Russia is in something of a homophobic fever. Four regions (including Saint-Petersburg) have banned the dissemination of “gay propaganda” to minors, it may yet go federal, and disassociated itself from a G8 statement on gay rights. It’s obviously not like in many Middle Eastern countries where homosexuality is illegal (as in the USSR) but attitudes do resemble those of the US or the UK in the 1980’s.
This got me thinking on another tangent, however. Why would a straight person be homophobic anyway?
From the POV of straight dudes, more gays means less competition for chicks. (Lesbians are mostly bisexual so it doesn’t apply in reverse, and besides, homophobia tends to focus on gays anyway). That is one reason why I don’t mind gays apart from my general live-let live attitudes. The incentives for chicks aren’t as clear-cut as for dudes, as they’d have to try harder to find permanent partners, but upside is they are much less likely to wind up with a closet homosexual.
There are two possible evolutionary causes for homophobia that I see. First, the idea that one’s children will be propagandized into adopting the lifestyle. This may cut off the parents’ genetic tree. This would seem unlikely since most research indicates sexual preferences are set in childhood but the subconscious fear of some parents that this may not be the case is understandable.
Second, it is presumably in the interests of the group to have more males competing for females. The selection process for mating would then be harsher so the average quality of sexually successful dudes is higher. Particularly relevant because gays seem to be more educated and richer than average, and certainly more metrosexual, all of which attracts women. So even though the gays’ absence from the hetero-market would be a boon for all straight dudes, especially the lower-quality ones who are likelier to be displaced by them, the latter nonetheless tends to hate on gays, because at the subconscious level they know that less sexual competition is bad for the group.
There’s an ambiguity that stems from the confusion of two things:
– Presumably most of the cases as in the research you mention lie in biology, the “born that way” cases. The most obvious would be the different medical conditions known as hermaphroditism and pseudohermaphroditism where the subject’s physical appearance and physiology contradict their reproductive instincts, however they have developed. The least obvious would be people whose body seem normal but brain structures aren’t in tune with the visible gender- eg someone who looks like a normal man but who has the instincts of a woman. Most of the cases are in this category and it is very plausible that various shades of gray exist (as in brains can be feminized to various degrees).
– Then whatever research papers say there are clearly people who will try any kind of behaviors, especially when under alcohol and drugs, people who lead dissolute “adventurous” lives. Thus various practices sexual or not, dangerous or absurd can occur. Also I should mention frustration. How else do you explain rapes in prisons, or zoophile occurences during roman orgies?
Well if we remove PC as you seem intent on this blog, the most accurate term should be disabled for a person falling in the first category and pervert for the second. Thing is there is a large confusion between the two one that many of the concerned people seem to want to be maintained. Or because they’re already confused about their feelings (given the various existing conditions and their overlap, it’s understandable). Thus it’s impossible to say who belongs where except extreme exemples, much less establish accurate stats.
In any case why should a country like Russia feel compelled to promote such things? Afaik, some clubs, bars already exist for gays. But it’s difficult to compel people to respect what are by large disabled or perverts- accept their “pride” demonstrations or propaganda, that is enforce the acceptance of their problems and mores in the general population when there should be just as much understanding and respect as there is with paralytic, blind…or any other persons with physical or mental disability,
Because it doesn’t pass the smell test. Popular culture is so inundated with heterosexual “promotion” that any homosexual “promotion” will be completely swamped by it. So it looks more that people who are “afraid” of homosexual promotion are afraid of something else
As far as smell tests are concerned, history should be a good guide. And I’m afraid “gay rights” and associated “identity politics” in the form currently advertiized weren’t a feature of any notable civilization.
So called homosexuality in ancient times in Europe was a one way road (ie Roman men raping teenagers or slaves mostly, falls in the pervert category) while it wasn’t nearly conceivable at all to be diverted from your reproductive duties and family responsibilities for anyone, in essence people couldn’t identify as “gays” and live as such.
Exception being In many places some caste would comprise homosexual couples, but they were particular and well defined groups- never representative of the general population. Of course it goes without saying that “heterosexual promotion” have been their natural traditions; sometimes rigidly codified and constrained but always derived from the basic biological urges which govern the reproduction and survival of humans. Any talk of culture and purely cultural gender construction are of course in complete denial of the basic features of human reproduction and the natural evolution of societies.
Historically it never was true that almost all babies reached adulthood or the very easy way of birth-control, those two have such a profound effect on society that i don’t give a damn about ancient normality
Have you any proof of homosexuals being more educated and richer? Is this not just a selection process because the only gay people you now are educated/rich as getting out of the closet needs guts and being successful gives you more guts.
Kids cost an enormous amount of money and time. So it is not surprising that not having them is associated with having money. It would be weird if that wasn’t true.
Homosexual men are not necessarily more “educated” but they are often more interested in what we call “the arts”: opera, painting, ballet, haute cuisine / fine dining. When homosexuality was illegal in most Western cultures, going to the opera, a classical music concert or the ballet was one way that homosexual men could make new contacts without advertising to everyone else that they were gay and they looked for little visual clues, like a certain colour of handkerchief sticking out of someone’s coat lapel, that indicated a stranger was gay and might be interested in meeting them. In most Western countries, homosexuality is no longer a crime but gays may still meet at cultural events to make contacts if there is still so much social discrimination that they can’t go to gay bars or gyms.
And I agree they are not richer or more financially savvy though real estate agents like them as often they are good tenants and pay the rent on time. Kids not only cost huge amounts of money and time but their needs and the associated expenses can play havoc with meeting bill payments on time (unless you have arranged all your bill payments to be deducted automatically from your account).
“they are often more interested in what we call “the arts”: opera, painting, ballet, haute cuisine / fine dining.”
Bollocks. The next thing you will tell us is that Beethoven, mozart and haydn were all gay right? Nice try, Leftie. Keep on building those myths on foundations of sand…
See? this is why most students don’t take their education seriously. Modern profs are constantly LYING to them, hence why should they take anything seriously?
People without children have more time and money to spend on going out. Gays don’t have children.
Razib Khan has an interesting post about monogynous versus polygynous societies:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/monogamous-societies-superior-to-polygamous-societies/
In polygynous societies, the elite alpha males get almost all the pussy, meaning most of the remaining males don’t get any. This leads to more intense male competition, more testosterone fuelled violence, lawlessness, instability etc.
In certain periods, when rapid military expansion is a feasible option, polygynous societies gain a short-term advantage. If you’re a beta male in, say, Muhammad’s Arabia, you stand almost no chance of getting it on with a local girl, because your alpha leaders get to have four women each. But if you join the army and kill some Roman or Persian soldiers, you might get to have sex with some of their womenfolk instead. That could be a powerful motivator. (I’m not saying this is definitely what happened in the 7th century, but there is an obvious logic to it.)
But eventually that rapid expansion is going to hit limits and halt. The instabilities inherent in polygynous societies reemerge, and the advantage again lies with the greater discipline, organisation and planning of the sexually calmer monogynous powers.
Most officially polygynous societies are as polygynous as officially monogynous societies (as in it happens but rarely)
True, in many muslim countries where polygamy is allowed men married with more than a woman are rare. Yet there remains a fundamental difference : who gets to keep the children.
In western societies one can get to knock up as many women as he can- yet it’s still NOT polygamy so long as there isn’t a form of legal marriage out there providing guarantees that you can have the custody of your offspring under the law.
In Western society the custody defaults to the woman so legal polygamy does not matter with respect to custody.
Is there really no more polygyny happening in northern Nigeria or Kenya or Saudi Arabia than in Poland? Where do you get the data for that?
In Islamic countries, a man is allowed to have up to four wives PROVIDED he can support all of them EQUALLY. This means if he gives one wife her own mansion with three cars and a fleet of servants, and sends any children he has with her to private schools in overseas countries, he has to do exactly the same with any other wife he has. Most Muslim men don’t have the wealth to afford more than one wife and to treat them equally. This is why polygamy isn’t common in Islamic countries. Polygamy also isn’t the great deal Westernisers fantasise it to be: wives can gang up together on the husband to extract more concessions out of him. If you read stuff about the Prophet Mohammed and his wives, they’re often nit-picking at him; the youngest wife Aisha questions him constantly about his revelations from Gabriel. The only men I ever heard of who had up to four wives each were Osama bin Laden and his father and there are stories on the Internet about how bin Laden in the last weeks of his life in Abbottabad was continually hassled by his wives.
Originally polygamy was sanctioned (although not actively encouraged) in Islamic societies because in the 7th century there was no social welfare net and warfare meant there were many widows who ended up living in poverty or having to beg or prostitute themselves for a living.
In Shi’ite Iran the government allows temporary marriage (called nikah mut’ah in Arabic, sigheh in Persian) as a way of controlling people’s sexuality, especially young people’s sexuality. Children of sigheh are regarded as legitimate and come under the father’s custody in event of a divorce.
Are polygamous societies really more violent and unstable than monogamous societies? I’m not so sure. Saudi Arabia has been very stable since 1932. Most societies that allow polygamy have some social restrictions on who can have multiple wives; usually a man needs property or wealth or proof of worldly success and once he has achieved those, everyone expects him to have more than one wife as a sign that he’s “made it”; if he stuck to one wife, people would think him strange. The rich are allowed to make their own rules. In Ottoman Turkey, sultans were allowed to have harems and that empire was stable enough that even when it was stagnating and losing territory to European powers, it held together for well over 300 years (if the stagnation is dated as starting in 1566 when Suleyman the Magnificent died); this is including the period from the early 1600s to 1826 when janissaries (slave soldiers) dominated the government and chose the sultan at will.
Hi Jennifer
I notice you concentrate on Islamic polygyny rather than African. The Razib Khan article I referenced includes a map showing polygyny rates around the world. Traditional African societies have the highest rates. In general, when you look at the map, there’s a correlation between polygyny rates and low economic performance. Only countries rich in oil buck the trend significantly.
“Originally polygamy was sanctioned (although not actively encouraged) in Islamic societies because in the 7th century there was no social welfare net and warfare meant there were many widows who ended up living in poverty or having to beg or prostitute themselves for a living.”
That’s not true. It’s a post hoc justification. Muslims made it up quite recently, as an “answer to the West”, when non-Muslim criticism of their practices made them feel uncomfortable. If it was true, almost all second, third or fourth wives would tend to be older and less sexually desirable than the first. That’s rarely what happens.
You’re also ignoring the fact that Islamic divorce is very easy for a man and very difficult for a woman. The man automatically gets to keep the children, for instance. So a first wife may feel she has to agree to her husband taking a younger, hotter second wife; not because she really agrees, but because the alternative is he’ll divorce her and leave her with nothing – and little chance another Muslim man will agree to marry her, even as his fourth wife.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, the original article I referred to says this:
“As a friend of mine once observed, “If polygamy is awesome, how come polygamous societies suck so much?” Case in point is Saudi Arabia. Everyone assumes that if it didn’t sit on a pile of hydrocarbons Saudi Arabia would be dirt poor and suck. As it is, it sucks, but with an oil subsidy. The founder of modern Saudi Arabia was a polygamist, as are many of his male descendants (out of ~2,000). The total number of children he fathered is unknown! (the major sons are accounted for, but if you look at the genealogies of these Arab noble families the number of daughters is always vague and flexible, because no one seems to have cared much).”
Hello Georges,
Yes I saw the map. I saw that Gambia and Guinea-Bissau appear to have low-ish rates of polygyny and from what I’ve just seen on Wikipedia, Guinea-Bissau is hardly a raging economic success.
Many west African countries coloured deep green are part of the West African Franc or Central African Franc economic zones. The WAF and CAF are pegged at fixed exchange rates to the euro. France created these currency zones after 1945 as a way of encouraging trade and preventing its own poverty from spreading to the colonies but at the same time these zones restrict the Africans’ ability to determine their own economic paths and development. France exports manufactured goods to them and they export agricultural goods to France. As long as they have this arrangement, there’s no incentive for the Africans to do anything other than grow plantation crops for export and it’s these very crops plus the infrastructure and worker exploitation issues associated with them (including child slave labour) that compete with food crop production and underline poverty.
As for the eastern and southern African countries, Angola has low levels of polygyny and Mozambique has high levels of polygyny but their levels of development are low and they have comparable histories. Both gained independence from Portugal in 1975, both adopted socialist forms of government and both suffered from civil wars in which South Africa and Israel are known to have armed anti-government rebels. Ariel Sharon once famously boasted of having assisted Jonas Savimbi the Angolan rebel leader. The only other difference between Angola and Mozambique is that Mozambique is a member of the British Commonwealth, like a few other high-polygyny countries in eastern Africa. Might there be a correlation between having been a British colony or being a member of the British Commonwealth and the high level of polygyny? Are the British encouraging that sort of marriage arrangement?
I suggest that rather than polygyny being one indirect cause of low economic development, it’s actually a consequence. Countries with low levels of development can’t afford social services with the result that there are high mortality levels for children. Boys are usually less hardy than girls at fighting off disease. If the countries are unstable and violent as well, boys and men are being drafted into wars and being killed. With a shortage of males across all age groups, and with no other means of moral support, the women might find it advantageous for several of them to marry one man. A woman with no man to defend her is vulnerable to rape and forced prostitution but if she is known to be linked to a man with several wives, other men might think twice about abusing her. Polygynous societies are sucky because polygyny is a necessary survival strategy in sucky environments.
BTW if a man fathers over 2,000 children, the majority of them are sure to be female. Human petrol bowsers end up with low sperm counts and there’s some association between low sperm counts and female offspring. I know there was some 18th century Moroccan sultan who had over 500 sons and over 300 daughters but it’s likely he had a lot more daughters who weren’t counted. Probably because they were killed at birth or abandoned. Sorry.
I’m not talking about Nigeria or Saudi Arabia but more of countries like Malaysia and the Philippines. My bet is that the number of Pino husband who care for a mistress is about equal for Malaysian men with a second wife. But the simple truth is that to have a mistress and pay the bill for her you need to be more than above rich which is difficult in more egalitarian societies
Charly…..I am Malaysian but not Muslim. What was your question?
sinotibetan
I realize that “evolutionary” explanations are all the rage in certain quarters, but… plain old sociological explanations seem quite sufficient in this case. It is well established that homophobia is linked with sexism. Because males have higher status than females, any male behavior associated with femininity (especially prominently displayed, as at a Gay Pride march) is considered problematic, because it effectively places the “natural” character of male dominance in question. It is the behavior associated with femininity, not the act of having sex with other men that is defined as deviant, because in e.g. Classical Mediterranean antiquity, as has already been pointed out, dominant men having sex with subordinate men was not defined as problematic or “gay”, since each one conformed to, and did not challenge, existing social statuses of masters, slaves, or women. For this reason, homophobia is largely a modern phenomenon, as it responds to the general democratization of society and the feminist movement, both of which challenge established social hierarchies. Homophobic attitudes were strongly expressed earlier in religious scriptures, though it seems that the emphasis on homosexuality as an “abomination” in Christianity and Islam is also linked to the fact that both of them redefined female status upward (with Christianity valorizing abstinence, and Islam allowing women a share of inheritance), and trying to contain the revolutions they themselves triggered as they competed for converts in the larger society.
WIth modern-day Russia, the social and political aspects of homophobia are quite evident. Read any comment section on InoSMI or a paper like Vzgliad, and inevitably any Western articles that criticize Russia are symbolized in terms of “them bending us over”. Russia is a country that has experienced near-universal social collapse. Its male population has suffered a collapse in lifespan, and its Great Power status (traditionally associated with virile masculinity) is, at the very least, consistently questioned. To make matters worse, Western societies, which are portrayed as more successful than the Russian (both in the Western and in sections of the Russian media, as well as near-universally in Russia around the time of the Soviet dissolution) are the source of modern gay culture, and constantly critique Russia for their failure to fully accept it even as they attack Russia for failing to conform to Western political and economic standards as well. That makes gays in Russia an easy target – they challenge traditional gender roles, AND they seem to speak in a Western imperial idiom. The same reaction is evident in other parts of the world that have experienced globalization as a similarly imperialist project (e.g. Hungary, or parts of Africa where the Anglican Church enjoys prominence).
The situation is really rather tragic – the restoration of class privilege in post-communist Russia promotes a reaction against any movement that promotes equality, but supporting many of these movements risks becoming caught up in a culturally imperialist agenda promoted by countries that have not yet given up trying to reshape the world by using force and economic power. Things are not likely to change until a movement that speaks to the socioeconomic needs of the broader population incorporates the “lifestyle” agenda as well, but that seems a long way off (though maybe Udal’tsov looks the part after all, despite his cultivation of the good ‘russkii paren” image…)
Being one who is against homosexuality(yes, you can call me a homophobe!) and who doesn’t believe whole genera ‘evolved’ from putative ‘common ancestors'(I don’t believe there’s scientific evidence for ‘macroevolution’), biologically speaking, homosexuality – if there is a biological predilection – would mean a biological dysfunction. If one believes in current thoughts in evolutionary theory, one of the ‘driver’ of evolution is the transmission of the fittest genes and since humans have sexual dimorphism unlike amoeba in mitosis, heterosexuality is biologically preferred over homosexuality because it causes ‘competition’ and thus ‘the fittest individuals mate’ – which MIGHT mean the transmission of the ‘fittest genes’. Homosexuality lessens this reproductive competition and thus is a biological dead end. Unless we bud like Saccharomyces or produce genetically exact copies of ourselves like amoeba or are ‘parasexual’ like E.coli or indulge in parthenogenesis like aphids…..etc.
sinotibetan
biological dysfunction on the unit level doesn’t mean a biological dysfunction on the group level.
This does not even include the question if something can be a biological dysfunction if it isn’t out-bred (i would argue that it is proof it is an advantage for the species) or the even more philosophical question of what a biological dysfunction is.
ps. I don’t mind that you’re a homophobe as i’m not gay but do you mind if i am a
ps. I don’t mind that you’re a homophobe as i’m not gay but do you mind if i am a christianphobe
Charly:-
1.) I think the word ‘homophobia’ is a misnomer – it’s a name-calling given to ALL individuals who oppose homosexuality, and that’s unfair in my opinion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phobia
noun
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.
And the ‘homo’ part means ‘man’.
I am actually ‘anti-homosexuality’ rather than having a FEAR of homosexuality. And I don’t think my ‘anti-homosexuality’ is ‘irrational’ either. Hence, the correct term, if I were to characterize my view, is ‘anti-homosexuality’ rather than ‘homophobic’ but because the latter denigrating term has become customary, I said ‘yeah….you can call me such even though I disagree that the term TRULY applies to me’.
Having said that, I do surmise that SOME may have ‘irrational fear’ of homosexuality and homosexuals among those who oppose homosexuality – i.e. the TRUE ‘homophobes’ but I reckon these to be a minority and perhaps they are actually ‘subconscious homosexuals’ themselves. Perhaps these individuals have such homosexual desires themselves and can sometimes be the most radical/violent in terms of their behaviours towards gays.
2.) Are you anti-Christian or Christanophobic then? I do not mind any because all humans have free will….you have the right to hate or dislike Christianity and Christians. I am a Christian(but not Catholic and why I insert this is because one might incorrectly think I’m one after reading point #3), by the way.
3.)”biological dysfunction on the unit level doesn’t mean a biological dysfunction on the group level.”
“the even more philosophical question of what a biological dysfunction is.”
That DISEASES occur is proof enough for me that biological dysfunctions naturally exist. I don’t have philosophical musings about ‘what a biological dysfunction is’ when the evidences of biological dysfuntions are all on my patients! If ‘biological dysfunction’ is non-existent then why bother teaching physiology and pathophysiology to medical students and interns? For example a dysfunctional p53 gene(a tumour suppressor gene) leads to abnormal apoptosis and carcinogenesis. Which naturally leads to the conclusion that a normal p53 gene on the ‘petite arm’ of chromosome 7 exists or else all talk of an ‘abnormal’ p53 gene would be superfluous.
Biological dysfuntion in individuals in a society does not mean complete societal dysfunction(‘group level’), rather. However, homosexuality is a biological dead-end and biologically-speaking detrimental to humanity at large because homosexuality serves NO reproductive purpose AT ALL. Sure, sexuality is NOT all about reproduction but reproduction is an important part/component of sexuality. Human sexuality is there to ensure, somehow , that humans reproduce. Human VOLITION with the aid of modern contraceptive methods though, can allow the fulfillment of sexual urges without producing any progeny. That ‘heterosexuality’ is ‘normal’ human(not amoebic, drosophila, aphid, etc. as ‘pro-gay’ scientists are wont to ‘demonstrate’ -especially using Drosophila experiments) sexual behaviour is evident by the fact that MAJORITY of humankind have such sexuality and that ensures the survival of humans as a species – in a NATURAL way(discounting modern contraceptives, of course).
To me, it’s not whether homosexuality is to be ‘accepted’ or not by society. Ignoring what I think of the morality of such behaviour, I don’t even think it’s biologically ‘normal’ …and that I mean the reproductive aspect of biology ONLY. If in terms of reproductive biology, homosexuality cannot NATURALLY(i.e. without the use of modern technology to have in-vitro ferilization of a male partner’s sperm and a willing ovum donor to produce a ‘progeny’, for example) produce progeny NOR ensure(by natural means, not via modern medical technology) a continuation and recombination of the genes of gay partners – then in terms of reproductive biology – such behaviour is ‘deleterious’.
However, because sexuality is actually behaviour and behaviour is a combination of putatively unknown genetic tendencies(‘nature’) PLUS volition/will – one wonders: is ‘homosexuality’ actually PURELY a biological abnormality(thus a ‘disease of instinctive gender preferences’) or will/individual decision or both? If we believe in ‘genetic determinism’ ala the Richard Dawkins type then all talk of human volition / will is utter nonsense. Genes define us totally and deterministically then why even talk about ‘right and wrong’ in any situation? Thus human behaviour – even in terms of sexuality- being PURELY instinctive/genetically predetermined is untenable in my opinion. A gay thus cannot say, in my opinion, ‘I am NATURALLY a gay’ in a deterministic fashion. If so, then it’s a disease and we need to find a cure. If not, then a gay DECIDES to WANT to be gay. Perhaps there could be a genetic tendency to have sexual attraction to the same gender but such is insufficient to ‘produce’ a gay without a conscious decision of one to be so.
Interestingly, I remember when I was a medical student studying psychiatry, homosexuality was considered a ‘paraphilia’ in DSM until 1973 and is now considered a ‘variant of normal sexuality’, No one actually knows the pathogenesis of many psychiatric disorders although it is believed there is some genetic component in certain conditions. Gay activists within the Western medical fraternity played an active (and I believe political) part in this new definition of homosexuality and its removal as a ‘disorder'(Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis By Ronald Bayer).
sinotibetan
By the way:
The biologic role of ‘genes’ have become more complex as we now know of other means of altering the phenotype – i.e. the ‘new’ science of ‘epigenetics’. Looks like the ‘transcriptional language’ of DNA to RNA and the ‘translational language’ of RNA to proteins are not the ‘only’ ‘languages’ in biology but we are now discovering the ‘epigenetic language’. More , I think, will be uncovered….And that’s just intracellular ‘languages’. We are yet to decipher, in multicellular organisms like us…’the language of cytokines and chemokines’ – for example.
sinotibetan
2. Ethnically i’m Catholic. But that is only a very small reason why i don’t like religious protestants.
3. Something can be disadvantages on the individual level but advantages on the group level. And you don’t explain why gayness hasn’t been outbred.
Charly,
1.)” Ethnically i’m Catholic”
Meaning? Catholic is not an ethnic group.
2.)”religious protestants”
I am not one of those as well.
3.)”Something can be disadvantages on the individual level but advantages on the group level. ”
You mean survival advantage and that’s true just like the survival of thalassaemia alleles in areas endemic to malaria. I think I’ve explained somewhat that it has not be sufficiently proven to be the case with homosexuality in my response to Jennifer.
4.)”And you don’t explain why gayness hasn’t been outbred.”
IF homosexuality is hereditary, and confers no advantage biologically but due to social pressure of conformity to heterosexuality in the past, many homosexuals remained ‘closet homosexuals’ and do have progeny in heterosexual relations, ‘gayness’ persist because the ‘gay genes’ carry on to the next generation.
IF homosexuality is a CHOICE of sexuality, it can NEVER be outbred because we human beings always have freedom of choice in sexuality.
That gayness is not outbred cannot prove/disprove these two opposing assumptions.
sinotibetan
1) You are wrong
3) I don’t have to explain it. Something that is hereditary and is not outbred should according to evolution theory at least be non negative. You claim it is a negative, proof it.
4) Humans is not the only species where homosexuality exist. I have a problem seeing social pressure as something existing with animals like for example ducks
I think they have gay penguins too.
Why should homosexuality be a dysfunction? There have always been orphans around, if there’s a couple that is dead sure to not produce offspring themselves, they are very likely to adopt these orphans and care for them. That’s exactly what we can observe among all mammals that all have their homosexuals. It’s not a bad idea for the success of the whole group as long as homosexuality and orphans or really bad parents are balanced.
It isn’t just about the sex, it is about identity. Homosexuals are always an out group because they opt out of the cult of masculinity, which is a cultural feature in an authoritative hierarchy. Not only do they opt out but they critique it, which is seen as a challenge. So they are distrusted by authoritative types, as are all out groups and Others. With transgenderism it is more complicated. For example, transgendered people in the west are often still victims of discrimination, even by the gay community. However in violently homophobic Iran, transgenderism is tolerated as the person merely changes sexes and doesn’t undermine them, or the system.
I don’t agree. There’s a macho gay culture as well as an effeminate gay culture. Tom of Finland’s imagery is hyper-masculine.
Even Tom of Finland images can be interpreted as a critique of masculinity, as they exaggerate and criticise popular Western stereotypes about male behaviour and appearance and fears and fantasies about Nazis and black men who are supposedly hyper-sexual. I’ve seen some of his pictures and some of them have very sly humour. The biker image which is popular among gay men arose originally as a reaction to the enforced social conformity in American life after the Second World War (think Senator Joe McCarthy and the “Reds under the bed” scare) and gay men then adopted the leather subculture (and other subcutlures like lumberjacks, cowboys and sailors) as a protest against the heterosexual stereotyping of them as effeminate and sissy.
I agree that there may be misogynistic and racist elements in gay culture. Gays aren’t any more enlightened than the rest of us just because of what they are. A cousin of mine who was involved in the gay subculture often had guys chasing him just because he is Asian. They expected him to be submissive and were upset when he refused to play along. I hardly see him much (probably once or twice a year) as he spends most of his time in Los Angeles for work reasons so I have no idea if he’s still in the gay dating scene.
Jennifer,
I read somewhere that Asian men are viewed as ‘less masculine'(Africans are ‘the most masculine’) and are thus stereotyped as the ‘submissive gay’. Perhaps that’s why your cousin was a ‘disappointment’ to those guys? He did not ‘fit’ the expected ‘generalization’
sinotibetan
Sinotibetan,
Yes that would be the case. He’s not tall either and is on the wiry side. I have another gay male cousin and we’re all related through our mothers who are sisters.
There have been reports of Italian research that male homosexuality is inherited through the mother on a gene or genes that confer greater fertility to women. If we assume that the research can be backed up by other studies, this suggests the sisters of homosexual men are more likely to have children than the sisters of heterosexual men. Why this should be so I have no idea but I’ve heard that in some traditional American aboriginal societies that reckoned descent through the mother, children were supported by their maternal uncles rather than their biological fathers. If the uncle was gay, the children’s survival chances were boosted.
If humans weren’t aware of the father’s role in procreation until they started herding animals, that might suggest that for most of human history descent was reckoned through the mothers. Brothers would have supported their sisters and the sisters’ children and that might explain why male homosexuality survives in humans and is inherited through the mother.
Anyone who wants to see one of the reports can go to this link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm
Interesting Jennifer and thanks for the link to the study….
1.) I take these researches on homosexuality with a pinch of salt because many scientists(and scientists ARE human beings – with a strong emotional component too) are ‘out’ to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is:-
a.)Predominantly genetic and thus deterministic.
b.) Confers an ‘advantage’ to society.
c.) Based on a.) and b.), such behaviour should be considered ‘beyond reproach’ and accepted by society.
2.)I do not deny the possibility that homosexuality as a ‘tendency’ may be influenced by genetic elements but I doubt that these genetics DETERMINE homosexuality in any individual. I.e. one is NOT BORNED gay and even in individuals with such genetic predisposition, there is no deterministic genetic predilection like say the ABO blood groups. I do not think the genetic traits(predominantly polygenic rather than Mendelian) are sufficiently strong and as far as I know no scientist has proven that these genetic tendencies can overcome or are more relevant than psycho-social factors.
3.)”These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits, and which promotes female fecundity. This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings.”
a.) The study did not look into possible psycho-social factors and thus I believe is assuming a greater strength to genetic determinants. Psycho-social factors are ALWAYS confounding factors and should not be excluded from the analysis.
b.)Homosexuality reduces the replicative potential of male individuals. Assuming that(and I don’t believe the reason is purely genetic) these findings of increased female fecundity(and that would be a small fraction of human population) are accurate, the study did not state is IN THE GENERAL SITUATION, can that increased fecundity in a fraction of the female population overcome the effects of a reduced replicative potential of also a fraction of the male population. Results could go either positive(i.e. increased reproductivity), neutral(cancel out) or negative(the reduced male reproductive potential outweighs the presumably slight raise in OVERALL fecundity). My opinion(of course with no evidence – much like the scientists in that study) is at best the general effect would be ‘neutral’.
4.)IF homosexuality as a sexual behaviour is PROMOTED or at the very least made to be accepted(‘forced’ by ‘law’), will the incidence and prevalence of homosexuality increase over time? This is something that’s quite interesting to observe as an epidemiological observation – and Western society (which is on the verge of general acceptance of homosexuality) would be the ideal society to observe. If the incidence and prevalence of homosexuality increases over the long term with policy changes that forces all people to accept homosexuality as ‘normal sexual variant’ then that points to psycho-social factors as predominant in predicating homosexuality than genetic elements. Also, if such occur in which the percentage of homosexuals in society increase, the deleterious affects outweigh any minimal affects of fecundity even if the phenomenon reported by the study is a phenomenon and not a spurious observation.
sinotibetan
Sorry for some obvious errors (eg. the ‘affects’ should be ‘effects’)…..was typing in a rush. 😉
Another point as a counterpoint to the conclusion that the so-called ‘advantage’ provided by the increased fecundity ensures a low level existence of ‘homosexual genes’ is this:
That the genes/alleles that confer some form of ‘tendency’ towards homosexuality may have other functions not associated with sexuality and that the rather ‘rare’ existence of these alleles in selected individuals confer the ‘tendency’ in a rather low level. The increased fecundity is due to complex psycho-social factors that are yet to be elucidated.
sinotibetan
If it is genetic and is not bred out than it is advantages. No need to have a 1b
1C Killing the offspring you partner had with a previous partner has also genetic advantages, Doesn’t mean it is legal
2 It is your choice what you believe. Doesn’t make it true though.
4. Know somebody who’s father is gay. I doubt that she would have been born now with a society that is much more accepting. I think that that is a very strong counterpoint in the case of genetic causes of gayness. And in the case of gayness not being hereditairy i don’t see reasons why there would be a longterm increase gayness with acceptance
Most men instinctively dislike typically feminine emotional traits – cattiness, bitchiness, cowardice, disloyalty, the quality of being scatterbrained, the interminable trivial chatter, pettiness, triviality, the love of insincerity, the disregard for logic, etc. But this is all compensated by the fact that we’re hard-wired to find women of child-bearing age visually attractive and to respect motherhood. With gays there are no compensatory factors – cattiness is all one sees. All the negatives without any of the positives.
Why should most men dislike these traits? Because one cannot rely on wimps in battle, because cattiness has no place in an effective organization (a hunting party, for example). Women’s attendance was never required in battle or during hunts – kids couldn’t be brought to these events, and a woman’s job was to stay with them.
Men often judge the quality of other men by their manliness. “Man up”, “be a man”, “grow a pair”, etc. A man who doesn’t complain when he’s in pain, isn’t a blabber-mouth, is cool under pressure, is loyal to his friends is respected in male company. Why should we expect a person who possesses the exact opposite traits to be respected in male company? Women aren’t judged on these metrics because they possess other, unrelated attractions and have an essential role of their own. Not so for gay men.
All of this applies to those who are hormonally gay, a small minority. In societies where bisexuality is common (ancient Greece, the modern Pushtuns) most men who are bi-sexual aren’t hormonal outliers and therefore aren’t limp-wristed. I would guess that the dislike of limp-wristedness is universal. The attitude to actual homosexual practices is variable. The second need not imply the first, though in the modern West it often does.
“biological dysfunction on the unit level doesn’t mean a biological dysfunction on the group level.”
For some time I have been wondering if there is something about the way human sexuality develops that confers advantage to the species as a whole, but as a byproduct, leaves some individuals (homosexuals) less fit, reproductively speaking. After all, homosexuals can still reproduce, but their condition would certainly leave them less likely to do so. The science leans toward a strong genetic component influencing homosexuality. Why wouldn’t it have been bred out of existence?
Well, humans are flexible enough to conform to social norms, and to hide traits that are viewed negatively by their culture. But the lack of the normal, strong biological urges to mate with the opposite sex should still result is less overall reproductive fitness. So why have all human societies in recorded history had homosexuals, and why do they continue to have them.?
I can only concluded that the biological processes which result in homosexual individuals must be advantageous to humans as a whole, or at least not disadvantageous enough to cause homosexuality to disappear. We need to more research to ferret out what those processes are and how they work.
On a broader picture, all human societies have for example mentally ill people, drug addicts(has a genetic component), pedophiles and so on. It just doesn’t breed out because the positive selection traits have negative selection effects that determine the degree to which they are spread (few genes ever disappear). it’s a whole different matter what a society encourages as acceptable behaviour. I think a lot of homophobia stems from bisexual orientation with a subdued homosexual component that needs justification by homophobia.
Charly,
My replies:-
1.)”If it is genetic and is not bred out than it is advantages. No need to have a 1b
1C Killing the offspring you partner had with a previous partner has also genetic advantages, Doesn’t mean it is legal”
These(points 1 a),b) and c)) are not what I am trying to prove. I believe these are what pro-gay scientists are trying to justify(biological-wise). As for the idea of ‘legality’ – well, what is deemed legal is decided by human beings, sometimes in opposition to ways of life that might confer ‘genetic advantages’. I am not an evolutionist and in spite of Dawkin’s clever arguments that altruism can be ‘derived’ from ‘selfish genes’, your ‘example’ shows that if indeed we humans truly evolved from some common (unicellular) ancestor in the very remote past and are evolving – ‘law’ is but a fabrication that can be broken and all concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is an artificial construct with no true meaning. If indeed, biology is our guide, we should dispense of any law that ‘protects the weak’ and instead allow the mighty, the sneaky, the ‘survivalist’ to destroy the unfit – so that the fittest genes survive – in order for us to evolve to a ‘higher’ being. Law is totally devoid of meaning if the ‘main point’ in all life is the evolution and maintenance of ‘superior genes’.
2.)” 2 It is your choice what you believe. Doesn’t make it true though.”
This statement is ALSO TRUE about what YOU believe. Doesn’t make what you think is true be necessarily the truth. Anyway my statement is not of belief but of doubt. Therefore, disprove my reasons for doubting instead.
3.)”4. Know somebody who’s father is gay. I doubt that she would have been born now with a society that is much more accepting. I think that that is a very strong counterpoint in the case of genetic causes of gayness. And in the case of gayness not being hereditairy i don’t see reasons why there would be a longterm increase gayness with acceptance”
Too weak an evidence based on an anecdote and a ‘single case’. I want PROOFS that homosexuality is PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY AND STATISTICALLY TO BE WHOLLY GENETIC AND DETERMINISTIC: and that requires population studies like the one conducted in the paper Jennifer alluded to – not anecdotes and supposition or a ‘one case scenario’. As I’ve said, that paper had too many unjustifiable assumptions to make a clear statement of the genetic determinism of male homosexuality. Regarding male homosexuality being hereditary and if the paper is ‘correct’, then there would be near constancy of a somewhat of low level prevalence and incidence of homosexuality in society. On the other hand, IF homosexuality is predominantly determined by a will/volition to WANT to be homosexual, there is a possibility that, with promotion, an increase in the incidence and prevalence of such. The lack of increase in incidence and prevalence does NOT disprove the possibility of it being of matter of will/volition(‘psycho-social’) because it may be that most men do not wish to be homosexual whereas increasing incidence and prevalence points in favour of psycho-social origin. The increased incidence and prevalence does not disprove genetic basis of the condition, just pointing against such an aetiology.
sinotibetan
1) Law is based on morality. But people differ on what is right or wrong which leads to a situation in which you have people who do not believe exactly as my what is right or wrong, they have false morality, and people who see eye to eye to me and they, the very few, have true morality. Law should be build on true morality, but as it is the work of humans it is sadly often based on false morality. In which case the law should be changed.
3) I’m not saying that homosexuality is genetic, actual twin studies shows something else. But what i’m saying is that it is determine and not a choice. Because if it where than even the gays in San Fransisco would choose to be strait as life as a strait person is simply easier, even in the Bay.
Sexual choice is more complicated than just: does a person want to sleep with dudes or chicks? For example, my older sister is heterosexual, but she cannot tolerate men with lots of back hair. She is happily married (to a man), but I know for a fact that if she lived in society with arranged marriages and was forced to marry a hairy guy, then she would rather marry another lady.
Dear yalensis,
Haha….very funny! But what you said(Sexual choice is more complicated than just: does a person want to sleep with dudes or chicks?) is true. I don’t think sexual choice is ‘deterministic’ in any(including genetic) way! We humans do and can make choices on sexuality….and that is somewhat ‘self-evident’.
sinotibetan
My experience with the choices people make with respect to the partners they “choose” is that it is self-evident a highly rational choice.
Charly,
1.)”But what i’m saying is that it is determine and not a choice. Because if it where than even the gays in San Fransisco would choose to be strait as life as a strait person is simply easier, even in the Bay.”
I think this still does not ‘prove’ that homosexuality is deterministic(even in a ‘non-genetic’ way). The gays there are probably more insistent and political in wanting to retain their lifestyle and not only that but expecting everyone to accept such lifestyle by pressing for such acceptance in a legal framework.
2.)”Law is based on morality.”
“Law should be build on true morality, but as it is the work of humans it is sadly often based on false morality. In which case the law should be changed.”
Yes, law is in essence based on what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong'(‘morality’). But someone’s ‘right’ maybe someone’s ‘wrong’ and vice versa. However, what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ ultimately lies in certain self-perception or beliefs which remain dogmatic and unproven. Some of these underlying beliefs can be disproved but others remain axiomatic, perhaps even ‘unprovable’. What’s ‘true morality’ then? I was trying to allude that should the supposition of current evolutionary theory be true – i.e. the ultimate and true ‘only’ reason for all life is for the further evolution of genes into even superior genes – then innately, there is NO ‘true morality’ and that all notions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are superfluous and completely devoid of meaning. Whether one believes in law or disregard them has no meaning whatsoever. Whatever ‘meaning’ we attach to ‘right'(such as being good towards another human being or any acts of altruism) or ‘wrong'(such as killing a neighbour for his BMW – ‘cruelty’ and ‘selfishness’) are all vacuous concepts. If evolutionary theory – its essence – is TRUE, then all talk about ‘morality'(and by extension, human ‘laws’) are all aimless chatter of vacuous meaning.
sinotibetan
Believes only seem dogmatic in generational time. In centuries they are anything but dogmatic.
Hi Sinotibetan,
I’d say one problem with trying to prove the heritability of homosexuality is defining it. The definition has to apply across all societies to take out any cultural biases that might affect the prevalence and incidence of homosexuality generally in human populations. In some societies, what we would call “lesbianism” wouldn’t be seen to exist: people would assume the women involved are simply waiting for suitable male marriage partners who will turn them into straight women. As for male homosexuality, people may assume that only the “passive” partner in a relationship is homosexual and the “active” partner may not consider himself gay at all.
So you have the scenario where a man marries a woman, has children with her and regards himself (and everyone else regards him) as straight. He has secret liaisons with men but if he plays the “active” role, then as far as he’s concerned he’s not gay at all. Rather like Bill Clinton saying he smoked but didn’t inhale, or saying he didn’t have sex with Monica Lewinsky because he did it with a cigar.
Speaking of politicians, in Australia we have had a couple of scandals in which senior politicians’ secret lives were publicised in the media: a state minister was filmed visiting a gay club; and the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives was forced to step aside after a former advisor accused him of sexual harassment. Both politicians are married and have children.
Studies would either have to depend on people being honest when self-reporting themsevles as heterosexual or not, or on researchers themselves defining what constitutes homosexual behaviour and actions (including the frequency of such actions) and applying the definition across all societies. Ethical issues would arise: if a man who considered himself straight is defined by the study as gay, should the researchers keep that information secret or share it with that person, especially if the person engages in high-risk sexual behaviour that makes contracting HIV or some other serious disease likely?
Why don’t we all just drop the fake piety and admit that human beings are super horny creatures who will f*** anything that has a pulse? Do we have a deal?
[Allude to hyper-sexual, bi-sexual bonono chimps, now THOSE apes are true party animals!]
Dear yalensis,
Hahahahaha…..
“Why don’t we all just drop the fake piety and admit that human beings are super horny creatures who will f*** anything that has a pulse? Do we have a deal?”
It’s a FACT that human beings are super-horny creatures – I agree with you completely.
“f*** anything that has a pulse?”
I do believe that the majority of human beings do NOT have zoophilia though.
sinotibetan
Dear Yalensis, Sinotibetan,
There was a documentary “Zoo” made by Robinson Devor in 2007 about the case of the Boeing executive who died as a result of a sex act with an Arabian stallion. The man happened to be married as well so the zoophilia may well have been a preference. Most of the zoophiles in the film appeared to be outsiders and impoverished, and they may have turned to animals for companionship originally – the sex bit came after.
Dolphins are the real party animals and in nearly all known cases of dolphins having sex with humans, the dolphins initiated the sex. There’ve been so many stories about male dolphins going after humans for sex that myths have built up about dolphins raping people in caves. About 14 cases of dolphin-on-human rape are reported in the US each year though how exaggerated the numbers or the individual cases are, I have no clue. A story about the disappearance of Tanya Halerfan in Florida, apparently kidnapped by a dolphin, is doing the Internet rounds.
There are lots of zoophilia videos in the dark parts of the internet, seems like dogs are prefered (size, controlability and licking) with men and women partaking. I doubt that all zoophils are poor, but poverty may certainly play a role in enhancing the dark desire to have sex with a very different animal.
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for your comment.
1.)”I’d say one problem with trying to prove the heritability of homosexuality is defining it. ”
Yes. I do think, though, that we can refine the definition of homosexuality(as a sexual choice/behaviour) better:-
a.) Bisexuality – having no particular gender preferences/sexually attracted to both genders.
b.) Homosexuality – having a preference for the same gender and AVERSION/NO SEXUAL ATTRACTION to the opposite gender.
I think the essence of the definition is preference – and that preference is such that when the individual is free to do so, not when he/she is constrained by societal acceptance/perception. And also the concept of aversion/no attraction. Thus the examples you gave can be more well categorized:-
a.) The ‘lesbianism’ mentioned is a faux lesbianism if the gender preference is actually male and the ‘sexual act’ is actually ‘mutual masturbation’.
b.)On the other hand, some in scenario a.) may be bisexuals.
c.) A man having a heterosexual marriage but having secret liaisons with other men would seem to be either bisexual or a closet gay. Or else, I don’t see why he should have secret liaisons with men- he’d probably be having secret stuff with ladies.
d.)Having said that, I suppose some men may actually prefer female but behave as the ‘active’ partner in a ‘homosexual relation’ due to the scarcity of females such as in an all-male prison. The ‘passive’ partners may be unwilling weaker men. Thus homosexuality is ruled out in this sexual behaviour as well.
I agree with you that until these ‘grey areas’ are defined(and I’ve provided perhaps a rather too simplistic means of doing so), ‘research’ on the genetics of homosexual behaviour remain mired with too many confounding factors.
2.)Also, human behaviour is just too complex to be put down to a simplistic function of ‘a behaviour’ = due to ‘these set of genes’. We have seen in pathological states – eg. hyperthyroidism and psychosis in which one defect(in this case overproduction of thyroxine – due to whatever cause) lead to alteration of behaviour but such alterations are never seen in an ‘absolute’, ‘deterministic’ sense. Such pathological states INFLUENCE behaviour but they never ‘determine’ behaviour. Hence, I can perceive certain genetic defects that may certainly influence sexual behaviour but not in a deterministic pattern – at least not in humans(as a whole organism) in which behaviour may not be as deterministic as perhaps the affects of a chemokine on a leukocytes.
sinotibetan
Dear Sinotibetan,
In the examples I gave, I was actually thinking of situations in parts of Africa where lesbianism as a concept is either unknown or just not accepted and people view women who prefer women as lovers and sexual partners as just unlucky or needing husbands.
I omitted to say that the Australian Speaker of the House of Representatives had been sexually harassing a male advisor known to be gay and this advisor made the complaints. The Speaker would fit your definition of bisexual / closet gay.
In those African countries like Uganda and Tanzania where homosexuality is criminalised and subject to very severe penalties including imprisonment, it would take a very brave person to admit to being gay and you would suppose nearly all gays would deny their homosexuality – but many don’t.
The same was true of Europe. Male-Male was forbidden but Female-female just didn’t exist officially
So with supply and demand then, fewer males means females must compete more. More needly and willing females means males don’t need to be as commited or marry. It seems that that would have a negative effect on population numbers.
So queerness really supports the white genocide agenda of the anti-white global elites.
Awareness of the ongoing genocide of white people is an idea whose time has come.
————–
Anti-whites like to say Diversity is “freedom” for non-Whites to enter White living space and “mix in” with whomever they wish.
However, White people are not allowed to refuse this freedom, so it is the anti-whites diversity we are FORCED to accept.
It’s Genocide.