Questions about homosexuality [Archive]

athon

23rd November 2005, 09:36 AM

For the same reason there is any sort of behaviour variation within a species. No 'reason'...it is simply a variation. Variation of sexual behaviour exists within a population, and does in numerous other animal populations. This variation does keep a population healthy, as with most variations in behaviour.

Selective pressures on what characteristics individuals find attractive increase this variation in preference, and homosexuality is at one end of the spectrum. Sexuality is a social behaviour, don't forget. This is not necessarily a direct influence on producing offspring. Sexuality has been used as a form of hierarchy domination and bond forming between individuals, to give but two examples.

So no, it is not a form of 'population control'. There is zero evidence for such a hypothesis.

Athon

HeyLeroy

23rd November 2005, 09:43 AM

Ceritus

23rd November 2005, 10:36 AM

I'm regularly amazed at what people will post on a public forum.

I did not intend this to sound offensive in any sense. The reason I worded it the way I did was because human attraction serves many purposes but one prevailing purpose is procreation. The fact that homosexual relationships produce no offspring I would like to know how in nature such tendencies exist.

From my personal experience in attraction I have not had a sexual attraction to another male so instead of becoming a bigot I would much rather learn about the subject and perhaps enlighten other people who may be bigots.

I do not in anyway regard homosexuality in any negative sense I am just intrigued by the subject. I think it is absolutely amazing how so many members of the same species can have such a wide variety of tendencies all of which contribute to every aspect of our culture.

I seek understanding and discussion and I do not have any agenda to belittle anyone on this subject.

My best friend is homosexual and my original reaction to his coming out about 5 years ago was negative and I nearly lost him. But I thank my lucky stars I didn't buy into what my family or his family believed and was able to open my mind up and accept him which in turn opened me up to the thirst for knowledge regarding human behavior. This was the first time I actually realized just because I cannot understand something doesn't mean it is weird or wrong.

I apologize for my lack of tactful wording.

Also understand I have no religious agenda as well because if you look at my posting history you would notice I am an atheist.

I am irritated by the fact there are so many people who hate what they do not understand that an honestly interested person cannot ask a question on the subject without coming off as offensive. I just hope one day enough information on the subject will be common knowledge so that homosexuality would be viewed the same way an average person views another person with different colored hair.

athon

23rd November 2005, 10:43 AM

Don't worry, Phil's just homophobic in response to the denial of his own sexuality. He'll come out of the closet any day now...soon...maybe...

(we all know about the pink underwear, Phil!)

Athon

Phil

23rd November 2005, 11:08 AM

Don't worry, Phil's just homophobic in response to the denial of his own sexuality. He'll come out of the closet any day now...soon...maybe...

(we all know about the pink underwear, Phil!)

Athon

Are you kidding me? I wish I was gay. It would make my life so much easier.

Phil

23rd November 2005, 11:15 AM

I did not intend this to sound offensive in any sense. The reason I worded it the way I did was because human attraction serves many purposes but one prevailing purpose is procreation. The fact that homosexual relationships produce no offspring I would like to know how in nature such tendencies exist.

From my personal experience in attraction I have not had a sexual attraction to another male so instead of becoming a bigot I would much rather learn about the subject and perhaps enlighten other people who may be bigots.

I do not in anyway regard homosexuality in any negative sense I am just intrigued by the subject. I think it is absolutely amazing how so many members of the same species can have such a wide variety of tendencies all of which contribute to every aspect of our culture.

I seek understanding and discussion and I do not have any agenda to belittle anyone on this subject.

My best friend is homosexual and my original reaction to his coming out about 5 years ago was negative and I nearly lost him. But I thank my lucky stars I didn't buy into what my family or his family believed and was able to open my mind up and accept him which in turn opened me up to the thirst for knowledge regarding human behavior. This was the first time I actually realized just because I cannot understand something doesn't mean it is weird or wrong.

I apologize for my lack of tactful wording.

Also understand I have no religious agenda as well because if you look at my posting history you would notice I am an atheist.

I am irritated by the fact there are so many people who hate what they do not understand that an honestly interested person cannot ask a question on the subject without coming off as offensive. I just hope one day enough information on the subject will be common knowledge so that homosexuality would be viewed the same way an average person views another person with different colored hair.

I take responsibility for jumping to conclusions. Admittedly, I read your opening post quickly, and in my haste it sounded somewhat like yet another example of hateful ignorance along the lines of: "AIDS is nature's way of eradicating homosexuals."

I apologize for my hastiness.

dogjones

23rd November 2005, 11:36 AM

Is there any possibility of there being a "gay gene"?

valis

23rd November 2005, 11:39 AM

Terry

23rd November 2005, 11:46 AM

Are you kidding me? I wish I was gay. It would make my life so much easier.

Banned from the aquarium?

--Terry.

Phil

23rd November 2005, 11:49 AM

Banned from the aquarium?

--Terry.

Would that that were the extent of it.

HeyLeroy

23rd November 2005, 11:52 AM

Is there any possibility of there being a "gay gene"?

From the first link: (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9803/02/lesbian.ears/)

Previous research has found that two parts of the brain are different in gay and heterosexual men. Other studies have found that some genes differ between gay and straight men.

HeyLeroy

23rd November 2005, 11:56 AM

In my experiance a womans interest in lesbian sex has more to do with her blood alcohol level than her innner ear.

Well then, publish your findings (don't forget the spell-check!) and see how well they're peer-reviewed. The research project cited in the articles point out that sexual orientation is likely 'nature', not 'nurture'.

Oh, and lay off the Girls Gone Wild infomercials for a while, eh?

Melendwyr

23rd November 2005, 12:52 PM

For the same reason there is any sort of behaviour variation within a species. No 'reason'...it is simply a variation. Variation of sexual behaviour exists within a population, and does in numerous other animal populations. This variation does keep a population healthy, as with most variations in behaviour. 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.

valis

23rd November 2005, 01:12 PM

Well then, publish your findings (don't forget the spell-check!) and see how well they're peer-reviewed.

Okay let's see, here are my findings:

Out of all the women I have known in my life the vast majority of them have not been averse to the idea of lesbian sex. Also the majority, although not all, of those women felt inhibited under everyday circumstances for whatever reason.Alcohol seems to lower those inhibitions, thus resulting in me saying "Yoo Hoo!".

I suppose my peers would be people who drink and date freeky women also.
Hang on while I have them review this post.

Yep I had my peers review the above statement and they agree.

As to the Girls Gone Wild. Those videos are based on two very little known facts. Most people have a good deal of repressed sexual freakishness but don't allow themselves to act upon it. And B: when drinking in a 'wild' party atmosphere people are more likely to act on these desires.

You doesn't need a peer reviewed journal to verify this, you just needs to get
yoself laid once in a while.

And I am sorry but I do not take yakking in forums seriuosllllleey enuff to bother spill chicking my massages.

And before I get a lecture, yes I really do know what a peer reviewed journal is. Just having fun ma'am, sorry to have pissed you off.

Ceritus

23rd November 2005, 01:17 PM

I take responsibility for jumping to conclusions. Admittedly, I read your opening post quickly, and in my haste it sounded somewhat like yet another example of hateful ignorance along the lines of: "AIDS is nature's way of eradicating homosexuals."

I apologize for my hastiness.

In hind sight I do now notice how it could have been taken that way. Apology accepted!

I am just to blunt of a person at times I suppose ;)

HeyLeroy

23rd November 2005, 01:30 PM

(snip)

And before I get a lecture, yes I really do know what a peer reviewed journal is. Just having fun ma'am, sorry to have pissed you off.

Didn't p!ss me off, sugar, just wondering if you were going to post pics.

Moochie

23rd November 2005, 01:40 PM

We are polymorphously perverse, aren't we?

AREN'T WE?

casebro

23rd November 2005, 01:45 PM

Study: Inner ears of lesbians show differences (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9803/02/lesbian.ears/)

Research links inner ear and sexual preference (http://www.ocolly.com/issues/1998_Spring/980402/stories/ear.html)

Sexual Preference In Women Linked To Difference In The Inner Ear (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980303064433.htm)

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

23rd November 2005, 01:54 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 04:08 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 07:12 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 07:42 PM

(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

23rd November 2005, 08:26 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 08:36 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 08:37 PM

Well-reasoned, Robo!

Gurdur

23rd November 2005, 08:39 PM

Eos of the Eons

23rd November 2005, 08:41 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 08:46 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 08:50 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 08:52 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 08:54 PM

Ya big smoothie, you! Grr!

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

(edited for second line)

Eos of the Eons

23rd November 2005, 08:56 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 09:21 PM

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

23rd November 2005, 09:37 PM

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 .:jaw-dropp

Soapy Sam

24th November 2005, 09:18 AM

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

24th November 2005, 10:48 AM

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

HeyLeroy

24th November 2005, 12:45 PM

Exactly. Still, Nature over Nurture is the predominant influence.

Soapy Sam

25th November 2005, 03:44 AM

Maybe.
The two interact at many levels. It's hard to tell sometimes whether human behaviour is genetic or learned. Bit of both, generally.
Matt Ridley's book "Nature via Nurture" is excellent on this.

Complexity

26th November 2005, 06:17 PM

Not that it matters much, but I'm gay and have kept my ears open for discussions on this subject for years. I'll toss a few points out without evidence - I'll try to back them up soon after some surfing...

I have heard of some species in which higher-than-proportional increases in the occurrence of homosexual behavior are observed as the population grows.

I believe that I've heard that there is a genetic propensity for being homosexual that has been supported by some identical-twins/fraternal-twins studies.

I've heard of a suggested mechanism for differentiation between the brain of a gay male versus that of a straight male: The brain is masculinized by significant increases in testosterone at two precise windows of time during gestation. If the testosterone levels during these periods are too low, the brain will not fully masculinized. I've also heard that a person whose brain is overexposed to testosterone, or hypermasculinized, may be susceptible to autism. I was under the impression that both the child and the mother may be involved in under-, or over-, or mistimed-production of testosterone.

There are some species in which greater genetic advantage is gained by nurturing one's sibling's offspring than by nurturing one's own (Stephen J Gould, I believe). I think a similar argument might be made regarding homosexuality.

I believe that, while I will not have any children, my sister's and brother's children have approximately as much in common with me genetically as they do with each of their grandparents (may be wrong - first time for anything). So, while I don't have any children, I have the genetic equivalent of 7 grandchildren, and more time and resources to nurture them than if I had children of my own. As a result, my parent's grandchildren are fewer but better nurtured than if I had had children.

I hope that this example raises two thoughts - being childless is not the same as not participating in The Great Game, and there may be some selective advantage to homosexuality.

Good discussion. I'll dig around and find out more...

Soapy Sam

27th November 2005, 08:53 AM

Yes- there's statistical evidence that gay men tend to have more older brothers than straight men for example. A baby is a foreign body from the POV of the mother's immune system- half the genes are from the father, after all. It could be that the mother becomes "vaccinated"as it were against the foreign cells , so that with each successive pregnancy the biological response of her body is different. If the hormone levels are different during pregnancy, there could be a different degree of masculinisation of the foetus. (All mammals start female, what happens afterwards dpends to some extent on the mother's hormone levels in the first few days of gestation.

Straw poll- Complexity- got many big brothers? (Damn, this statistics is easy!):)

It's hard to see how homosexuality could be a selective advantage for the individual. It certainly might be for the gene though.
Hey- you want a selective advantage, get along to an assisted fertility clinic, donate semen. (They'll pay if you're desperate).
You get-
1.Free dirty mags. Hmm- better take one of your own.
2. A tenner a whack. (Is that the right word, I wonder?)
3. The chance to have up to ten kids which someone else pays to bring up.
4. And if you lie thoroughly and convincinly about who you are, not only will they not arrive on your doorstep in 20 years, but you can wangle it so they arrive at your worst enemy's.

athon

27th November 2005, 09:02 AM

By the way, just to complicate the issue even further, the latest 'buzz' word in genetics circles is 'matrix'. Matrices are collections of genes that together influence a trait. No longer do you have a gene for a given characteristic, but rather a 'matrix', which includes a whole number of genes that account for coding, interpretation, levels of expression and so on. Recent efforts have begun to look more at the linkages within and between matrices. Hence you won't have a gay 'gene', but a gay 'matrix'. This matrix can then further be influenced by the environment, much like oncogenes are pre-cancer genes. Having them does not mean you have cancer, but it might indicate that given the right environmental factors you have a higher than average chance of getting it.

Athon

YoPopa

27th November 2005, 09:39 AM

By the way, just to complicate the issue even further, the latest 'buzz' word in genetics circles is 'matrix'. Matrices are collections of genes that together influence a trait.
Matrix, good word. I heard it explained as a bunch of switches. Perhaps analogous to the mixing board for an audio technician. Combinations of which switch is up and which down can be mind boggling.

Complexity

27th November 2005, 10:11 AM

Soapy Sam - I'm the oldest kid in the family.

Complexity

27th November 2005, 10:16 AM

I recommend the book Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom by Sean B. Carroll.

This is where I learned the most about the DNA switching mechanism, as well as a lot more. It is a wonderful book about evolutionary development.

billydkid

27th November 2005, 10:34 AM

luchog

27th November 2005, 05:02 PM

Not to derail or anything, but this is what I have always found puzzling about homosexuality. I think the essense of what the sexes find attractive about each other are their differences - that the things men find attractive in women are those attributes, both physical and psychological, which are dissimilar to their own attributes and vice versa.
Nope. There are a whole lot of examples that disprove the "opposites attract" nonsense. What people find attractive varies widely from person to person, and is a combination of genetics and cultural programming. There is no hard and fast rule about what a particular person will find attractive. About the only thing that comes close is that most humans show a preference for regular, symmetrical features with no obvious defects or extreme exaggerations. But there are those who deviate from that general model as well.

And features that in one culture are generally considered highly desirable, are often considered distinctly unattractive in other cultures.

Hence you won't have a gay 'gene', but a gay 'matrix'. This matrix can then further be influenced by the environment, much like oncogenes are pre-cancer genes.
Well, personally, I though The Matrix was pretty gay. I mean, seriously, Reeves has got to be one of the most obvious closet cases I've ever seen. It was clear even as far back as Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure.

Soapy Sam

28th November 2005, 02:46 AM

Soapy Sam - I'm the oldest kid in the family.

Damme! Another lovely theory destroyed by an ugly kid!

Athon- Remember the caution- "A Gene for Z" is shorthand. Apart from HOX genes, it's very unlikely that any single short stretch of DNA is solely responsible for anything much. Each gene operates like one switch in a network. It's effect will vary, depending on the settings of other switches.
Each other switch affects protein production. The presence of protein X may inhibit production of Y. The whole thing is massively re-entrant.

God knows how it works at all (presumably).
The code would be a bitch to debug.

Darat

28th November 2005, 02:47 AM

Not to derail or anything, but this is what I have always found puzzling about homosexuality. I think the essense of what the sexes find attractive about each other are their differences - that the things men find attractive in women are those attributes, both physical and psychological, which are dissimilar to their own attributes and vice versa.

But only for sex. Apart from where they want to put their jiggly bits men would appear to prefer the company of other men and prefer the company of men with similar behavioural attributes. It is very rare for a man to have mainly women as friends.

Looked at in this way, homosexuality doesn't make any sense. I don't mean this as a criticism of homosexuality, but I think this is part of the reason some people can't wrap their minds the idea of homosexuality. It would seem, if one were homosexual one could plausibly find one's self sexually attractive. I remember a movie I saw where a teenage boy said something to the effect that if he had boobs he would play with them all day long. A homosexual person, in a sense, gets to live that fantasy one would think.

You do find yourself sexually attractive - if you didn't you wouldn't be having sex with you!

Also an example of the fact that men do not "instinctively" find other mens sexual apparatus off-putting is that most pornography movies aimed at men also features men. If the men found that repulsive then they wouldn't be getting much satisfaction from the pornography and consider how popular pornography is.

When we drop our culturally acquired blinkers (such as the still very common "oh poofters the very thought makes me sick") we soon realise that homosexuality is very, very similar to heterosexuality.

u04tl2

28th November 2005, 03:50 AM

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.

Homoexuality genes (if there are such things) can be adaptive. Look at sickle cell anemia. Although the homozygous individual is ill and will most likely die before puberty, the heterozygous individual is more resistant to malaria, a highly adaptable trait in subtropical countries. Moreover the gene will spread in the population, increasing the occurance of homozygous individuals, and hence, sickle cell anemia.
I am not saying that homosexuality is genetic, but it can be imagined that heterozygous individual (that is, he/she has one gay gene) can have a slight advantage to the rest of population, wherea the homozygous individual will be gay, an hence a potential genetic dead-end. For example, as the stereotype says, gay men tend to be more empatic and affectionate. Furthermore the heterozygote will increase the occurance of the gene through, say, kin selection. Moreover, the gene will spread in the population, thus increasing the number of homozygous.
Let me know if this makes sence.
Oh, and sorry for the spelling, it's my third language.

Cheers

jay gw

28th November 2005, 04:27 AM

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality. Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared.

He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men.

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a 52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men. These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html

There would be no reason why the twins of homosexuals would be so likely to be homosexual too if there was nothing genetic to it. Unless they just happen to decide to be gay like their twin brother *rollseyes*

billydkid

28th November 2005, 07:11 AM

Nope. There are a whole lot of examples that disprove the "opposites attract" nonsense. What people find attractive varies widely from person to person, and is a combination of genetics and cultural programming. There is no hard and fast rule about what a particular person will find attractive. About the only thing that comes close is that most humans show a preference for regular, symmetrical features with no obvious defects or extreme exaggerations. But there are those who deviate from that general model as well.

And features that in one culture are generally considered highly desirable, are often considered distinctly unattractive in other cultures.

Well, personally, I though The Matrix was pretty gay. I mean, seriously, Reeves has got to be one of the most obvious closet cases I've ever seen. It was clear even as far back as Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure.

Didn't say opposites attract did I? You surely are not saying that it is not female attributes that attract males to females generally. That would be a rather nutty thing to say. And, in fact, cultural notions of beauty are not very different at all. One culture may find saggy breasts attractive and another might find firm, upstanding ones attractive, but they attribute attractiveness in the female to having breasts, generally speaking.

billydkid

28th November 2005, 07:34 AM

But only for sex. Apart from where they want to put their jiggly bits men would appear to prefer the company of other men and prefer the company of men with similar behavioural attributes. It is very rare for a man to have mainly women as friends.

You do find yourself sexually attractive - if you didn't you wouldn't be having sex with you!

Also an example of the fact that men do not "instinctively" find other mens sexual apparatus off-putting is that most pornography movies aimed at men also features men. If the men found that repulsive then they wouldn't be getting much satisfaction from the pornography and consider how popular pornography is.

When we drop our culturally acquired blinkers (such as the still very common "oh poofters the very thought makes me sick") we soon realise that homosexuality is very, very similar to heterosexuality.
Apparently I am not making my self very clear. And, I have to say I never remotely expressed the notion that "the very thought makes me sick". You obviously are reading into what a wrote more than I actually wrote. I guess you are calling masterbation "having sex with you". Well that is a fairly ridiculous notion. Gratifying yourself is not having sex with yourself. I know a number of people who find themselves sexually repulsive and I am pretty sure all of those people masturbate. The fact that there are men in porno movies has nothing to do with the sexual appeal of men to other men. Those men are our proxies in those movies and that is the function they serve. Furthermore, men watch those movies to see beautiful women being penetrated by penises. It doesn't matter who the penis belongs to. Since the users of pornography can not penetrate those women with their own penises they must do it vicariously using their proxies.

Gayness has never been an issue for me and my best friend for many years was gay. Have been in the theatre for some time years ago, virtually every man I knew was gay. Some where dear friends and some were ass-hats, just like everyone else. That doesn't change the fact that there is something obviously different between homosexual sexual attraction and hetero sexual attraction. Straight men are attracted to females because they are women and specifically because they are not men and not merely incidentally. Likewise, gay men are attracted to other men because they are male.

Darat

28th November 2005, 08:08 AM

Apparently I am not making my self very clear. And, I have to say I never remotely expressed the notion that "the very thought makes me sick". You obviously are reading into what a wrote more than I actually wrote.

Sorry I wasn't trying to suggest for a moment that was your view - that was just an example for what i think are "culturally" created opinions and views not "biological" ones.

I guess you are calling masterbation "having sex with you". Well that is a fairly ridiculous notion. Gratifying yourself is not having sex with yourself. I know a number of people who find themselves sexually repulsive and I am pretty sure all of those people masturbate.

I wasn't meaning masturbation, I was meaning the fact that sex will normally involve your body (which I am assuming in our cases are male).

The fact that there are men in porno movies has nothing to do with the sexual appeal of men to other men.

Yes it does - it means that men do not necessarily find other men sexually a turn off. I've known plenty of heterosexual male friends who have engaged in three in a bed - with there being just one female yet they do not consider that anything to do with homosexuality. Yet it is hard to hold the view that in those circumstances straight men aren't being intimate with other men. There is also (and I am trying to be careful because of the type of forum this is) the fact that males engage in other "sexual" acts with other men that again they do not consider homosexual in nature (the type of masturbatory "competitions" young adolescents are known to engage in).

All these activities actually show that the line between what we tend to call heterosexual and homosexual sexual preferences is not as black and white as we like to culturally portray it as being.

Those men are our proxies in those movies and that is the function they serve. Furthermore, men watch those movies to see beautiful women being penetrated by penises. It doesn't matter who the penis belongs to. Since the users of pornography can not penetrate those women with their own penises they must do it vicariously using their proxies.

Yet the sight of those other male penises does not cause problems (for the majority of men) when they are thinking about sex. Again demonstrating that the difference between a homosexual act and a heterosexual act can be very hard to determine.

Gayness has never been an issue for me and my best friend for many years was gay. Have been in the theatre for some time years ago, virtually every man I knew was gay. Some where dear friends and some were ass-hats, just like everyone else. That doesn't change the fact that there is something obviously different between homosexual sexual attraction and hetero sexual attraction.

I agree there is a difference I just maintain it isn't as much of a difference as we tend to consider it is. (And we note the difference because of cultural reasons not biological ones.)

Straight men are attracted to females because they are women and specifically because they are not men and not merely incidentally. Likewise, gay men are attracted to other men because they are male.

This isn't borne out when we look at other cultures where there may be what we consider homosexual activity between males that will go on to marry and act as we consider hetrosexual men "should" do. (And in what we know of historical cultures.) I think that all we can conclude is that humans like sex with pretty much any human they find attractive and that different cultures tend to express this in different ways.

I think this is a longwidned way of saying I doubt we will ever find a "homosexual" gene or matrix, what I suspect we will find is just genes that deal with human sexuality.

Beerina

28th November 2005, 08:16 AM

I've read it's artificial because in China like lots of countries males are better than females. I'll leave it to you to infer then why there are so many more males than females.

And the ratio, something like 120:100, is horrific.

Yes, all we need is an economic juggernaut lead by a dictatorship, and a half a billion males, a hundred million of which can't get a girl, all angry.

We may live in very interesting times over the next 20 years or so, indeed.

Soapy Sam

28th November 2005, 10:18 AM

Yeah. If all those frustrated Chinamen jump off the top of the wardrobe onto the bed of a Hong Kong hooker at the same time, she'll feel the Earth move.

billydkid

28th November 2005, 12:09 PM

Sorry I wasn't trying to suggest for a moment that was your view - that was just an example for what i think are "culturally" created opinions and views not "biological" ones.

I wasn't meaning masturbation, I was meaning the fact that sex will normally involve your body (which I am assuming in our cases are male).

Yes it does - it means that men do not necessarily find other men sexually a turn off. I've known plenty of heterosexual male friends who have engaged in three in a bed - with there being just one female yet they do not consider that anything to do with homosexuality. Yet it is hard to hold the view that in those circumstances straight men aren't being intimate with other men. There is also (and I am trying to be careful because of the type of forum this is) the fact that males engage in other "sexual" acts with other men that again they do not consider homosexual in nature (the type of masturbatory "competitions" young adolescents are known to engage in).

All these activities actually show that the line between what we tend to call heterosexual and homosexual sexual preferences is not as black and white as we like to culturally portray it as being.

Yet the sight of those other male penises does not cause problems (for the majority of men) when they are thinking about sex. Again demonstrating that the difference between a homosexual act and a heterosexual act can be very hard to determine.

I agree there is a difference I just maintain it isn't as much of a difference as we tend to consider it is. (And we note the difference because of cultural reasons not biological ones.)

This isn't borne out when we look at other cultures where there may be what we consider homosexual activity between males that will go on to marry and act as we consider hetrosexual men "should" do. (And in what we know of historical cultures.) I think that all we can conclude is that humans like sex with pretty much any human they find attractive and that different cultures tend to express this in different ways.

I think this is a longwidned way of saying I doubt we will ever find a "homosexual" gene or matrix, what I suspect we will find is just genes that deal with human sexuality.

Yes, you are right it is not as simple and cut and dried as I might have suggested it is. On the other hand, I would stand by the idea that men, generally, are attracted to the feminine characterists in a woman and find masculine characterists unattractive. And I would define feminine characteristics as those features which men tend not to share and vice versa. Like I think I said, while hetero men may prefer different types of breasts - small or large, firm or saggy, they still prefer their women to have them and to have the defining characterist which designate a person as a woman. In general, men do find masculine characteristics sexually repellent - hairyness, muscularity, largeness, smellyness (just joking, sort of. I sure don't find the smell of a locker room or other men appealling.) Essentially, I stand by my premise that the characteristics straight men and women find appealing are those which they don't share and which tend to distinguish their gender from the opposite one.

jay gw

28th November 2005, 12:25 PM

Any suggestion that homosexuality is due to some kind of population control is sort of begging the question: if population size is the factor then why aren't overpopulated countries like India and China more likely to have homosexuals than underpopulated ones? There's no evidence that overpopulated areas have more homosexuals.

It also leads to the truth that if homosexuality is some kind of population control mechanism is sure as hell isn't working because some places have no room left and the people go hungry by the millions.

I'd like to put forward the idea that if a culture does not condemn a homosexual lifestyle then those who are even only moderately attracted to their own sex -- are far more tempted to live the lifestyle. No man in a Mid Eastern culture - which all condemns gays - would be stupid enough to live with another man.

Despite what gay activists assert the fact a culture is more tolerant does encourage the continuance of homosexual expressions.

Complexity

28th November 2005, 01:06 PM

jay_gw: I didn't suggest that the incidence of homosexual orientation in humans acts as a form of population control, I said that I thought I had heard of this effect in some other species. It really doesn't matter.

Regarding your assertion that no man in a Middle Eastern culture would be stupid enough to live with another man... What the hell are you basing this on? Gays in the middle east may not be out as much as those in parts of the U.S., but they are there, living and loving just like everyone else, and many of them live together.

The more gay-tolerant a culture is, the easier it is to live gay openly, but I don't think it has anything to do with the percentage of the population that is gay, or bi, or has participated in various forms of non-straight sexual exploration.