"SHOOK THE GAME FOR THE FAGS AND THE HOMOS, BUT HE BACK IN THEY ASS NO KY! IMMA KEEP IT G! YOU CAN KEEP IT G A Y !" - SHORT KHOP!
Are You All Ready To Read A Few Chapters On The Sexy Son (The Sexy Son Hypothesis)? They're Coming Soon. In The Meantime, Read A Couple Of Pages On Homosexuality. (I'll Add A Few More Paiges. I Left Out A Couple Of Paiges That Help ME Make My Point Below.) http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/11/25/gay-genes-discovery-coming-soon/
Are You All Ready To Read A Few Chapters On The Sexy Son (The Sexy Son Hypothesis)? They're Coming Soon. In The Meantime, Read A Couple Of Pages On Homosexuality. (I'll Add A Few More Paiges. I Left Out A Couple Of Paiges That Help ME Make My Point Below.) http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/11/25/gay-genes-discovery-coming-soon/
GAY DAY...AHH
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html
Gay Epigenome
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html
Gay Epigenome
It's A Combination Of Genes And Environment, Walt. Some People May Be Born With A Genetic Predisposition Towards Homosexuality, But If They're Raised In An Environment Where There's Little Tolerance For Homosexuality (It's Condemned And Violently Rejected) And Strong Pressure To Conform To The Heterosexual Norm, Their Genes For Homosexuality Will Most Likely Be Suppressed And They'll Most Likely Lead A Heterosexual Life!
Pierre Williams
They don't want you until someone else has you
If
A Male Is Going Out (Dating, In A Relationship) With An Attractive
Female That Female Is Tacitly Saying To Other Females That The Male
She's Going Out With Is Of Moderate To High Genetic Quality And/Or Has
Moderate To High Resources (Wealth) Or Both. In Other Words, The Attractive
Female Is Implicitly Putting Her "Stamp Of Approval" On This Male, Which
Then Signals To Other Females That The Male She's Dating Or In A
Relationship Is Desirable Or A Valuable Commodity.
READ THE LINKS BELOW.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/12/age_sex_looks_a.html
I've heard that men become more attractive to women when they are in a relationship (contrasted with the same male being chronically single); I suspect that being in a relationship is like having someone vouch for you. You are suddenly in greater demand when women realize that someone finds you tolerable/attractive. Having a relationship with an attractive female is like having someone with good genes vouch for your good genes. It may be a useful strategy to have ONLY attractive women vouching for your good genes.
First, married men who have achieved reproductive success should have
less of an urgent need to attract mates by social and cultural
ornamentation than do unmarried men. Second, and more important, mates are probably the only ornamentation or lekking device men can display that is cross-culturally meaningful.
There is evidence that females of a species as varied guppies, Japanes
medaka, black grouse, and Japanese quail prefer to mate with males who
have recently mated. Females use other females' choice of males as
evidence of their genetic quality; in other words, they copy each
other. And some suggest that human females might do the same.
The
idea is simple: If a woman meets a strange man, she has no basis on
which to form an opinion of him. He can be a high-quality. He can be a
high-quality man, or he can be a low-quality man; she just doesn't know.
However, if he has a wife, that means that at least one woman, who
presumably closely inspected his quality before marrying him, found him
good enough to marry. So he couldn't be that bad after all; at
least one woman found him desirable. So being married (the presence of a
wife) is one cross-culturally transportable ornamentation or lekking
device that signifies men's superior mate value...
(Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters)
READ THE LINKS BELOW.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/12/age_sex_looks_a.html
I've heard that men become more attractive to women when they are in a relationship (contrasted with the same male being chronically single); I suspect that being in a relationship is like having someone vouch for you. You are suddenly in greater demand when women realize that someone finds you tolerable/attractive. Having a relationship with an attractive female is like having someone with good genes vouch for your good genes. It may be a useful strategy to have ONLY attractive women vouching for your good genes.
Men and women CAN just be friends. If the guy is gay, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617733803 …
Homosexuality is a dishonorable mating strategy
In one of the pdfs, AC (Anonymous Conservative) describes the complex and chivalrous mating combat of the Australian Giant Cuttlefish. A subset of males cheat at this competition, adopting the coloration and appearance of a female in order to skip the combat, mate quickly, and sneak away.
This example finally provides an evolutionary justification for homosexuality. Mimicking a female gives the Anticompetitive cuttlefish access to females, which he would otherwise never acquire. Likewise, almost all human fags are bisexual, and many men become gay only after failing with women. Being gay permits the occasional “experimental” bang with a girlfriend. Hence the K male’s aversion to fags and fag hags. To quote: “the Anticompetitor is designed to avoid engaging in these competitions, while still seeking advantage within the competitive environment through violations of the rules of honor which govern the competition.”
- I finally heard a woman say that it's "impossible" to have a straight male friend....
...Thoughts???
Hola ♥️
@MajaLoo_
Now That You've Read About The Correlation Between Intelligence And Homosexuality, Relate It To Jason Collin's "Coming Out" In The Link Below. He Probably Doesn't Have A Strong Genetic Proclivity For Homosexuality, However, He Probably Has Above Average Intelligence And Was Raised In An Environment (American Culture) That Condones And Even Champions The Homosexual Lifestyle And Accompanying Thought And Behavior. (Sex Is Evolutionarily Familiar. People Of High Intelligence Can Look At Evolutionarily Familiar Matters From An Evolutionary Novel Perspective. In This Regard, Homosexuality Is A Novel Solution To An Age Old Problem (HETEROSEXUAL SEX). An Intelligent Male Can't Get SEX From A Female? That's OK. I'll Get It From This Man Or This Boy. From This Perspective, Jerry Sandusky Was A Genius!)
https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1289513364251504641
THE PARAGRAPHS BELOW MAY NOT BE IN THE CORRECT ORDER (I COPIED THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE LINK ABOVE AND DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO ORGANIZE THEM). SO, IF THEY AREN'T ORGANIZED, SORT THEM OUT IN YOUR MINDS AND MAKE SENSE OF THEM. )
Jason Collins Was Always A Passive, Patsified (Effeminate*), Suburban Nigga, But I'm Having A Hard Time Believing That He's Gay (That He's Innately Inclined To Be Homosexual), Especially Since He's Had A Girlfriend(s) And Was On The Verge Of Getting Married To A Female. Like Most People Who Claim To Be Homosexual, I Don't Think His Sexual Orientation Is As Much A Consequence Of An Inherent Predisposition To Be Homosexual, As It Is A Reflection Of The Type Of Society And Time We Live In.
OH, I Left Out A Major Part Of My Hypothesis And The Part I Left Out Is That Homosexuals Who Don't Have A Strong Genetic Component To Their Homosexuality May Have A Psychological Hang Up That Has Nothing To Do With Sexual Orientation And It's This Psychological Hang Up Coupled With The "It's Cool To Be GAY" Environment That We Live In That Ultimately Leads Them To Claim To Be GAY. Follow ME? So, Jason Collins, Like Most Homosexuals, Most Likely Has A Psychological Disorder, YenYen Tho.
In Other Words, I Suspect That A Decent SizeD Proportion Of The Homosexual Community Doesn't Have A Strong Genetic Basis For Their Homosexuality, Instead, I Think They Choose To Be Homosexual Because They Come From A Culture That Celebrates And Champions This Thought And Behavior. So, Though They May Not Have An Overwhelming Genetic Drive To Be Homosexual, They're Inundated With The Belief That Homosexuality Is Something To Be Appreciated And Applauded, And, Thus, Decide To Become Homosexual.
DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS? THE INTELLIGENCE FACTOR STATED ABOVE PLAYS A LARGE ROLE IN A PERSON'S DECISION TO BECOME HOMOSEXUAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GENETIC DRIVE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T AS STRONG AS HOMOSEXUALS MAKE IT SEEM (THEIR GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO ENJOY HOMOSEXUAL SEX ISN'T THE STRONGEST DETERMINANT OF THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY).
Take For Instance This Chick! She's Doesn't Have A Strong Genetic Inclination To Homosexuality. If You Were To Test Her Sexual Arousal To Male Indices Of Sexuality (An Attractive Male Face Or Body And Male Sexual Behavior) And Heterosexual Sex She'd Respond More Positively Than She Would If She Were Viewing Female Indices Of Sexuality And Lesbian Sex. In other Words, Genetically She's Heterosexual, Not Homosexual. Yet, She Pretends To Be Gay (Puts On This Lesbian Facade) Because Of Social Pressures And Her Own Psychological Issues, Which Include Her Desire For Attention, Her Distrust Of Males, Her Inability To Develop A Relationship And Relate To Males, The Female Dominant Household She Was Raised In, The Trendiness And Social Acceptance Of Homosexuality, Etc.
A second example of dogmatic ethics gone wrong for lack of knowledge is homophobia. The basal reasoning is much the same as for opposition to artificial contraception: sex not intended for reproduction must be an aberration and a sin. But an abundance of evidence points to the opposite. Committed homosexuality, with the preference appearing in childhood, is heritable. This means the trait is not always fixed, but part of the greater likelihood of a person's developing into a homosexual is prescribed by genes that differ from those that lead to heterosexuality. It has further turned out that heredity-influenced homosexuality occurs in populations worldwide too frequently to be due to mutation alone. Population geneticists use a rule of thumb to account for the abundance at this level: if a trait cannot be due solely to random mutations, and yet it lowers or eliminates reproduction in those who have it, then the trait must be favored by natural selection working on a target of some other kind. For example, a low dose of homosexual-tending genes may give competitive advantages to a practicing heterosexual. Or homosexuality may give advantages to the group by special talents, unusual qualities of personality, and the specialize roles and professions it generate. There is abundant evidence that such is the case in both preliterate and modern societies. Either way, societies are mistaken to disapprove of homosexuality because gays have different sexual preferences and reproduce less. Their presence should be valued instead for what they contribute constructively to human diversity. A society that condemns homosexuality harms itself.
We started by interviewing gay men about sexual orientation in their families. Then, whenever we could, we interviewed the family members as well. When we analyzed the first series of results, a striking patterned emerged. Not only did gay men have more gay brothers...they also had more gay cousins and uncles. Since these relatives were raised in different households, indeed mostly in completely different parts of the country, the evidence for genes increased...Even more striking was that gay uncles and cousins were concentrated on the mother's side...to a geneticist, all these gay men on the maternal branches of family trees meant one thing: a gene on the X chromosome. Because males always receive their X chromosome from their mother, any gene on the X chromosome is passed through the mother...Once it seemed clear that male sexual orientation had a genetic component, the next...step was to figure out what the genes actually were...We weren't looking for specific genes but markers or signposts that showed whether two gay brothers inherited the same or different regions of the X chromosome from their mothers...Our aim was to see if there was anything on the X chromosome related being gay...As it turned out, we got lucky. Looking at 40 pairs of gay brothers with 22 different markers, we found linkage in a region called Xq28...
Some argue that the whole idea of a "gay gene" must be wrong because homosexuality is "unnatural." They say homosexual behavior goes against evolution because it contradicts the real purpose of sex, which is reproduction...The critics raise a good question: how can a gene that leads to sexual behavior that is nonreproductive survive the rough-and-tumble of evolution? Why hasn't it been bred out of the human race?...This paradox has led to many theories of how a "gay gene" might actually be adaptive...The simplest explanation comes directly from one of the most interesting results of the research itself: the gene only works in men, not women. We wondered whether the gene might have a different role in women, so we compared the mothers and sisters of our research subjects who were either linked or unlinked for Xq28. There was no difference in the number of their children or how often they had sex, but the women with the gay version of Xq28 did have one intriguing difference: they had begun puberty an average of six months earlier than the mothers. Although the result is highly preliminary, it will be interesting to see if the gene somehow lengthens the reproductive span in women, allowing them to have more children.
Living With Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think. Hamer, Copeland, p. 190-199.
HAMER TIME! UH OH UH OH HERE CUM THE HAMER! (https://twitter.com/deanhamer This Guy Lives In Hawaii, Huh? I Just Noticed This When I Came Across His Twitter Paige Today (10/15/14). What A Perfect Place For A Scientists Studying The Genetics Of Homosexuality. He's Got All The FAGGOTS His Heart Desires At His Disposal There (He's Got More Than Enough FAGGOTS There To Experiment On). https://twitter.com/KumuHina Check This Thing Out That He's Associated With. Beautiful (Polynesian Beauty). You Can Tell It Has A Decent Proportion Of Hawaiian Genes.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/04/the-science-of-sexuality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/
In 1993, American geneticist Dean Hamer found families with several gay males on the mother’s side, suggesting a gene on the X chromosome. He showed that pairs of brothers who were openly gay shared a small region at the tip of the X, and proposed that it contained a gene that predisposes a male to homosexuality.
Hamer’s conclusions were extremely controversial. He was challenged at every turn by people unwilling to accept that homosexuality is at least partly genetic, rather than a “lifestyle choice.”
...
There are several theories that account for the high frequency of homosexuality. A decade ago I wondered if gay gene variants have another effect that boosts the chances of leaving offspring (“evolutionary fitness”), and passing the gay allele on. This is a well-known situation (called “balanced polymorphism”) in which an allele is advantageous in one situation and not in another.
...
A special category is “sexually antagonistic genes” that increase genetic fitness in one sex but not in the other; some are even lethal. We have many examples across many species. Maybe the gay allele is just another of these.
Perhaps “male-loving” alleles in a female predispose her to mate earlier and have more children. If their sisters, mother and aunts have more kids who share some of their genes, it would make up for the fewer children of gay males.
And they do. Lots more children. An Italian group showed that the female relatives of gay men have 1.3 times as many children as the female relatives of straight men. This is a huge selective advantage that a male-loving allele confers on women, and offsets the selective disadvantage that it confers on men.
I am surprised that this work is not better known, and its explanatory power is neglected in the whole debate about the “normality” of homosexual behavior.
How “normal” are gay alleles?
We have no idea whether these genetic studies identified “gay alleles” of the same or different genes. It is interesting that Hamer detected the original “gay gene” on the X, because this chromosome has more than its fair share of genes that affect reproduction.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/could-homosexual-genes-be-naturally-selected
Gay genes on the X-chromosome Exclusive homosexuality is puzzling for evolutionary biologists because homosexuals leave substantially fewer offspring. Some marry due to social pressures and end up having children but many do not reproduce. Any genes predisposing to homosexual behavior would thus get excluded by natural selection. Current research implies male homosexuality is a sex-linked trait, although genes are far from being the whole story. (Female homosexuality is also heritable but less is known of the genetic mechanisms).
Sex-linked traits, such as color blindness highlight a curious chink in the armor of natural selection. In the normal course of events, any genetic trait that impedes survival or reduces reproductive success gets winnowed out by natural selection operating over many generations. Sex-linked traits are different because they are on the X-chromosome. Females are carriers of the affected genes (since fathers always transmit Y-chromosomes to their offspring in the course of normal fertilization). Females rarely manifest the sex-linked trait, however, because their second X-chromosome masks the mutated gene.
This fact opens up a genetic conflict of interest between the sexes. Why? Because a gene that is harmful to male reproduction can be retained by natural selection if it provides advantages to females. Indeed, if the reproductive benefit to females is greater than the cost to males, then lineages having the sex-linked gene will out-reproduce those lacking it based on simple arithmetic.
A gene promoting male homosexuality could therefore slip through the net of natural selection. For this theory of male homosexuality to be credible, at least two criteria would have to be met. First, it would have to be demonstrated that male homosexuality is transmitted through the female line after the manner of all other sex-linked traits. Second, it would have to be demonstrated that the gene increased the reproductive success of the female carriers.
In recent years, evidence has accumulated that a homosexual orientation is inherited. Study of family history reveals that homosexual men have more homosexuals in their family tree than do heterosexuals. But this is true only of ancestors that can be traced through the mother's side of the family and does not apply to paternal ancestors (1,2). This phenomenon is a smoking gun not only for genetic inheritance of sexual orientation but also for considering homosexuality as a sex-linked trait. In other words, it comes from the maternal line because that is how the X-chromosome is transmitted across the generations (male ancestors conveying Y-chromosomes only). Plenty of evidence now implicates the X-chromosome in male homosexuality but the precise genes have not been identified.
So far, the evidence for male homosexuality as a possible female adaptation lines up perfectly with the first prediction. What of the requirement that females who carry a gene for male homosexuality must enjoy some sort of advantage that allows them to out-reproduce females who are not carriers? Recent studies (1,2) have found that female relatives of male homosexuals do indeed produce more children (and the same is true of bisexual men).
Why exactly the female relatives are more fertile is also interesting. It seems that they are more fertile because they have a comparatively high sex drive. It is tempting to imagine that the high sex drive of female carriers of the putative "homosexual" gene is partly due to their greater attraction to male bodies. This idea is corroborated by similarity in the brains of male homosexuals and female heterosexuals in a part of the brain linked to sexual behavior (3).
The theory that male homosexuality evolves because the gene/s causing it increase/s the sexual activity and reproductive success in female carriers is scientifically neat.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611946/genes-linked-to-being-gay-may-help-straight-people-get-more-sex/ … via @techreview
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-gay-gene-new-evidence-supports-an-old-hypothesis
A new study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine has found a link between homosexuality and female fertility. The mothers and maternal aunts of gay men have "increased fecundity compared with corresponding maternal female relatives of heterosexual men," the authors of the study write.
This study, which the authors note was based on a small sample and "would benefit from a larger replication," supports the so-called "balancing selection hypothesis." The gay gene -- or genes -- are thought to exist on the X chromosome, and "increase the reproductive value" of the female relatives. In other words, it makes the women more attractive to men, allowing them to produce more offspring. So while the 'gay gene' may not be passed down directly, it will survive over the course of many generations.
Not only are the maternal relatives of gay men more attractive, more fertile and subject to fewer complications during pregnancy, the study also found these women are extroverts and generally happier. In other words, if you're the mother of a gay man, you're pretty awesome.
...
However, Sykes also points out that there is some evidence that suggests the possibility of a genetic association with homosexuality without the existence of a mutated gene. He tells us:
Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova discovered that the mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than those of straight men. There seems to be at least one gene on the X chromosome that creates a trade-off in men and women. The men turn out gay (and hypothetically less likely to reproduce), but the women’s fecundity increases, making them more likely to have more offspring. In a sense, the gene makes men more attracted to men, but the women more attractive to men. Not only are they more fertile and have less complications during pregnancy, but these women are also more extroverted and have few family problems and social anxieties.
This is called the “balancing selection hypothesis,” and it effectively demonstrates how male homosexuality —as documented not only in humans but hundreds of species — does not actually contradict expectations that evolution favors reproduction.
Known as fa'afafine, these individuals do not reproduce. They are, however, fully accepted into Samoan society in general, and into their kin-based families in particular. Of particular note is that fa'afafine are significantly more prone to behave in a positive avuncular manner than are heterosexual uncles. Thus, they are more likely to purchase toys for their nieces and nephews, babysit, contribute money for the children's education, and generally provide high levels of indulgence and emotional support, in addition to their material assistance. These men are not simply fond of all children; rather, they lavish their attention upon their nieces and nephews (with whom they share, on average, 25% of their genes). This supportive role of fa'afafine even exceeds the contributions of heterosexual women as supportive aunts.
It has recently been argued, most cogently by anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, that for much of human evolutionary history, childrearing was not the province of parents (especially mothers) alone; rather, our ancestors engaged in a great deal of "allo-mothering," whereby nonparents - other genetic relatives in particular - pitched in. It makes sense that such a system would have been derived by Homo sapiens, of all primate species the one whose infants are born the most helpless and that require the largest amount of postbirth investment. Insofar as it genuinely does "take a village to raise a child," no one should be surprised if some of the most engaged assistants turn out to have been the child's gay relatives.
One effect of modernization has been a reduction in infant mortality and a parallel decrease in average family size, the so-called "demographic transition." A consequence of this, in turn, might be that with fewer children per family, the industrialized world offers less opportunity for homosexual offspring to convey benefits to their heterosexual siblings, simply because there are fewer of the latter. Add to this the fact that with enhanced mobility, it is increasingly common for children, regardless of their sexual orientation, to leave their nuclear family to attend school and eventually start their own domestic lives. Hence, it is possible that kin selection was involved in the initial evolution of human homosexuality, but with little or no fitness payoff currently detectable, except in traditional societies. It may also be significant, therefore, that unlike the experience of gays and lesbians in much of the industrialized world, fa'afafine are fully integrated into Samoan society and are not discriminated against.
The implications are potentially large, and not only for a deeper scientific understanding of how and why homosexuality may have evolved. Thus, if - as may well be the case - homosexuals are only able to display their kin-selected inclinations to assist their heterosexual relatives when homosexuality is tolerated, then what is maladaptive is discrimination against homosexuals rather than homosexuality itself. Let's be more optimistic: If current trends persist and homosexual rights continue their current trajectory toward greater acceptance, this might generate a return not only to a more "natural" human condition but also to a higher inclusive fitness payoff experienced by gays and lesbians as well as - no less - by their relatives.
Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary Puzzles of Human Nature. Barash, p. 107-108.
A range of possibilities revolve around what geneticists call "heterosis," resulting in "balanced polymorphisms." Consider a well-known illness, sickle cell anemia, for which there are two relevant alleles: Call them Sn for normal red blood cells and Ss for sickle cell. Ss generates a biochemical anomaly as a result of which the sufferer's red blood cells collapse into an erratic sickle cell shape, causing them to stick together and clog blood vessels. In double-dose ("homozygous") form - that is, when individuals are SsSs - the sickling allele is often lethal. One would therefore expect that it would quickly disappear from the human gene pool. Indeed, it is largely absent from most populations, except for certain regions that have a long history of malaria. It turns out that for complex reasons, heterozygous individuals - who are SnSs and therefore carry a single dose of the sickling gene - are more malaria resistant than are homozygous normals (SnSn). As a consequence, the otherwise deleterious sickling gene has been retained in the human gene pool, even though it is strongly selected against in double-dose form.
For our purposes, the idea would be that perhaps a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, even if a fitness liability when homozygous, could have been retained over evolutionary time if it somehow conveys a compensating benefit when combined with one or more other alleles. No precise candidate genes have yet been identified, but for now, the possibility cannot be excluded. Moreover, several suggestive qualitative arguments can in fact be made. Here goes.
...
Time, now, for a reasonable historical assumption about how we got to be the way we are: During our long Pleistocene adolescence as a species, men were probably evolutionarily fit in proportion as they were good with projectile weapons, at anticipating the habits of game and of potential enemies and competitors, and at attracting and keeping mates, of course...with much of the latter two occurring in proportion as men succeeded at the former four. With the development of agriculture and early civilization, however, it is likely that the optimally adapted person - of either sex - tilted more than previously toward social skills, verbal ability, etc. The likelihood is that these traits had always been favored to some degree, but perhaps especially so once people occupied large settled communities. And so, the argument goes, natural and sexual selection came to favor social and communicative skills - at which homosexuals tend to exceed heterosexuals.
What does this have to do with genetics? Just this. Maybe in evolutionary time, exclusive homosexuality has been a fitness catastrophe, like sickle cell disease, but just as sickle cell disease persists because in single dose its underlying allele conveys a benefit with respect to malaria, perhaps one or more homosexuality-promoting alleles were retained because they also conveyed a particular payoff. That fitness-supporting homosexual benefit could have derived from the verbal facility and/or social and communicative skills just described. The outcome might then be a stable frequency of exclusive same-sex preference, just as heterosis produces a steady frequency of people with sickle cell disease.
C.R. Dewar, who first developed this line of reasoning, argues that if selection has favored an intermediate degree of "gayness," perhaps because of verbal facility and related assets, this would lead to exclusive homosexuality cropping up persistently at one tail of the distribution, even though homosexuality itself would not have been selected for directly. He turns to head size of human embryos for an example. Thus, selection favors the production of babies whose heads are pretty much as large as possible, so as to accommodate maximum brain development. Sometimes, however, this selective pressure results in babies whose heads are simply too big to be accommodated by the mother's birth canal: The resulting cephalopelvic disproportion is a significant cause of mortality during childbirth, especially in societies without access to modern obstetrical procedures.
Nevertheless, Dewar argues, such genes aren't edited out of the population because they are advantageous when present at intermediate levels:
Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary Puzzles of Human Nature. Barash, p. 116-118.
A generation ago Alfred Kinsey found that as many as 2 percent of American women and 4 percent of men were exclusively homosexual, while 13 percent of the men were predominately homosexual for at least 3 years of their lives. Today the number of exclusive homosexuals is conservatively estimated to be five million, while gays themselves believe that the number of closet homosexuals could raise the number to twenty million. They form a consequential American subculture, employing an argot of hundred of words and expressions. Homosexual behavior of one form or another is also common in virtually all other cultures, and in some of the high civilizations it has been permitted or approved: in classical Athenian, Persian, and Islamic societies, for example, and in late republican and early imperial Rome, in the urban, Hellenistic cultures of the Middle East, in the Ottoman Empire, and in feudal and early modern Japan.
There is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficent behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organization. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some of mankind's rare altruistic impulses.
The support for this radical hypothesis comes from certain facts considered in the new light of sociobiological theory. Homosexual behavior is common in other animals, from insects to mammals, but finds its fullest expression as an alternative to heterosexuality in the most intelligent primates, including rhesus macaques, baboons, and chimpanzees. In these animals the behavior is a manifestation of true bisexuality latent within the brain. Males are capable of adopting a full female posture and of being mounted by other males, while females occasionally mount other females.
Human beings are different in one important aspect. There is a potential for bisexuality in the brain and it is sometimes expressed fully by persons who switch back and forth in their sexual preference. But in full homosexuality, as in full heterosexuality, both that choice and the symmetry of the animal pattern are lost. The preference is truly homophile: most completely homosexual men prefer masculine partners, while their female counterparts are attracted by feminine ones. As a rule, effeminate mannerisms in men are mostly unrelated to their choice of sexual partners. In modern societies, but not primitive ones, transvestites are only rarely homosexual, and the great majority of homosexual men do not differ significantly in dress and mannerisms from heterosexual men. A parallel statement can be made regarding homosexual women.
This special homophile property may hold the key to the biological significance of human homosexuality. Homosexuality is above all a form of bonding. It is consistent with the greater part of heterosexual behavior as a device that cements relationships. The predisposition to be a homophile could have a genetic basis, and the genes might have spread in the early hunter-gatherer societies because of the advantage they conveyed to those who carried them. This brings us to the nub of the difficulty, the problem most persons have in regarding homosexuality to be in any way "natural."
How can genes predisposing their carriers toward homosexuality spread through the population if homosexuals have no children? One answer is that their close relatives could have had more children as a result of their presence. The homosexual members of primitive societies could have helped members of the same sex, either while hunting and gathering or in more domestic occupations at the dwelling sites. Freed from the special obligations of parental duties, they would have been in a position to operate with special efficiency in assisting close relatives. They might further have taken the roles of seers, shamans, artists, and keepers of tribal knowledge. If the relatives - sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, and others - were benefitted by higher survival and reproduction rates, the genes these individuals shared with the homosexual specialists would have increased at the expense of alternative genes. Inevitably, some of these genes would have been those that predisposed individuals toward homosexuality. A minority of the population would consequently always have the potential for developing hemophilic preferences. Thus it is possible for homosexual genes to proliferate through collateral lines of descent, even if the homosexuals themselves do not have children. This concept can be called the "kin-selection hypothesis" of the origin of homosexuality.
If the kin-selection hypothesis is correct, homosexual behavior is likely still to be associated with role specialization and the favoring of kin in hunter-gatherer and simple agriculture societies, in other words those contemporary cultures most similar to the ones in which human social behavior evolved genetically during prehistory. The connection appears to exist. In some of the more primitive cultures that survived long enough to be studied by anthropologists, male homosexuals were berdaches, individuals who adopted women's dress and manner and who even married other men. They often became shamans, powerful members of the group able to influence its key decisions, or were specialized in some other way, in women's work, matchmaking, peacemaking, or as advisors to the tribal leaders. The female counterparts to berdaches are also known but are less well documented. It is further true that in western industrial societies, homosexual men score higher than heterosexuals on intelligence tests and are upwardly mobile to an exceptional degree. They select white collar professions disproportionately and regardless of their initial socioeconomic status are prone to enter specialties in which they deal directly with other people. They are more successful on the average within their chosen professions. Finally, apart from the difficulties created by the disapproval of their sexual preferences, homosexuals are considered by others to be generally well adapted in social relationships.
On Human Nature. Wilson, 143-146.
AARON TELLS YOU WHY THE KIN-SELECTION HYPOTHESIS WITH RESPECT TO HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu
It was once hypothesized that such a trait could be maintained via kin selection. That is, instead of homosexuals reproducing directly, they get their genes into the future by investing (e.g., providing resources and child care) in the children of genetic relatives, increasing their kin's chance of survival and reproduction as a result. Reproducing indirectly is actually not too uncommon in nature (see, for example, the hymenoptera). By this reasoning, homosexuals could have positively affected the survival and reproductive success of their family members and passed on their genes indirectly, through their related gene-vehicles (i.e., their kin). [By the way, we do not recommend referring to your kin as gene-vehicles, even after several glasses of wine.]
Hypotheses demand empirical tests, and when the kin selection hypothesis of homosexuality was tested by David Bobrow and Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and later by Qazi Rahman and Matthew Hull of the University of East London, it was not supported. Homosexuals did not provide more care and resources to family members than heterosexuals. Whether assessing subjective measures (e.g., feeling of closeness to the family, generosity, etc.) or objective measures (e.g., distance residing from relatives, frequency of contact, etc.), few significant differences emerged between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and when there were slight differences, they were in the opposite direction (e.g., homosexuals reported giving fewer monetary resources to kin than heterosexuals reported).
gay guys are the best type of friends a girl can have
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY EVENTUALLY WANT TO FUCK YOU OR YOUR FRiEND! (FUCKIN' ON Y'ALL FRIEND! FUCK YALL FRiEND!)
Our male BFF's are backups. There is always boundaries and respect tho. Especially when one or the other is in a relationship.
ANY
MALE THAT DEVELOPS A "FRIENDSHIP" WITH A FEMALE IS DOING IT FOR SEXUAL
REASONS AND ANY FEMALE THAT THINKS OTHERWISE IS NAIVE AND SEXUALLY,
SOCIALLY, AND RELATIONSHIPLY INEXPERIENCED. (THE MALE EITHER WANTS TO
HAVE SEX WITH THE FEMALE HE DEVELOPS A "FRIENDSHIP" WITH OR HAVE SEX
WITH HER FRIENDS OR HAVE SEX WITH ALL OF THEM (HER FRIENDS AND HERSELF
IN A MASSIVE ORGY).) YOU'RE UGLY THO, VIA, SO I'D NEVER WANT TO DEVELOP
ANYTHING WITH YOU.
"I CAIN'T B A HOE FRIEND!" - BRUCE
HOMOSEXUALITY WAS VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT IN OUR EVOLUTIONARY PAST. READ BELOW.
Some of the strongest current evidence that some people are born gay is based on a phenomenon called the fraternal birth order effect. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that men with older biological brothers are likelier to be gay than men with older sisters or no older siblings. The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality.
...
Perhaps these families would be more accepting if the specific biological basis for the birth order effect were elucidated. We know the effect is biological rather than social—it’s entirely absent in men whose older brothers were adopted—but scientists haven’t been able to prove much else. One of the leading explanations is called the maternal immunization hypothesis. According to Ray Blanchard of the University of Toronto, when a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen, some molecule that normally turns the fetus heterosexual. The woman’s immune system produces antibodies to fight this foreign antigen. With enough antibodies, the antigen will be neutralized and no longer capable of making the fetus straight. These antibodies linger in the mother’s body long after pregnancy, and so when a woman has a second son, or a third or fourth, an army of antibodies is lying in wait to zap the chemicals that would normally make him heterosexual.
 |
| ...the more androgen - male hormones - the male fetus is exposed to in the womb during gestation, the more likely they are to become homosexual. This is why, for example, men who have more older brothers are more likely to be homosexual. Each additional brother increases the odds that a man becomes homosexual by 33-38%. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1313712073654906880 https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1303272705228144641 new evaluation of fraternal birth order effect of male homosexuality..."an increase from zero older brothers to one older brother is associated with a 38% increase in the odds of homosexuality" Only gay men with an (anal) preference as bottoms showed an elevated proportion of older brothers. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-0980-y …  ...there appears to be a birth-order effect: One factor that evidently predisposes toward a male being homosexual is if he has older brothers...The "fraternal birth-order effect" might be due to the impact of the uterine environment on a developing fetus, since it seems likely that when a woman repeatedly bears a male fetus, she accumulates antimale antibodies, which could modify the developing brain of subsequent children...It does seem clear, however, that among male homosexuals, sexually relevant brain regions respond to a derivative of testosterone in a manner not found among male heterosexuals. Similarly, perhaps, a comparable estrogen derivative activates parallel brain regions of lesbian but not heterosexual women. https://twitter.com/Inductivist/status/1483539596193386497 New large study: "Our analyses yield robust evidence of an fraternal birth-order effect on both M & F homosexuality... Individuals’ birth order affects the probability of entering a same-sex union, regardless of the sex of older siblings." Having a greater number of older brothers increased men's likelihood of being homosexual, but not bisexual or heterosexual with same-sex attractions. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01466-3 … |
More older siblings → greater chance of same-sex sexual orientation for both sexes (especially if those older siblings are brothers). theconversation.com/research-confi
Original Article: tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108 (N = 9,073,496)
 |
| At any rate, it is very difficult to suggest that homosexuality was a routine part of our ancestors' life if its present-day practice on a large scale among traditional societies is limited only to one island in the South Pacific far outside of the ancestral environment of sub-Saharan Africa. |
 |
| But the ethnographic records make it clear that they nonetheless did not engage in homosexual behavior prior to first contact with the western civilization. |
 |
| So the near total absence of any documentation of homosexual behavior as an individual choice may suggest that it may be relatively rare in such societies. It may also suggest that widespread practice of homosexual behavior may have been rare in the ancestral environment, and it therefore may be evolutionarily novel. |
Now That You've Read About The Correlation Between Intelligence And Homosexuality, Relate It To Jason Collin's "Coming Out" In The Link Below. He Probably Doesn't Have A Strong Genetic Proclivity For Homosexuality, However, He Probably Has Above Average Intelligence And Was Raised In An Environment (American Culture) That Condones And Even Champions The Homosexual Lifestyle And Accompanying Thought And Behavior. (Sex Is Evolutionarily Familiar. People Of High Intelligence Can Look At Evolutionarily Familiar Matters From An Evolutionary Novel Perspective. In This Regard, Homosexuality Is A Novel Solution To An Age Old Problem (HETEROSEXUAL SEX). An Intelligent Male Can't Get SEX From A Female? That's OK. I'll Get It From This Man Or This Boy. From This Perspective, Jerry Sandusky Was A Genius!)
https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1289513364251504641
Replying to and 2 others
You do know that among identical twin brothers, when one is gay, the chance that the other is gay is well under 50%?
E.g., NBA players Jason and Jarron Collins and playwrights Anthony (Sleuth) and Peter (Amadeus) Shaffer.
Male homosexuality is a Darwinian paradox.
Jason Collins Interview 2013: First Gay Pro Athlete to Come Out Speaks
Jason Collins Was Always A Passive, Patsified (Effeminate*), Suburban Nigga, But I'm Having A Hard Time Believing That He's Gay (That He's Innately Inclined To Be Homosexual), Especially Since He's Had A Girlfriend(s) And Was On The Verge Of Getting Married To A Female. Like Most People Who Claim To Be Homosexual, I Don't Think His Sexual Orientation Is As Much A Consequence Of An Inherent Predisposition To Be Homosexual, As It Is A Reflection Of The Type Of Society And Time We Live In.
*Being Effeminate Does Not Make You Homosexual, However, If
Your Effeminate Personality Traits Lead Males To Treat You As Though You're GAY
And If You Live In Society Where Being GAY Is Commended I Think It'd Be That
Much Easier For Someone Without A Strong Genetic Component To Be GAY To
Suddenly Claim To Be GAY. Understand?
Great Point. I Was Thinking Something Similar To This When
Everybody Jumped On The Bandwagon (Herd Mentality) And Started Commending Him
For Announcing To The World That He's Homosexual. I Thought To Myself "Why
Is This Important (Newsworthy) And Why Is This Worthy Of Commendation?" IT
ISN'T. What It Is Is An Indication Of How Liberal And Narcissistic Our
Society Has Become.
We're A Laissez Faire, Live And Let Live Country That
Celebrates Diversity And Non-Conformity To Our Detriment As Well As Applauds
People For Accomplishing Nothing Or At Least Nothing Important (Liberal,
Hollywood Ideals Have Permeated All Of American Society).
(We Live In A Country Where No One Wants To Criticize
Anyone. We Want To Make Everyone Feel Good And As Though They're Special And
Unique. But In The Process Of Championing Tolerance, Highlighting Everyone's
Uniqueness And Boosting Everyone's Self-Esteem We're Creating A Nation Of
Liberal, Narcissists. So It Should Be Of No Surprise That We End Up With
Millions Of People Like Jason Collins Who Want To Draw Attention To Themselves
And Garner The Applause And Approval Of The World For NO REASON.)
OH, I Left Out A Major Part Of My Hypothesis And The Part I Left Out Is That Homosexuals Who Don't Have A Strong Genetic Component To Their Homosexuality May Have A Psychological Hang Up That Has Nothing To Do With Sexual Orientation And It's This Psychological Hang Up Coupled With The "It's Cool To Be GAY" Environment That We Live In That Ultimately Leads Them To Claim To Be GAY. Follow ME? So, Jason Collins, Like Most Homosexuals, Most Likely Has A Psychological Disorder, YenYen Tho.
In Other Words, I Suspect That A Decent SizeD Proportion Of The Homosexual Community Doesn't Have A Strong Genetic Basis For Their Homosexuality, Instead, I Think They Choose To Be Homosexual Because They Come From A Culture That Celebrates And Champions This Thought And Behavior. So, Though They May Not Have An Overwhelming Genetic Drive To Be Homosexual, They're Inundated With The Belief That Homosexuality Is Something To Be Appreciated And Applauded, And, Thus, Decide To Become Homosexual.
DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS? THE INTELLIGENCE FACTOR STATED ABOVE PLAYS A LARGE ROLE IN A PERSON'S DECISION TO BECOME HOMOSEXUAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GENETIC DRIVE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T AS STRONG AS HOMOSEXUALS MAKE IT SEEM (THEIR GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO ENJOY HOMOSEXUAL SEX ISN'T THE STRONGEST DETERMINANT OF THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY).
http://www.unz.com/isteve/a-celebrity-who-probably-really-does-feel-like-the-opposite-sex-on-the-inside-wnbas-6-8-brittney-griner/
Librarian of Hate
SteveStewartWilliams 
Geoffrey Miller
Geoffrey Miller Retweeted SteveStewartWilliams
More testosterone in womb doesn't influence whether you become gay, but does influence whether you become lesbian. New study.
Take For Instance This Chick! She's Doesn't Have A Strong Genetic Inclination To Homosexuality. If You Were To Test Her Sexual Arousal To Male Indices Of Sexuality (An Attractive Male Face Or Body And Male Sexual Behavior) And Heterosexual Sex She'd Respond More Positively Than She Would If She Were Viewing Female Indices Of Sexuality And Lesbian Sex. In other Words, Genetically She's Heterosexual, Not Homosexual. Yet, She Pretends To Be Gay (Puts On This Lesbian Facade) Because Of Social Pressures And Her Own Psychological Issues, Which Include Her Desire For Attention, Her Distrust Of Males, Her Inability To Develop A Relationship And Relate To Males, The Female Dominant Household She Was Raised In, The Trendiness And Social Acceptance Of Homosexuality, Etc.
A second example of dogmatic ethics gone wrong for lack of knowledge is homophobia. The basal reasoning is much the same as for opposition to artificial contraception: sex not intended for reproduction must be an aberration and a sin. But an abundance of evidence points to the opposite. Committed homosexuality, with the preference appearing in childhood, is heritable. This means the trait is not always fixed, but part of the greater likelihood of a person's developing into a homosexual is prescribed by genes that differ from those that lead to heterosexuality. It has further turned out that heredity-influenced homosexuality occurs in populations worldwide too frequently to be due to mutation alone. Population geneticists use a rule of thumb to account for the abundance at this level: if a trait cannot be due solely to random mutations, and yet it lowers or eliminates reproduction in those who have it, then the trait must be favored by natural selection working on a target of some other kind. For example, a low dose of homosexual-tending genes may give competitive advantages to a practicing heterosexual. Or homosexuality may give advantages to the group by special talents, unusual qualities of personality, and the specialize roles and professions it generate. There is abundant evidence that such is the case in both preliterate and modern societies. Either way, societies are mistaken to disapprove of homosexuality because gays have different sexual preferences and reproduce less. Their presence should be valued instead for what they contribute constructively to human diversity. A society that condemns homosexuality harms itself.
Are homosexuality and bisexuality more common in societies with more permissive gender norms, as many social constructionists claim? Nope. Sexual orientation and gender norms are completely unrelated. (28 nations; N = 191,088) link.springer.com/article/10.100
Herb Kane Mahu
Gender identity is a complex process in which biological and sociocultural factors come together. It's not sufficient to say that if your sex chromosomes are XX and you have ovaries and a vagina you will then think of yourself as female, whereas XY chromosomes, testicles, and a penis will cause you to think of yourself as male. It's more complex in at least two ways. As you undoubtedly know, there is a small fraction of people who feel gender dysphoria. These people believe deeply that their chromosomal sex does not match their sense of self. This, despite the outward characteristics of their bodies and overwhelming social pressure. In some more affluent cultures, these transgendered people will often elect to cross-dress, take hormonal treatments, or undergo various forms of surgery to partially or completely reassign their sex. Gender dysphoria is more common in chromosomally male people, but it is not solely a male-to-female phenomenon. It's worth noting that while gender dysphorics, if allowed by social convention, will almost always cross-dress, the reverse isn't true: most cross-dressers identify with their chromosomal sex and do not experience gender dysphoria. Rather, they cross-dress as a more subtle expression of sexual identity.
Once you have self-identified as male or female, what this means in terms of your ideas and expectations is hugely influenced by culture and personal experience. The idea of what it means to be a man or a woman varies widely across cultures, families, and even individuals, in ways we know all too well: Japanese female gender identity, for example, is not the same as Italian female gender identity. In recent years, our cultural ideas about male and female identity have undergone rapid change. Perhaps the clearest examples of culturally constructed gender identity may be found in those traditions that have institutionalized transgendered status. In many Native North American cultural groups, a practice called two-spirit flourished. In these traditions, chromosomal males who identified as females and, to a lesser extent, chromosomal females who identified as males were encouraged to cross-dress and were accorded a special shamanistic status for their abilities to bridge the male and female worlds. In Polynesia, there is a tradition in which the first-born child is designated as a sort of mother's helper and assigned a female-typical social role. In some cases this is done irrespective of the chromosomal sex of the child, and the male-to-female transgendered people who result are given the name mahu (in Tahiti or Hawaii) or fa'a fafine (in Samoa). An early European encounter with this practice was recorded by a Lieutenant Morrison, a member of Captain William Bligh's 1789 expedition to Tahiti: "They have a set of men call mahu. These men are in some respects like the eunuchs of India but they are not castrated. They never cohabit with women but live as they do. They pick their beards out and dress as women, dance and sing with them and are as effeminate in their voice. They are generally excellent hands at making and painting cloth, making mats and every other woman's employment." Like Native American two-spirit practitioners, mahu are assigned a high social status and are considered both lucky and powerful. King Kamehameha I of Hawaii made sure to have mahu dwelling within his compound for exactly this reason. The larger issue here, as illustrated by mahu, two-spirit, or merely your hyper-macho Uncle Fergus, is that although sex is simply determined by sex chromosomes and the resultant action of sex hormones, gender identity is a more complex process in which their is an interplay of biological and sociocultural factors. (The Accidental Mind)
Paul Vasey A sneak peak: @NatGeo coverage of the #GenderRevolution
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/children-explain-how-gender-affects-their-lives/ …
OK, MAYBE SOME OF THE STUFF I WROTE ABOVE IS WRONG. READ
THE SHORT EXCERPT DIRECTLY BELOW THIS PARAGRAPH AND THE LINKS BENEATH
THE EXCERPT. FEMALE HOMOSEXUALITY, LIKE MALE HOMOSEXUALITY, MAY BE
HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY GENES AND BE A BYPRODUCT OF EMOTIONAL AND
BEHAVIORAL TRAITS THAT ARE ADAPTIVE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GENETIC BASIS
OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY MAY BE ADAPTIVE TO THEIR FEMALE RELATIVES WHILE
THE GENETIC BASIS OF FEMALE HOMOSEXUALITY MAY BE ADAPTIVE TO THEIR MALE
RELATIVES. THAT IS, THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY MAY SERVE AN
EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. BY THE WAY, THE EVIDENCE AND ADAPTIVENESS FOR THE fa'afafine HYPOTHESIS
MAY NOT BE AS STRONG AS I ONCE ASSUMED. OTHER HYPOTHESES MENTIONED IN
THE LINKS BELOW MAY HAVE A STRONGER BASIS IN REALITY (THEY'RE
BETTER BACKED BY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE).
I am the proud father of a gay son. In his honor, I will not be attending the CFP committee meeting in Indy this week. #EmbraceDiversity
YOU INHERIT YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION FROM YOUR MOTHER'S GENES JUST AS YOU INHERIT YOUR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE FROM YOUR MOTHER'S GENES. SO THE WOMAN MR. HADEN MARRIED AND HAD CHILDREN WITH HAS GAY GENES (FAGGOT ASS BITCH!).
We started by interviewing gay men about sexual orientation in their families. Then, whenever we could, we interviewed the family members as well. When we analyzed the first series of results, a striking patterned emerged. Not only did gay men have more gay brothers...they also had more gay cousins and uncles. Since these relatives were raised in different households, indeed mostly in completely different parts of the country, the evidence for genes increased...Even more striking was that gay uncles and cousins were concentrated on the mother's side...to a geneticist, all these gay men on the maternal branches of family trees meant one thing: a gene on the X chromosome. Because males always receive their X chromosome from their mother, any gene on the X chromosome is passed through the mother...Once it seemed clear that male sexual orientation had a genetic component, the next...step was to figure out what the genes actually were...We weren't looking for specific genes but markers or signposts that showed whether two gay brothers inherited the same or different regions of the X chromosome from their mothers...Our aim was to see if there was anything on the X chromosome related being gay...As it turned out, we got lucky. Looking at 40 pairs of gay brothers with 22 different markers, we found linkage in a region called Xq28...
Some argue that the whole idea of a "gay gene" must be wrong because homosexuality is "unnatural." They say homosexual behavior goes against evolution because it contradicts the real purpose of sex, which is reproduction...The critics raise a good question: how can a gene that leads to sexual behavior that is nonreproductive survive the rough-and-tumble of evolution? Why hasn't it been bred out of the human race?...This paradox has led to many theories of how a "gay gene" might actually be adaptive...The simplest explanation comes directly from one of the most interesting results of the research itself: the gene only works in men, not women. We wondered whether the gene might have a different role in women, so we compared the mothers and sisters of our research subjects who were either linked or unlinked for Xq28. There was no difference in the number of their children or how often they had sex, but the women with the gay version of Xq28 did have one intriguing difference: they had begun puberty an average of six months earlier than the mothers. Although the result is highly preliminary, it will be interesting to see if the gene somehow lengthens the reproductive span in women, allowing them to have more children.
Living With Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think. Hamer, Copeland, p. 190-199.
HAMER TIME! UH OH UH OH HERE CUM THE HAMER! (https://twitter.com/deanhamer This Guy Lives In Hawaii, Huh? I Just Noticed This When I Came Across His Twitter Paige Today (10/15/14). What A Perfect Place For A Scientists Studying The Genetics Of Homosexuality. He's Got All The FAGGOTS His Heart Desires At His Disposal There (He's Got More Than Enough FAGGOTS There To Experiment On). https://twitter.com/KumuHina Check This Thing Out That He's Associated With. Beautiful (Polynesian Beauty). You Can Tell It Has A Decent Proportion Of Hawaiian Genes.)
In 1993, American geneticist Dean Hamer found families with several gay males on the mother’s side, suggesting a gene on the X chromosome. He showed that pairs of brothers who were openly gay shared a small region at the tip of the X, and proposed that it contained a gene that predisposes a male to homosexuality.
Hamer’s conclusions were extremely controversial. He was challenged at every turn by people unwilling to accept that homosexuality is at least partly genetic, rather than a “lifestyle choice.”
...
There are several theories that account for the high frequency of homosexuality. A decade ago I wondered if gay gene variants have another effect that boosts the chances of leaving offspring (“evolutionary fitness”), and passing the gay allele on. This is a well-known situation (called “balanced polymorphism”) in which an allele is advantageous in one situation and not in another.
...
A special category is “sexually antagonistic genes” that increase genetic fitness in one sex but not in the other; some are even lethal. We have many examples across many species. Maybe the gay allele is just another of these.
Perhaps “male-loving” alleles in a female predispose her to mate earlier and have more children. If their sisters, mother and aunts have more kids who share some of their genes, it would make up for the fewer children of gay males.
And they do. Lots more children. An Italian group showed that the female relatives of gay men have 1.3 times as many children as the female relatives of straight men. This is a huge selective advantage that a male-loving allele confers on women, and offsets the selective disadvantage that it confers on men.
I am surprised that this work is not better known, and its explanatory power is neglected in the whole debate about the “normality” of homosexual behavior.
How “normal” are gay alleles?
We have no idea whether these genetic studies identified “gay alleles” of the same or different genes. It is interesting that Hamer detected the original “gay gene” on the X, because this chromosome has more than its fair share of genes that affect reproduction.
Gay genes on the X-chromosome Exclusive homosexuality is puzzling for evolutionary biologists because homosexuals leave substantially fewer offspring. Some marry due to social pressures and end up having children but many do not reproduce. Any genes predisposing to homosexual behavior would thus get excluded by natural selection. Current research implies male homosexuality is a sex-linked trait, although genes are far from being the whole story. (Female homosexuality is also heritable but less is known of the genetic mechanisms).
Sex-linked traits, such as color blindness highlight a curious chink in the armor of natural selection. In the normal course of events, any genetic trait that impedes survival or reduces reproductive success gets winnowed out by natural selection operating over many generations. Sex-linked traits are different because they are on the X-chromosome. Females are carriers of the affected genes (since fathers always transmit Y-chromosomes to their offspring in the course of normal fertilization). Females rarely manifest the sex-linked trait, however, because their second X-chromosome masks the mutated gene.
This fact opens up a genetic conflict of interest between the sexes. Why? Because a gene that is harmful to male reproduction can be retained by natural selection if it provides advantages to females. Indeed, if the reproductive benefit to females is greater than the cost to males, then lineages having the sex-linked gene will out-reproduce those lacking it based on simple arithmetic.
A gene promoting male homosexuality could therefore slip through the net of natural selection. For this theory of male homosexuality to be credible, at least two criteria would have to be met. First, it would have to be demonstrated that male homosexuality is transmitted through the female line after the manner of all other sex-linked traits. Second, it would have to be demonstrated that the gene increased the reproductive success of the female carriers.
In recent years, evidence has accumulated that a homosexual orientation is inherited. Study of family history reveals that homosexual men have more homosexuals in their family tree than do heterosexuals. But this is true only of ancestors that can be traced through the mother's side of the family and does not apply to paternal ancestors (1,2). This phenomenon is a smoking gun not only for genetic inheritance of sexual orientation but also for considering homosexuality as a sex-linked trait. In other words, it comes from the maternal line because that is how the X-chromosome is transmitted across the generations (male ancestors conveying Y-chromosomes only). Plenty of evidence now implicates the X-chromosome in male homosexuality but the precise genes have not been identified.
So far, the evidence for male homosexuality as a possible female adaptation lines up perfectly with the first prediction. What of the requirement that females who carry a gene for male homosexuality must enjoy some sort of advantage that allows them to out-reproduce females who are not carriers? Recent studies (1,2) have found that female relatives of male homosexuals do indeed produce more children (and the same is true of bisexual men).
Why exactly the female relatives are more fertile is also interesting. It seems that they are more fertile because they have a comparatively high sex drive. It is tempting to imagine that the high sex drive of female carriers of the putative "homosexual" gene is partly due to their greater attraction to male bodies. This idea is corroborated by similarity in the brains of male homosexuals and female heterosexuals in a part of the brain linked to sexual behavior (3).
The theory that male homosexuality evolves because the gene/s causing it increase/s the sexual activity and reproductive success in female carriers is scientifically neat.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611946/genes-linked-to-being-gay-may-help-straight-people-get-more-sex/ … via @techreview
A new study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine has found a link between homosexuality and female fertility. The mothers and maternal aunts of gay men have "increased fecundity compared with corresponding maternal female relatives of heterosexual men," the authors of the study write.
This study, which the authors note was based on a small sample and "would benefit from a larger replication," supports the so-called "balancing selection hypothesis." The gay gene -- or genes -- are thought to exist on the X chromosome, and "increase the reproductive value" of the female relatives. In other words, it makes the women more attractive to men, allowing them to produce more offspring. So while the 'gay gene' may not be passed down directly, it will survive over the course of many generations.
Not only are the maternal relatives of gay men more attractive, more fertile and subject to fewer complications during pregnancy, the study also found these women are extroverts and generally happier. In other words, if you're the mother of a gay man, you're pretty awesome.
...
However, Sykes also points out that there is some evidence that suggests the possibility of a genetic association with homosexuality without the existence of a mutated gene. He tells us:
I think you could explain it by the way that mitochondria--that piece of DNA which I’m full of admiration for because they aren't interested in men at all--are inherited down the female line. And they have ways, I think, of getting rid of male embryos and making sure that they’re propagated at the expense of males.One way that mitochondria might do this, Sykes says, is to influence some male fetuses during early development so these fetuses "do not turn into heterosexual males." This controversial idea, according to Sykes, "would explain how you can have a genetic association without there being a mutant gene." But why would mitochondria act this way? While it may sound weird, Sykes says this type of activity has been observed in many other animal species. He tells us:
It’s the basis of how beehives work. There are bees working away for the queen bee with no hope of having their own DNA propagated in the next generation. I think there's a possibility, at least it’s something to argue about, that a similar thing is operating in humans as regards male homosexuality.http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/14/499483/study-male-genetic-homosexuality/
Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova discovered that the mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than those of straight men. There seems to be at least one gene on the X chromosome that creates a trade-off in men and women. The men turn out gay (and hypothetically less likely to reproduce), but the women’s fecundity increases, making them more likely to have more offspring. In a sense, the gene makes men more attracted to men, but the women more attractive to men. Not only are they more fertile and have less complications during pregnancy, but these women are also more extroverted and have few family problems and social anxieties.
This is called the “balancing selection hypothesis,” and it effectively demonstrates how male homosexuality —as documented not only in humans but hundreds of species — does not actually contradict expectations that evolution favors reproduction.
Known as fa'afafine, these individuals do not reproduce. They are, however, fully accepted into Samoan society in general, and into their kin-based families in particular. Of particular note is that fa'afafine are significantly more prone to behave in a positive avuncular manner than are heterosexual uncles. Thus, they are more likely to purchase toys for their nieces and nephews, babysit, contribute money for the children's education, and generally provide high levels of indulgence and emotional support, in addition to their material assistance. These men are not simply fond of all children; rather, they lavish their attention upon their nieces and nephews (with whom they share, on average, 25% of their genes). This supportive role of fa'afafine even exceeds the contributions of heterosexual women as supportive aunts.
It has recently been argued, most cogently by anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, that for much of human evolutionary history, childrearing was not the province of parents (especially mothers) alone; rather, our ancestors engaged in a great deal of "allo-mothering," whereby nonparents - other genetic relatives in particular - pitched in. It makes sense that such a system would have been derived by Homo sapiens, of all primate species the one whose infants are born the most helpless and that require the largest amount of postbirth investment. Insofar as it genuinely does "take a village to raise a child," no one should be surprised if some of the most engaged assistants turn out to have been the child's gay relatives.
One effect of modernization has been a reduction in infant mortality and a parallel decrease in average family size, the so-called "demographic transition." A consequence of this, in turn, might be that with fewer children per family, the industrialized world offers less opportunity for homosexual offspring to convey benefits to their heterosexual siblings, simply because there are fewer of the latter. Add to this the fact that with enhanced mobility, it is increasingly common for children, regardless of their sexual orientation, to leave their nuclear family to attend school and eventually start their own domestic lives. Hence, it is possible that kin selection was involved in the initial evolution of human homosexuality, but with little or no fitness payoff currently detectable, except in traditional societies. It may also be significant, therefore, that unlike the experience of gays and lesbians in much of the industrialized world, fa'afafine are fully integrated into Samoan society and are not discriminated against.
The implications are potentially large, and not only for a deeper scientific understanding of how and why homosexuality may have evolved. Thus, if - as may well be the case - homosexuals are only able to display their kin-selected inclinations to assist their heterosexual relatives when homosexuality is tolerated, then what is maladaptive is discrimination against homosexuals rather than homosexuality itself. Let's be more optimistic: If current trends persist and homosexual rights continue their current trajectory toward greater acceptance, this might generate a return not only to a more "natural" human condition but also to a higher inclusive fitness payoff experienced by gays and lesbians as well as - no less - by their relatives.
Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary Puzzles of Human Nature. Barash, p. 107-108.
Miller has proposed an alternative explanation quite a few years ago. Genes always exists as doubles on chromosomes, in the form of two alleles. Genetic factors that promote homosexuality can survive in the gene pool if they mostly occur in a heterozygous (coupled with other alleles) form and increase the reproductive success of their carriers in this combination. Only in the rare cases where the inheritance is homozygous – both alleles are identical - homosexuality emerges and reduces fitness.
A man who carries a small dose of gay genes in his genome would, according to the theory, improve his success in the heterosexual mating game. That “certain something” that heightens sex appeal probably consist exactly of those essentials which make homosexuals different from heterosexuals in the first place. According to his theory, the alleged "gay genes" equip men who carry the heterozygous disposition with an above-average degree of feminine traits such as sensitivity, gentleness and friendliness. Gay genes therefore form a natural antidote against "hypermasculine" genes that turn men into rough machos. They would promote properties that appeal to women and indicate a good suitability as a father and significant other. A lesbian disposition lends women reversed traits that helps their reproductive success. Surveys have already shown that psychologically "masculine" women have more sex contacts.
Imagine, for example, there were five genes, each of which occurs in duplicate and increases the probability of homosexuality, Miller speculates. Only if a man had all five alleles in duplicate, he would be gay. "That would be an event that occurs with a probability of 1 to 32, meaning in 3 percent of all men." Such a system would already be evolutionary stable if a hint of homosexual disposition would increase the genetic fitness of heterosexuals by only 2 percent.
A man who carries a small dose of gay genes in his genome would, according to the theory, improve his success in the heterosexual mating game. That “certain something” that heightens sex appeal probably consist exactly of those essentials which make homosexuals different from heterosexuals in the first place. According to his theory, the alleged "gay genes" equip men who carry the heterozygous disposition with an above-average degree of feminine traits such as sensitivity, gentleness and friendliness. Gay genes therefore form a natural antidote against "hypermasculine" genes that turn men into rough machos. They would promote properties that appeal to women and indicate a good suitability as a father and significant other. A lesbian disposition lends women reversed traits that helps their reproductive success. Surveys have already shown that psychologically "masculine" women have more sex contacts.
Imagine, for example, there were five genes, each of which occurs in duplicate and increases the probability of homosexuality, Miller speculates. Only if a man had all five alleles in duplicate, he would be gay. "That would be an event that occurs with a probability of 1 to 32, meaning in 3 percent of all men." Such a system would already be evolutionary stable if a hint of homosexual disposition would increase the genetic fitness of heterosexuals by only 2 percent.
The same gene variants that predispose to homosexuality boost mating success in heterosexual carriers, by making them more attractive.
My feature: A tad of gay holds sway
https://plus.google.com/101046916407340625977/posts/bKP5RddNaUQ …
For our purposes, the idea would be that perhaps a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, even if a fitness liability when homozygous, could have been retained over evolutionary time if it somehow conveys a compensating benefit when combined with one or more other alleles. No precise candidate genes have yet been identified, but for now, the possibility cannot be excluded. Moreover, several suggestive qualitative arguments can in fact be made. Here goes.
...
Time, now, for a reasonable historical assumption about how we got to be the way we are: During our long Pleistocene adolescence as a species, men were probably evolutionarily fit in proportion as they were good with projectile weapons, at anticipating the habits of game and of potential enemies and competitors, and at attracting and keeping mates, of course...with much of the latter two occurring in proportion as men succeeded at the former four. With the development of agriculture and early civilization, however, it is likely that the optimally adapted person - of either sex - tilted more than previously toward social skills, verbal ability, etc. The likelihood is that these traits had always been favored to some degree, but perhaps especially so once people occupied large settled communities. And so, the argument goes, natural and sexual selection came to favor social and communicative skills - at which homosexuals tend to exceed heterosexuals.
What does this have to do with genetics? Just this. Maybe in evolutionary time, exclusive homosexuality has been a fitness catastrophe, like sickle cell disease, but just as sickle cell disease persists because in single dose its underlying allele conveys a benefit with respect to malaria, perhaps one or more homosexuality-promoting alleles were retained because they also conveyed a particular payoff. That fitness-supporting homosexual benefit could have derived from the verbal facility and/or social and communicative skills just described. The outcome might then be a stable frequency of exclusive same-sex preference, just as heterosis produces a steady frequency of people with sickle cell disease.
C.R. Dewar, who first developed this line of reasoning, argues that if selection has favored an intermediate degree of "gayness," perhaps because of verbal facility and related assets, this would lead to exclusive homosexuality cropping up persistently at one tail of the distribution, even though homosexuality itself would not have been selected for directly. He turns to head size of human embryos for an example. Thus, selection favors the production of babies whose heads are pretty much as large as possible, so as to accommodate maximum brain development. Sometimes, however, this selective pressure results in babies whose heads are simply too big to be accommodated by the mother's birth canal: The resulting cephalopelvic disproportion is a significant cause of mortality during childbirth, especially in societies without access to modern obstetrical procedures.
Nevertheless, Dewar argues, such genes aren't edited out of the population because they are advantageous when present at intermediate levels:
It might be safer at birth to have a small head with a small brain and to be born with the ease of a puppy, but it is just too massive a disadvantage throughout the remainder of life. In reproductive terms it's better to take the risk associated with a larger head. Similarly it might be too big a disadvantage in a post-hunter-gatherer society to be aggressive with poor communication and social skills (as a result of being highly responsive to available androgens) even if the alternative means there is a 5% chance of being exclusively homosexual. This also parallels the observation that homosexual children are born to heterosexual parents. Parents with large heads who have survived childbirth may themselves conceive children who do not. Indeed it is invariably the case that parents of children who die during childbirth survived their own birth.Bear in mind that in traditional societies, homosexuality often served a social role, beyond possible assistance in rearing the offspring of genetic relatives. Perhaps the social payoff associated with same-sex preference - quite aside from any kin-selected payoff - was sufficient to keep same-sex alleles around, even though some proportion of regularly produced exclusive homosexuality (analogous to having a too-large head) was the price to be paid. Not quite heterosis as with sickle cell disease, but close.
Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary Puzzles of Human Nature. Barash, p. 116-118.
A generation ago Alfred Kinsey found that as many as 2 percent of American women and 4 percent of men were exclusively homosexual, while 13 percent of the men were predominately homosexual for at least 3 years of their lives. Today the number of exclusive homosexuals is conservatively estimated to be five million, while gays themselves believe that the number of closet homosexuals could raise the number to twenty million. They form a consequential American subculture, employing an argot of hundred of words and expressions. Homosexual behavior of one form or another is also common in virtually all other cultures, and in some of the high civilizations it has been permitted or approved: in classical Athenian, Persian, and Islamic societies, for example, and in late republican and early imperial Rome, in the urban, Hellenistic cultures of the Middle East, in the Ottoman Empire, and in feudal and early modern Japan.
There is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficent behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organization. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some of mankind's rare altruistic impulses.
The support for this radical hypothesis comes from certain facts considered in the new light of sociobiological theory. Homosexual behavior is common in other animals, from insects to mammals, but finds its fullest expression as an alternative to heterosexuality in the most intelligent primates, including rhesus macaques, baboons, and chimpanzees. In these animals the behavior is a manifestation of true bisexuality latent within the brain. Males are capable of adopting a full female posture and of being mounted by other males, while females occasionally mount other females.
Human beings are different in one important aspect. There is a potential for bisexuality in the brain and it is sometimes expressed fully by persons who switch back and forth in their sexual preference. But in full homosexuality, as in full heterosexuality, both that choice and the symmetry of the animal pattern are lost. The preference is truly homophile: most completely homosexual men prefer masculine partners, while their female counterparts are attracted by feminine ones. As a rule, effeminate mannerisms in men are mostly unrelated to their choice of sexual partners. In modern societies, but not primitive ones, transvestites are only rarely homosexual, and the great majority of homosexual men do not differ significantly in dress and mannerisms from heterosexual men. A parallel statement can be made regarding homosexual women.
This special homophile property may hold the key to the biological significance of human homosexuality. Homosexuality is above all a form of bonding. It is consistent with the greater part of heterosexual behavior as a device that cements relationships. The predisposition to be a homophile could have a genetic basis, and the genes might have spread in the early hunter-gatherer societies because of the advantage they conveyed to those who carried them. This brings us to the nub of the difficulty, the problem most persons have in regarding homosexuality to be in any way "natural."
How can genes predisposing their carriers toward homosexuality spread through the population if homosexuals have no children? One answer is that their close relatives could have had more children as a result of their presence. The homosexual members of primitive societies could have helped members of the same sex, either while hunting and gathering or in more domestic occupations at the dwelling sites. Freed from the special obligations of parental duties, they would have been in a position to operate with special efficiency in assisting close relatives. They might further have taken the roles of seers, shamans, artists, and keepers of tribal knowledge. If the relatives - sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, and others - were benefitted by higher survival and reproduction rates, the genes these individuals shared with the homosexual specialists would have increased at the expense of alternative genes. Inevitably, some of these genes would have been those that predisposed individuals toward homosexuality. A minority of the population would consequently always have the potential for developing hemophilic preferences. Thus it is possible for homosexual genes to proliferate through collateral lines of descent, even if the homosexuals themselves do not have children. This concept can be called the "kin-selection hypothesis" of the origin of homosexuality.
If the kin-selection hypothesis is correct, homosexual behavior is likely still to be associated with role specialization and the favoring of kin in hunter-gatherer and simple agriculture societies, in other words those contemporary cultures most similar to the ones in which human social behavior evolved genetically during prehistory. The connection appears to exist. In some of the more primitive cultures that survived long enough to be studied by anthropologists, male homosexuals were berdaches, individuals who adopted women's dress and manner and who even married other men. They often became shamans, powerful members of the group able to influence its key decisions, or were specialized in some other way, in women's work, matchmaking, peacemaking, or as advisors to the tribal leaders. The female counterparts to berdaches are also known but are less well documented. It is further true that in western industrial societies, homosexual men score higher than heterosexuals on intelligence tests and are upwardly mobile to an exceptional degree. They select white collar professions disproportionately and regardless of their initial socioeconomic status are prone to enter specialties in which they deal directly with other people. They are more successful on the average within their chosen professions. Finally, apart from the difficulties created by the disapproval of their sexual preferences, homosexuals are considered by others to be generally well adapted in social relationships.
On Human Nature. Wilson, 143-146.
AARON TELLS YOU WHY THE KIN-SELECTION HYPOTHESIS WITH RESPECT TO HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu
It was once hypothesized that such a trait could be maintained via kin selection. That is, instead of homosexuals reproducing directly, they get their genes into the future by investing (e.g., providing resources and child care) in the children of genetic relatives, increasing their kin's chance of survival and reproduction as a result. Reproducing indirectly is actually not too uncommon in nature (see, for example, the hymenoptera). By this reasoning, homosexuals could have positively affected the survival and reproductive success of their family members and passed on their genes indirectly, through their related gene-vehicles (i.e., their kin). [By the way, we do not recommend referring to your kin as gene-vehicles, even after several glasses of wine.]
Hypotheses demand empirical tests, and when the kin selection hypothesis of homosexuality was tested by David Bobrow and Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and later by Qazi Rahman and Matthew Hull of the University of East London, it was not supported. Homosexuals did not provide more care and resources to family members than heterosexuals. Whether assessing subjective measures (e.g., feeling of closeness to the family, generosity, etc.) or objective measures (e.g., distance residing from relatives, frequency of contact, etc.), few significant differences emerged between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and when there were slight differences, they were in the opposite direction (e.g., homosexuals reported giving fewer monetary resources to kin than heterosexuals reported).
Andrew Might Be Onto Somethin' Here Cuz I Don't B Givin' My Nephews And Nieces Shit! I Don't Invest Nuttin' In Them. Matta Fact I Take Shit From Them. I Take They Lunch Money And They Lunches! OH, Know What? I Do B Givin' Them Somethin: Hard Dick And Bubble Gum!
