Homosexuality and natural selection
 

If homosexuality is genetic (trendy view nowadays and one I actually agree with), now that it is increasingly ok to come out of the closet, won't homosexuality be naturally selected out? (i.e the gay gene won't be passed on). In past generations homosexuality was repressed and so gay people were forced into child-producing hetrosexual relationships. As that changes, will homosexuality be naturally selected out?

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

From Wiki:

[ QUOTE ]
Some scholars have suggested that homosexuality is adaptive in a non-obvious way. By way of analogy, the allele (a particular version of a gene) which causes sickle-cell anemia when two copies are present may also confer resistance to malaria with no anemia when one copy is present.[citation needed]

The so-called "gay uncle" theory posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of close relatives. This "gay relative" hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith and West Eberhard.[3] This concept also was used to explain certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

this is flawed because straight people have gay children, so the gene must be recessive or a product of some combination of other genes.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
If homosexuality is genetic (trendy view nowadays and one I actually agree with), now that it is increasingly ok to come out of the closet, won't homosexuality be naturally selected out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have nothing here to go on other than a dozen years in San Francisco but I'm 90% convinced that most gay men are way more promiscuous than the general population. Since men are much more interested in casual sex, finding enough partners for the truly randy is almost impossible. That leads to their own club, the gay men by choice.

Besides, if it's genetic we'll soon be able to test for it in vitro and abort them. I can hear them screaming already.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

Tweety, you seem to be looking at sexuality in too black/white of a manner. IMO, it is nothing concrete, and everyone is basically a shade of bi. Most people are just effectively "gay" or "straight" cause that's what becomes logistically sound. I'm no expert on this stuff, but I would say many if not most "straight" people have either some attraction to the same sex or at least a capacity to be attracted to the same sex.

So I don't think it's as simple as thinking "gay" people just stop reproducing. "Gay" is just a label, and not a concrete description of what's actually going on. There's no way to know exactly what traits will be selected for in the future. But, it's not exactly impossible for gay people to find a way to procreate today, and you can assume it's likely to only get easier in the future.

I have a loose theory (I guess it's sort of similar to the gay uncle thing) that the magical hand of evolution makes it so a being whose survival is more secured will have a higher capacity for same sex attraction as a defense against promiscuity. As your time preference is lowered, basically, you get more gay as a means of protecting against unwanted offspring. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Then, if you do reproduce, it's increasingly more likely that you were in a position where you really wanted the child and are ready to be a great parent, thus increasing the likelihood that your offspring will make good decisions, thus perpetuating the cycle.

It makes sense in my head but it's sort of hard to put it in words. Feel free to flame my theory (pun very intended).

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is flawed because straight people have gay children, so the gene must be recessive or a product of some combination of other genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The "gay gene" can be within every single human being, but that doesn't mean everyone will be gay. Just some of them. The gene "triggers" on some occasions or under certain circumstances.

Most ants are female and infertile. Very few are fertile, and there are pretty much the same number of males as fertile females (as it must be because of the "expected value selection").

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

i don't see how it's flawed based on your reasoning. the gene could be recessive or the trait could need an environmental trigger. how does that make the idea flawed?

(i personally think it's unlikely that "gayness" is adaptive, but the idea isn't flawed because straight parents have gay kids)

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a loose theory (I guess it's sort of similar to the gay uncle thing) that the magical hand of evolution makes it so a being whose survival is more secured will have a higher capacity for same sex attraction as a defense against promiscuity. As your time preference is lowered, basically, you get more gay as a means of protecting against unwanted offspring.


[/ QUOTE ]

in the current era, where almost everyone survives through puberty, i don't see how unwanted offspring or promiscuity could possibly reduce your chances, biologically.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see how it's flawed based on your reasoning. the gene could be recessive or the trait could need an environmental trigger. how does that make the idea flawed?

(i personally think it's unlikely that "gayness" is adaptive, but the idea isn't flawed because straight parents have gay kids)

[/ QUOTE ]

its flawed in that if what you say there is true, doesn't that invalidate your OP?

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't see how it's flawed based on your reasoning. the gene could be recessive or the trait could need an environmental trigger. how does that make the idea flawed?

(i personally think it's unlikely that "gayness" is adaptive, but the idea isn't flawed because straight parents have gay kids)

[/ QUOTE ]

its flawed in that if what you say there is true, doesn't that invalidate your OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? wasn't that my original post?
the gene being recessive or the trait needing an environmental trigger invalidates...the idea that being a "gay uncle" could be adaptive? no.
i guess i don't follow.

maybe you mean that it means that the answer to the orignal poster's question "will natural selection eliminate the trait" is no. sure, if the "gay uncle" hypothesis is right, the answer to that question would be no. still not sure that that's what you meant.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]

As that changes, will homosexuality be naturally selected out?


[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality may very well be a side effect of a gene (or combination of genes) that confers some more significant advantage. If thats the case, it won't be selected out.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't see how it's flawed based on your reasoning. the gene could be recessive or the trait could need an environmental trigger. how does that make the idea flawed?

(i personally think it's unlikely that "gayness" is adaptive, but the idea isn't flawed because straight parents have gay kids)

[/ QUOTE ]

its flawed in that if what you say there is true, doesn't that invalidate your OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? wasn't that my original post?
the gene being recessive or the trait needing an environmental trigger invalidates...the idea that being a "gay uncle" could be adaptive? no.
i guess i don't follow.

maybe you mean that it means that the answer to the orignal poster's question "will natural selection eliminate the trait" is no. sure, if the "gay uncle" hypothesis is right, the answer to that question would be no. still not sure that that's what you meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right, i confused you for OP, sorry bout that

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
If homosexuality is genetic (trendy view nowadays and one I actually agree with), now that it is increasingly ok to come out of the closet, won't homosexuality be naturally selected out? (i.e the gay gene won't be passed on). In past generations homosexuality was repressed and so gay people were forced into child-producing hetrosexual relationships. As that changes, will homosexuality be naturally selected out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it has not been naturally selected out, as a matter of fact. That says it all! Your question rest on incorrect premises.

Homosexuality was not/is not repressed in all cultures at all times either, by the way.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

What I can't figure out is how sexual pleasure derived from being on the receiving end of anal sex evolved. Is there an evolutionary benefit to taking it up the bum (applies to both men and women)? And how could something like that evolve from a simple mutation?

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

Maybe it's so we'd enjoy pooping and not hold it in.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

this thread has more drivel in it than any thread I have read on SMP in the last six months.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
From Wiki:

[ QUOTE ]
Some scholars have suggested that homosexuality is adaptive in a non-obvious way. By way of analogy, the allele (a particular version of a gene) which causes sickle-cell anemia when two copies are present may also confer resistance to malaria with no anemia when one copy is present.[citation needed]

The so-called "gay uncle" theory posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of close relatives. This "gay relative" hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith and West Eberhard.[3] This concept also was used to explain certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Genetic but environmental? I wonder what Darwin would think of that.

Sounds like crap to me.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I can't figure out is how sexual pleasure derived from being on the receiving end of anal sex evolved. Is there an evolutionary benefit to taking it up the bum (applies to both men and women)? And how could something like that evolve from a simple mutation?

[/ QUOTE ]

For men its just about stimulating the prostate gland, which gives a much more powerful orgasm. You don't anal sex for that, but I guess it is one way. So obv pleasure seeking.

And I as I was browsing through wikipedia to check out my facts (I wisely decided not to use google for this one), I came across cited surveys that tell far from all gay men have anal intercourse. So there.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I can't figure out is how sexual pleasure derived from being on the receiving end of anal sex evolved. Is there an evolutionary benefit to taking it up the bum (applies to both men and women)? And how could something like that evolve from a simple mutation?

[/ QUOTE ]

For men its just about stimulating the prostate gland, which gives a much more powerful orgasm. You don't anal sex for that, but I guess it is one way. So obv pleasure seeking.

And I as I was browsing through wikipedia to check out my facts (I wisely decided not to use google for this one), I came across cited surveys that tell far from all gay men have anal intercourse. So there.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the resident 2+2 expert on anal sex, there is more to anal sex than the stimulation of the prostate. I love anal sex, but I'm fairly apathetic to prostate stimulation (it is NOT a "male g-spot")

Anal sex shouldn't surprise people that much. Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement. Anal sex pleasure is in many ways like that, although my use of that metaphor is probably not going to help promote sodomy here :P

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

Another possibility is that a recessive "gay gene" confers some sort of survival advantage in heterozygous individuals. What that might be I have no idea (better fashion sense gives males with one copy of gay gene a better chance of getting laid? :-) ).

This would be analogous to sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, both lethal recessives. However, people with just one copy of the sickle cell gene have increased resistance to malaria, and people with one copy of the cystic fibrosis gene have better resistance to water-borne diarrheal diseases (leading cause of infant and child mortality where sanitation is bad, which was just about everywhere until 100 years or so ago).

Actually, I suspect that the reality is much more complex. There is probably a gene, or more likely several genes, that create a pre-disposition to homosexuality, but there are probably psychological factors that trigger it, as previous poster suggested. There still may be some sort of survival advantage to the gene or genes. Non-genetic developmental effects could be a factor, too, such as hormone levels in the mother. It seems to me that I have read of studies of identical twins, and there was something like a 50% concordance rate. If it was purely genetic, it should be 100%. Of course, the true number may well be higher, due to one twin being in the closet and one openly gay. Also, twin studies don't control for psychological factors, since ususally both twins grew up in the same home. Finding enough gay identical twins separated at birth to make a significant sample could be difficult, though.

And of course, it is correct that gay vs. straight is not a black-and-white matter. Many straight people have gay sex at some time in their lives, and vice versa. Sometimes the heterosexual encounters by "gay" people produce children. Also, quite a few lesbian women have children with donor sperm, sometimes using gay men as the donors, so I don't think homosexuality is going to be completely selected out any time soon.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's so we'd enjoy pooping and not hold it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah probably.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I can't figure out is how sexual pleasure derived from being on the receiving end of anal sex evolved. Is there an evolutionary benefit to taking it up the bum (applies to both men and women)? And how could something like that evolve from a simple mutation?

[/ QUOTE ]

For men its just about stimulating the prostate gland, which gives a much more powerful orgasm. You don't anal sex for that, but I guess it is one way. So obv pleasure seeking.

And I as I was browsing through wikipedia to check out my facts (I wisely decided not to use google for this one), I came across cited surveys that tell far from all gay men have anal intercourse. So there.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the resident 2+2 expert on anal sex, there is more to anal sex than the stimulation of the prostate. I love anal sex, but I'm fairly apathetic to prostate stimulation (it is NOT a "male g-spot")

Anal sex shouldn't surprise people that much. Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement. Anal sex pleasure is in many ways like that, although my use of that metaphor is probably not going to help promote sodomy here :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and women don't have prostate glands and yet some of them certainly enjoy anal sex as well. There are nerve fibers on the rectal walls.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I can't figure out is how sexual pleasure derived from being on the receiving end of anal sex evolved. Is there an evolutionary benefit to taking it up the bum (applies to both men and women)? And how could something like that evolve from a simple mutation?

[/ QUOTE ]

For men its just about stimulating the prostate gland, which gives a much more powerful orgasm. You don't anal sex for that, but I guess it is one way. So obv pleasure seeking.

[/ QUOTE ]
According to wiki (search "anal orgasm"):
"Anal orgasm has nothing to do with the prostate orgasm, although the two are often confused.[18]"

[ QUOTE ]
And I as I was browsing through wikipedia to check out my facts (I wisely decided not to use google for this one), I came across cited surveys that tell far from all gay men have anal intercourse. So there.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know that! I'm not saying gay men wouldn't exist without anal sex. I also recognize that some people would probably have anal sex even if it wasn't pleasurable for the receiver. It's just something I was curious about that has nothing to do with homosexuality, so I guess I went off topic.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

Mkay, one learns something new every day around here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which fills the rectal vault and opens the sphincter.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

You guys need to spend more time watching TV. It was talked about on The Colbert Report with one of his guests who just recently wrote a book on homosexuality.

So far the evidence is showing that there is a gene that is carried by mothers that is more likely to be activated the older the mother is at the time of conception. That's why statistically gay men are more likely to be the youngest sibling in the family. So yes and no, it is kind of the product of a gene and kind of not.

It actually makes some sense, there is a fair amount of evidence out there that having children later in life for women inevitably raises their child's risk of having a birth defect. Really puts that whole nature vs. nurture thing into perspective.

As for the natural selection thing, it probably won't be bred out of the population. For one, the gene usually is not activated, so it gets passed on successfully with no change in the typical heterosexual phenotype. Secondly, if a woman is having children in her mid 30s, chances are she's already had at least a couple children before that who also have that gene but aren't gay. Third(ly?), even some gay people manage to reproduce before really understanding that they are homosexual. Homosexuality is pretty much here to stay.

The crazy thing about this is that even with new magical In Vitro gene-analyzing technology you can't prevent homosexuality, because the gene will be present regardless if the offspring is homosexual or heterosexual. They would have to figure out if the gene has activated or not, and by that time it would probably be in the later stages of fetal development.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]
The actual pleasure comes from the friction against the rectal walls or something.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which fills the rectal vault and opens the sphincter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. I wouldn't call it intense pleasure.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which fills the rectal vault and opens the sphincter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. I wouldn't call it intense pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And friction on your penis isnt intense pleasure either. Its a reasonable amount of pleasurable friction that, with visual, mental, audio, whatever additional stimulus, leads to orgasm, which IS intensely pleasurable.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which fills the rectal vault and opens the sphincter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. I wouldn't call it intense pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And friction on your penis isnt intense pleasure either. Its a reasonable amount of pleasurable friction that, with visual, mental, audio, whatever additional stimulus, leads to orgasm, which IS intensely pleasurable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, enjoy. I wouldn't know how it feels to take it up the ass, but I guess I will take your word for it that it feels good.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which fills the rectal vault and opens the sphincter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. I wouldn't call it intense pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And friction on your penis isnt intense pleasure either. Its a reasonable amount of pleasurable friction that, with visual, mental, audio, whatever additional stimulus, leads to orgasm, which IS intensely pleasurable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, enjoy. I wouldn't know how it feels to take it up the ass, but I guess I will take your word for it that it feels good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Are you just being homophobic? I'm trying to explain to you why it might be pleasurable. If you dont want to do it no one is going to make you do it. There are plenty of good reasons not to do it, and under most circumstances they probably greatly outweigh the reasons to do it. That doesnt mean it doesnt have the potential to feel good.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

Tweety,

I think you can safely assume that people who freely have anal sex enjoy it (well, atleast those that do it regularly [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]), regardless of whether or not you have it yourself. So I don't really get your post either.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tweety,

I think you can safely assume that people who freely have anal sex enjoy it (well, atleast those that do it regularly [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]), regardless of whether or not you have it yourself. So I don't really get your post either.

[/ QUOTE ]

They may enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it's physically pleasurable. Some people enjoy pain. Some people enjoy being dominated, etc.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you can safely assume that people who freely have anal sex enjoy it (well, atleast those that do it regularly [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]), regardless of whether or not you have it yourself. So I don't really get your post either.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people don't realize that anal sex can be pleasurable. For that reason some woman think it (man on woman anal sex) is chauvinist/sexist etc.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which fills the rectal vault and opens the sphincter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. I wouldn't call it intense pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And friction on your penis isnt intense pleasure either. Its a reasonable amount of pleasurable friction that, with visual, mental, audio, whatever additional stimulus, leads to orgasm, which IS intensely pleasurable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, enjoy. I wouldn't know how it feels to take it up the ass, but I guess I will take your word for it that it feels good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Are you just being homophobic? I'm trying to explain to you why it might be pleasurable. If you dont want to do it no one is going to make you do it. There are plenty of good reasons not to do it, and under most circumstances they probably greatly outweigh the reasons to do it. That doesnt mean it doesnt have the potential to feel good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not in any way shape or form being homophobic. You can take my comment at face value.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
They may enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it's physically pleasurable. Some people enjoy pain. Some people enjoy being dominated, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. However, anal sex is in fact physically pleasurable.
Or at least has the potential to be.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here knows the intense physical pleasure of a good bowel movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, isn't the pleasure there derived from the relief of releasing something OUT of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which fills the rectal vault and opens the sphincter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. I wouldn't call it intense pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And friction on your penis isnt intense pleasure either. Its a reasonable amount of pleasurable friction that, with visual, mental, audio, whatever additional stimulus, leads to orgasm, which IS intensely pleasurable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, enjoy. I wouldn't know how it feels to take it up the ass, but I guess I will take your word for it that it feels good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Are you just being homophobic? I'm trying to explain to you why it might be pleasurable. If you dont want to do it no one is going to make you do it. There are plenty of good reasons not to do it, and under most circumstances they probably greatly outweigh the reasons to do it. That doesnt mean it doesnt have the potential to feel good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not in any way shape or form being homophobic. You can take my comment at face value.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say so.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

In the spirit of SMP I made a scientific poll.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

Whoa whoa whoa, we talking taking or giving?