too, just not very many of them.)

sien 5y ago
The probability of being gay increases 33% with each older brother. It's a startling finding. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/234 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/234
- kragen 5y ago
  Yeah, it's astounding. I thought about mentioning that, since it's another piece of evidence for the Lady Gaga thesis, especially with the NLGN4Y antibody mechanism evidence. But it seemed like weaker evidence than the infant-reassignment-surgery thing, which is pretty conclusive, and my comment was already far too long for the kind of person who needs this stuff explained to them. (Similarly with the prenatal SDN size stuff.) I mean, boys with just four older brothers are also growing up in a pretty different environment from firstborn boys or boys with just four older sisters. Just because this would be precisely the opposite environmental effect that conventional postnatal environmental theories of homosexuality predict doesn't mean there's no postnatal environmental effect.
foldr 5y ago
> I have known gay men who have never had sex with women, but they are very much the exception to the rule. This isn’t at all the case these days. And anyway, it’s also quite common for straight men to have had gay experiences. Gay sexuality remains a puzzle from a narrow evolutionary point of view. None of the theories that have been proposed is really very plausible. As a gay man it is honestly quite amusing to see all of the bizarre alleged ‘explanations’ that people come up with. Especially since these always seem to be implicitly focused on male homosexuality - not because it’s any more in need of an explanation than any other kind of sexual behavior, but because it freaks people out. All research in this area seems to pose the basic question as follows: “Well obviously straight people exist, but what could possibly be the explanation for all these aberrant cases?”. It fails to recognize that procreation is just one function of sex. It’s like being surprised that people use their mouths for kissing as well as for eating and talking. A equally big puzzle is all the non-procreative sex that straight people have. That one doesn't get much research attention though, because straight people aren't considered to be an aberrant case.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]