Questions about homosexuality

[Moochie]

We are polymorphously perverse, aren't we?

AREN'T WE?

 

[casebro]

Study: Inner ears of lesbians show differences

Research links inner ear and sexual preference

Sexual Preference In Women Linked To Difference In The Inner Ear

I remembered reading this a few years back, I'm surprised t how easily I found these references. I thought I'd have to do a lot more digging.

(edited to include my comment)

So, shouldn't there be a large corelation of deafness to lesbianism? Could women exposed to loud noises 'turn lesbian', 0r conversely, lesbians would be more likely to join the Army since artillery fire wouldn't scare them as much?

But then, all those citations above are ancient history. They must have been reviewed and denied by now- all of the other "scientific" studies on the differences of gays have been. Seems to me, there are NO studies of homosexuality done by un-biased researchers, it's just tooo inflammatory of an issue. Like alcoholism, marijuana, or porn, it is tough to find open minded researchers.

 

[athon]

If sexual preferences are acted upon, homosexuality would seem to rule out reproduction, which is most certainly not adaptive in any obviously immediate way.

Passing off the existence of homosexuality as a meaningless and incidental variation is utterly ridiculous.

Where did I say it was meaningless? All variation is influenced by stresses.

I should explain what I mean by 'reason'. A common mistake is to associate a trait with a direct cause, as if it was developed in response to a stress. Lamarckian thinking, if you will. There are influences, which can be multiple, but homosexuality did not arise to address a cause. It arose because it was not unfit for it to exist (a small distinction, but one which seems to confuse people for some reason).

I am saying homosexuality is a variation of sexuality, and variation of behaviour is like any other sort of variation. Variation is a mark of health within a population. The fact it exists as such denotes variation of sexual behaviour as promoting fitness of the human species.

To immediately associate it with direct reproductive features is naive. There's many examples of behaviour that initially appears to go against direct reproduction, such as kin sacrifice. Can't be good for the species if you're suicidal, now can it? Unless your sacrifice helps promote your genes in another individual.

Variation in sexuality as a trait might have other influences, such as a role in social dynamics. Within a social group this might have some sort of fitness; occasional copulation with a female to ensure offspring with a strong tendency towards homosexuality (to ensure your place high in the pecking order as a domination over other males) is an example off the top of my head.

Athon

 

[HeyLeroy]

So, shouldn't there be a large corelation of deafness to lesbianism? Could women exposed to loud noises 'turn lesbian', 0r conversely, lesbians would be more likely to join the Army since artillery fire wouldn't scare them as much?

But then, all those citations above are ancient history. They must have been reviewed and denied by now- all of the other "scientific" studies on the differences of gays have been. Seems to me, there are NO studies of homosexuality done by un-biased researchers, it's just tooo inflammatory of an issue. Like alcoholism, marijuana, or porn, it is tough to find open minded researchers.

I daresay 1998 is ancient. You don't sound very open-minded, yourself.

BTW, the study says nothing about deafness. It says that the inner structure of some lesbians' ears resemble males' more closely than females'.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Attraction is a whole complex system, and of course tied into the physiology of our reproductive system. Attraction gears up the reproduction system. It therefore attempts to NOT be a population control, as gay men make sperm and have reproductive parts that work just like a hetero's. It's the actual system of attraction that is rather backwards.

A perfume company did an experiment with pheremones. Gay men were affected by male pheremones, and were unaffected by female pheremones. The reproductive system was geared up by the wrong set of chemicals.

We understand how we don't often just choose who we are attracted to. For women especially, it takes more than just looks...we are aware of "chemistry" between men and women. Well, gay folks have chemisty too.

I'll try to dig up the study, but I saw it on a documentary.

Hey there's finally more studies on this topic:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050510_pheremones.html

 

[HeyLeroy]

(from Eos' link)

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned,'' said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Witelson, who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.

One of my best friends in grade school was a kid who 'came out' when he was older. It was obvious (to me, anyhoo) that (how to say this?) he didn't conform to the norm.

I believe in nature over nurture, in the vast majority of incidences of homosexuality. It's not strange, it's simply not the norm.

And no, I don't mean abnormal.

 

[Roboramma]

If sexual preferences are acted upon, homosexuality would seem to rule out reproduction, which is most certainly not adaptive in any obviously immediate way.

It doesn't have to be immediate, though.

I like what athon has said so far.
Here's some thoughts:

If homosexuality is influenced by genes, it doesn't mean there is a one to one corelation: "If you have this gene you are gay." it only means it influences it.
It's possible that a certain gene might have the affect in certain environments, or when in a body with other genes, or causing homosexuality. In other environments, or when in a body with other genes, it might not.
On the other hand it might have some other effect.
That's all speculation, but just possibilities.

On the other hand, maybe there is a range of bahaviors likely to come about from homosexuality.
We evolved not in big cities, but as hunter gatherers. As such, that's where we should look at the effects of certain traits. Is it likely that homosexuals didn't reproduce in those societies? I'm not sure, but considering the importance of family on marriage, I do don't think it's unlikely that they did. They may even have been likely to have more offspring that hetrosexuals at times when homosexuals were less common.
Who knows?

It's difficult to look at the exact predicted effects of a trait. Because we can't look at them in a vacuum. Homosexuality may be more than being attracted to the opposite sex (see HeyLeroy's inner ear links, for instance). And the effects of that attraction have to be looked at for the specific environments in which we evolved before we can know what the evolutionary outcome will be.

For instance, here's a scenario. In a certain society, homosexual men, because of societal pressure, are just as likely to marry a woman as are hetrosexual men. But they are less likely to have sexual relationships with other women. As such, they have more time and energy to put into the offspring of their wife. Who might do better because of it than those of hetrosexual men. More survive to maturity to breed on their own.

Of course, if homosexuality spread enough through the population it because easier for homosexual men to have sexual relationships with each other. Thus making them less likely to marry women and have children. Also, those who did have families would now have the option of having extra-marital affairs with other men. Which might decrease their efficiency.

So the frequency of the genes for homosexuality in men would be kept at an equilibrium, a small enough percentage of the population that most homosexual men would be unlikely to come into contact with any other homosexual men, but no less frequent.

This scenario predicts that homosexual men would be as interested in family as hetrosexual men, maybe even more so. Something that at least doesn't seem contradicted by evidence.

That's just idle speculation, but the point is that I can think of ways in which certain environments might be conducive to the evolution of homosexuality, regardless of the fact that it seems at first glance to reduce fitness.

 

[casebro]

I daresay 1998 is ancient. You don't sound very open-minded, yourself.

BTW, the study says nothing about deafness. It says that the inner structure of some lesbians' ears resemble males' more closely than females'.

1998 is eight years back, I would think that by now more research would have been done on these lines. Any newer backing for the claims involved? Gays would love to say "see it's not a choice, it's the way I was born", just as fundies would like to prove gays are "perverts" by choice. I'd expect more studies in the eight years since, if there was any reproducibility.

Me, open minded? Sure, I'm open minded enough to ask more questions, in my critical thinker way. And to look, and to think, i.e., is there a deafness corelation?


Perhaps the links were to extracts, but, while they did use the word 'structure', they didn't explain which structure/how. They just talked about more sensitive hearing amoungst hetero women vs males or lesbians. Did I miss something about cilia, or spirals, or viscosity of fluid?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Well-reasoned, Robo!

 

[Gurdur]

The genetic connection for homosexuality in humans is very far from proven as yet.
BTW, the differences alluded to in brain anatomy in gay/straight males rely on a study that used brains from males deceased from HIV -- and HIV is known to have an affinity for brain tissue, meaning that the HIV could have changed the anatomy. Therefore there is no great evidence for such consistant anatomical brain differences either.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Perhaps the links were to extracts, but, while they did use the word 'structure', they didn't explain which structure/how. They just talked about more sensitive hearing amoungst hetero women vs males or lesbians. Did I miss something about cilia, or spirals, or viscosity of fluid?

Who cares about their ears? The genetics involved affects the attraction, and maybe something with the ears, or whatever too. Without the "attraction glitch" there would be no homosexuality.

So the evidence ALL points to differences genetically, the studies that point to the results of the genetics shows WHY.

It's very clear from a variety of viewpoints and study areas that homosexuals are not wired the same way as heterosexuals.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The genetic connection for homosexuality in humans is very far from proven as yet.

I have to disagree. Only genetics would cause their systems to be physiologically attracted to the "wrong" sex the way they are. You can't just choose to be attracted to whomever, there is a whole system involved. A whole chemical and physical system.

 

[HeyLeroy]

The genetic connection for homosexuality in humans is very far from proven as yet.
BTW, the differences alluded to in brain anatomy in gay/straight males rely on a study that used brains from males deceased from HIV -- and HIV is known to have an affinity for brain tissue, meaning that the HIV could have changed the anatomy. Therefore there is no great evidence for such consistant anatomical brain differences either.

Sources?

I have to disagree. Only genetics would cause their systems to be physiologically attracted to the "wrong" sex the way they are. You can't just choose to be attracted to whomever, there is a whole system involved. A whole chemical and physical system.

Much more proof.

 

[Gurdur]

I have to disagree. Only genetics would cause their systems to be physiologically attracted to the "wrong" sex the way they are.

I will be happy to scutinise together with you the evidence (or lack of it) here.

You can't just choose to be attracted to whomever,

Actually, cognition and experiences play a very large role in determining attraction.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Ya big smoothie, you! Grr!

(See, Valis? I can be a smart@ss too!)

(edited for second line)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Actually, cognition and experiences play a very large role in determining attraction.

No kidding. If you had never tasted ice cream before (or chocolate, or a steamy fresh out of the oven cinammon roll), would a picture of it make you drool? There is memory involved with attraction. Taste, you remember a taste, and remember liking it. Then a picture of it makes you drool even though you can't even taste, touch, or smell it.

You (a man that is) see a picture of a woman, and you know how a woman makes you feel. A hetero man sees another picture of a man, and there is none of that association. It doesn't "turn him on".

You still need that actual experience before making the association though. Without the chemicals of attraction, there would be no attraction.

From my previous link:

The homosexual men's brains responded differently from those of heterosexual males, and in a similar way to the women's brains.

Attraction is physiological and then associated. Gays have a system that reacts to the wrong sex. That is caused by their physical, and thus genetic make up.

 

[Gurdur]

No kidding.

My point was you seem to think attraction is hardwired.
An awful lot of attraction is vague and non-hardwired.

Attraction is physiological and then associated. Gays have a system that reacts to the wrong sex. That is caused by their physical, and thus genetic make up.

I am afraid this is deeply problematical on 3 counts:
1) no such thing as "reacts to the wrong sex"
2) the actual evidence for genetics in homosexuality in humans is very unclear and circumstantial as yet
3) the evidence for difference in reaction does not make for evidence of genetical cause. Such difference can be caused by cognitive alteration

 

[YoPopa]

Attraction is physiological and then associated. Gays have a system that reacts to the wrong sex. That is caused by their physical, and thus genetic make up.

IMVeryHO . Eos is very likely correct but not for certain.

I have a strong attraction to the smell of the ocean at low tide. I don't believe that attraction was hard wired at birth. I spent many pleasant hours exploring the mud at low tide and I now enjoy something that a lot of people think is just plain stinky.

Eau de Mudflat very nice .

 

[Soapy Sam]

Ceritus-
Roboramma gave one valid example of how a "gay gene" can spread.
Here's another.

First, let's quote the standard caution:- The term "A gene for Z" is shorthand for a lot of very complex biology, which happens among (possibly many) effects, to affect property "Z", which may be physical or behavioural.

Imagine a "gene for femininity". Imagine it's on the X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes, men have one , which they inherit from their mother.
Imagine this gene makes girls dizzyingly attractive, feminine, beautiful, etc. Prime marriage material. Good breeding stock. Any girl with this gene- or better yet two copies- will be pretty sure to marry and have lots of kids, who spread the gene.
But what happens if such a woman has a son?
He inherits her X chromosome.
Now maybe the gene will do nothing, suppressed by an allelle from the father.
But what if it's dominant?
We might reasonably expect the boy to have certain feminine characteristics. See where we're going?
He might look or act, "female",or find himself attracted to (and attractive to) other men.

In that case, there's a chance any male body the gene finds itself in will be a dead end from it's point of view, in a society tolerant of male homosexuality. Ironically, the gene does better in a homophobic society, because gay men often marry and have kids.

Meanwhile, the gene spreads rapidly through the female line. All the hetero guys are happy to have a supply of attractive girls; the girls are happy to be sought after and the gay guys are the only downside from the gene's point of view. But if the daughters all have lots of kids, that may be quite an acceptably successful strategy. Especially in modern wartime, when "fit" young men are subject to mass slaughter.

(This is lifted from Dawkins of course. I honestly can't remember which book. Doesn't matter. They are all worth reading, but I strongly suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" if you are interested in questions of this sort.)

 

[toddjh]

Attraction is physiological and then associated. Gays have a system that reacts to the wrong sex. That is caused by their physical, and thus genetic make up.

Genetics is not the only thing that can affect physical development. I believe that sexual preference is at least partly genetic, but there are some ideas floating around that the development of sexual preference could be affected by varying hormone levels in the womb. There's a similar theory regarding gender dysphoria.

Jeremy