Homosexuality

[eufrenio]

I´d like to hear my fellow Dodoners´opinions on this thorny matter!
Please vote and then elaborate with a few lines!

My personal view is that it´s a combination of points 3 to 1, in that order.

[Melnorme]

I like the 'diversity theory' :

www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

The Value of Male Variability
The above argument shows why a high degree of variability can contribute to male reproductive success. This provides the answer to a question that may have occurred to someone examining the earlier argument. Why is there the wide variability along the femininity-masculinity axis that creates the problem of some individuals being so far to the feminine side as to become homosexuals?

Why are not human males designed to produce the single optimum phenotype? Presumably, if the distribution shown was narrow enough, no individuals would fall into the range that produced homosexuals. Then there could be none that were so deficient in "sensitivity" etc. so as to be at a severe disadvantage in attracting and retaining females.

The reason for the wide variability in phenotypes is that long run reproductive success is facilitated by variability (see Miller 1997a for the argument in detail). Part of the reason is that reproductive success is the geometric average of reproductive success over many generations, not the arithmetic average, and the geometric average is normally below the arithmetic average. This mathematical fact implies that the more variable reproductive success is across generations the slower the population growth will be, and that there will be selection for reduced variability across generations. One way to achieve this is to have within each generation diversity in phenotypes so that at least one phenotype will be well adapted for whatever conditions occur.

Thus humans have evolved to be different from each other. This is probably achieved by differences in the prenatal environment at some stage of development. An unfortunate (for reproductive success) implication of this overall desirable process exists. It occasionally produces a homosexual male who is not attracted to females, and hence leaves few descendants.

[One Humanity]

So you say it's mainly "A Darwinian paradox"?

Or is that term linked with a significantly different theory?

[eufrenio]

It´s certainly a paradox! I tend to think in the majority of cases, homosexual behaviour is a form of neurosis or personality disorder, triggered partly by genetic or peri-natal factors.Of course, the more we glorify and further homosexuality, the more homosexuals we´ll end up with. That´s the cultural or sociological explanation.

For a good overview of homosexuallity, plus the newer "Germ theory", see here:

www.vdare.com/sailer/gay_gene.htm


Melnorme, I haven´t yet read the full report you linked to (but I willl), yet I have to say that I am sceptical of any theory that relies on the supposed differential in "sensitivity" between the sexes.

[Sandwich]

I'm not even going to vote, I haven't the faintest idea.
But I'd like to sound a few notes of caution.

1) Is there an established correlation between phenotype and sexuality? Does lower testosterone equal greater likelihood to be a shirtlifter? Doesn't make sense to me, since there does not seem to be much greater incidence of homosexual behaviour in Asia than in Southern Europe. Less sex drive perhaps, poofs no.

2) Our data on the international incidence of homosexuality are bound to be totally skewed by cultural pressures. You'll find it difficult getting most Africans to admit ANY homosexuality exists in Africa. Similarly Sicilians are less likely to admit to it than Swedes.

3) A lot of gays claim they knew they were gay at age 10. That's before fashion really sets in as a factor.

4) Various Asian cultures like the Thai, and American Indians, have an institutionalised "third sex" role for homosexuals, providing an acceptable nich for such individuals. This suggests that it is an orientation that has been with us for a long time.

5) Nature is not a master craftsman. Often you get odd and in some ways (genetically) undesirable results in the course of achieving a different genetically desirable goal. Upright posture and difficult childbirth in humans for example. Something similar might be at play here in terms of emphatic ability. Gays do seem to be significantly over-represented amongst great artists.

[AWAR]

IMO Homosexuality probably comes from multiple sources, the most frequent being
1.neurosis
2.some sort of natural mechanism for decreasing the population.
3. Genetic predispositions.

Humanity has created an artificial environment, and in turn the environment is making unforeseeable influences on the way we live. If someone made a serious study about homosexuality and it's relation to other statistics, I'm sure there'd be many surprising things to learn.

[eufrenio]

Melnorme, let me quote from the article you cited:

"Female Mate Choice
When human females are asked to list the traits that are desirable in a mate, kindness is consistently listed of one of the most desirable (Buss, 1989, 1994; Buss & Barnes, 1989) in a study that collected data not just for Anglo-Saxon cultures, but for 37 different cultures. Sprecher (1989) documented that both sexes prefer more expressive partners. Later, Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hartfield (1994) reported that "women have expressed a greater preference than men for such personality characteristics as expressiveness, kindness, and considerateness." These are traditionally considered feminine traits (McKnight 1997), and it is plausible that one developmental mechanism could select for them and for a female typical choice of sexual partner (i.e. for a preference for male sexual partners).

It should be noted that there are good biological reasons for a female to seek a mate who is kind and considerate. He is more likely to give her resources for raising her offspring and not to physically harm her, or to emotionally harm her by making her jealous. The disadvantage to the male of being kind, considerate, empathetic, etc. may be that he devotes less time and resources to seeking second mating opportunities. Very likely, the best level of femininity etc. for a male varies with time and location, making it optimal for parents to have children that vary in this trait, as in other traits (see the discussion above under the Value of Male Variability)."


Can the author prove that such "personality characteristics as expressiveness, kindness, and considerateness" are femenine traits? If not, then the whole study is flawed.
I don´t care if they are "traditionally" considered so: after all, according to tradition, the earth is flat!

[Sandwich]

I don't know what kind of poofs you have down there in Southern Europe, but here in England, and I gather, in the bath-houses of San Francisco, their mating pattern is hardly akin to that of little women trying to hook a hubby and father for their children. No, they probably go through more sexual partners in a year than us straights will have in a lifetime.

Femininity = homosexuality is an overgeneralization as far as I can see. Yes it can be one element, the whole camp thing, as suggested by the Asian trisex culture I mentioned. But I have known old school Guard's Officers, the epitome of masculinity, who were gay. A friend's mother could never get her head around the idea that village people YMCA were anything to do with poofterdom. Proust probably was a screaming queen, Michaelangelo probably not.

Eufrenio, you DOUBT that women are more empathic than men? Really? In your own experience? In mine, men generally relate on the level of "Here's a fact, pal - now you can tell me one" whereas women do ask about feelings.

[Melnorme]

I'm not saying I agree with that entire article. Rather, I simply like the idea of homosexuality ( as well as other abnormalities ) being a result of 'extreme evolutionary variability' - regardless of whether or not it can be validly divided by a masculine/feminine 'sensitivity axis' dichotomy.

[AWAR]

Melnorme said:

I simply like the idea of homosexuality

Freudian slip?

[Sandwich]

Grow up ;D

[eufrenio]

Sandwich said:

Eufrenio, you DOUBT that women are more empathic than men? Really? In your own experience? In mine, men generally relate on the level of "Here's a fact, pal - now you can tell me one" whereas women do ask about feelings.

Frankly, Sandwich, yes! Most of the time, women have no clue about what men think or feel! And they couldn´t care less! That´s lack of empathy. But, egoistically, they want everything to revolve around their feelings and whims, which men are supposed to read as a matter of fact! ;D
Anyway, I am not interested in the anecdotal, my question is: should a scientific paper (like the one Melnorme quoted) use clichés about the supposed nature of men and women?

To return to the main topic, I don´t believe that homosexuals are all of the Flaming Gay type: but deep down they are all effeminate, just as lesbians are "manly" once you scratch the surface.
Their promiscuity is a result of permanent insatisfaction both with themselves (eternal adolescent personality) and with their "partners".
My theory is they are not really attracted to other homosexuals, but to straight men and women.
They hook up with each other for no other reason that they have nowhere else to turn to, as they are obviously not attractive to "straights" (or "breeders" as they call them).
Homosexual couples are just friends with a shared hobby and passion : their own sex.
That is why they are neurotic!

[Melnorme]

AWAR said:

Freudian slip?

Yeah, I saw that one coming actually.

[eufrenio]

Melnorme said:

I'm not saying I agree with that entire article. Rather, I simply like the idea of homosexuality ( as well as other abnormalities ) being a result of 'extreme evolutionary variability' - regardless of whether or not it can be validly divided by a masculine/feminine 'sensitivity axis' dichotomy.

I can only agree with that. Evolutionary variability is probably part of the answer.

[eufrenio]

Sandwich said:

I'm not even going to vote, I haven't the faintest idea.
But I'd like to sound a few notes of caution.

1) Is there an established correlation between phenotype and sexuality? Does lower testosterone equal greater likelihood to be a shirtlifter? Doesn't make sense to me, since there does not seem to be much greater incidence of homosexual behaviour in Asia than in Southern Europe. Less sex drive perhaps, poofs no.

2) Our data on the international incidence of homosexuality are bound to be totally skewed by cultural pressures. You'll find it difficult getting most Africans to admit ANY homosexuality exists in Africa. Similarly Sicilians are less likely to admit to it than Swedes.

3) A lot of gays claim they knew they were gay at age 10. That's before fashion really sets in as a factor.

4) Various Asian cultures like the Thai, and American Indians, have an institutionalised "third sex" role for homosexuals, providing an acceptable nich for such individuals. This suggests that it is an orientation that has been with us for a long time.

5) Nature is not a master craftsman. Often you get odd and in some ways (genetically) undesirable results in the course of achieving a different genetically desirable goal. Upright posture and difficult childbirth in humans for example. Something similar might be at play here in terms of emphatic ability. Gays do seem to be significantly over-represented amongst great artists.

To answer your points, Sandwich:

1) Higher testosterone levels on a homosexual makes him even more active in his chosen field. So it is pretty well established that there´s no simple correlation between testosterone level and masculinity. A normal level will do for most purposes!
2) I agree that you have to take all surveys "cum grano salis". Including those international surveys about the most sexually active men, where Frenchmen and Brazilians always come first! ;D
3) Some homosexuals may have homosexual urges at age 10. Doubtless in many other cases, it develops much later. Do not underestimate the influence of culture, society and fashion.
4) In the West we also have institutionalised "third sex" roles: hairdressers, interior decorators, ballet dancers, sailors etc. The old bachelor with ambiguous behaviour or the "gay vicar" are old established roles in Europe.
5) I can see you tend toward the "darwinian paradox" view. All working systems have an amount of "structural noise" to them. It´s surely part of the explanation.