Antagonistic Selection as a possible explanation for male homosexuality

Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Antagonistic Selection as a possible explanation for male homosexuality

I just bumped into this topic the other day.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002282

I was wondering if anyone has done more research on this topic and might care to shed some light on this subject.

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Whereas I haven't done any

Whereas I haven't done any actual research per se, I have very extensive personal experience with all kinds of sexual anomalies (through people who express them in their personal lives) and have seen and heard enough to understand that human sexual behaviour is such a complex field of study that you might as well cut the crap, save yourself the trouble, and ascribe it all to non-deterministic "preference" or "choice". (I.e. personal idiosyncrasies.) Which, of course, is the sovreign right of any adult man or woman. Nobody has to explain why they swing that way or the other in their sexuality. This is, by and large, a human rights issue.

My beef with pseudo-scientific studies like your example is that it carries a subtextual axiom which asserts that there is a "correct" human sexuality; which we may call 'the biological imperative', whereas hardly anybody questions the biological contextualism of any other area of civilized human life and behaviour. Where is 'the biological imperative' for driving cars and living in high rise buildings, for instance? Looking into the genes for clues to human sexual behaviour (or, really, that of any species) is like taking water samples at ebb and flo in order to establish a theory of why there is a tide. It seems 'scientific' at first glance, but it kind of misses the point entirely.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Whereas I

Marquis wrote:

Whereas I haven't done any actual research per se, I have very extensive personal experience with all kinds of sexual anomalies (through people who express them in their personal lives) and have seen and heard enough to understand that human sexual behaviour is such a complex field of study that you might as well cut the crap, save yourself the trouble, and ascribe it all to non-deterministic "preference" or "choice". (I.e. personal idiosyncrasies.) Which, of course, is the sovreign right of any adult man or woman. Nobody has to explain why they swing that way or the other in their sexuality. This is, by and large, a human rights issue.

So if a subject is very complex, no one should study or conjecture about it's nature? That's not how science and understanding advances. The scientific method people develop theories. The design experiment and observations to verify. The only beef should be with claiming a theory is fact, bad experiments or poor analysis of results.

Marquis wrote:

My beef with pseudo-scientific studies like your example is that it carries a subtextual axiom which asserts that there is a "correct" human sexuality; which we may call 'the biological imperative', whereas hardly anybody questions the biological contextualism of any other area of civilized human life and behaviour.

I think what they mean by 'correct' is successful in terms in reproduction and passing along of one's genes. Homosexuality is a paradox because obviously they would be less 'successful' and according to theories of evolution, this tendency should have long ago been erased in favor of more successful heterosexual genetics. It's not 'correct' in terms of morality or happiness of the person.

The theory makes sense, a trait that can be detrimental in one person can also be beneficial in other cases. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia also provides immunity from malaria. So the reasoning is solid, it just needs to be verified or not.

Marquis wrote:

Where is 'the biological imperative' for driving cars and living in high rise buildings, for instance?

 

I think it rather obvious. Cars provide a lot of conveniece to do the things we(and our genes) do to survive like eating, finding shelter, educating, shopping, working, mating, socializing, etc... High rise buildings make it cheaper to live and make possible higher populations since we live on a planet with limited land. I think they don't do a study because the answer is rather obvious.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Homosexuality is a

EXC wrote:
Homosexuality is a paradox because obviously they would be less 'successful' and according to theories of evolution

 

So is stupidity, and yet there is no lack of it out there.

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. Ask yourself who needs this information, and to what end. Who asks such a question as to why some people have homosexual preferences and others not? Why do they want to know? How is that any of their fucking business? This piece of shit "study" is sailing along on the subtextual presupposition that homosexuality is a "condition" - perhaps even a "syndrome" - and, as such, object to medical studies. It is, simply put, an invasion of privacy that no sane person would tolerate unless they have an axe to grind.

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:EXC

Marquis wrote:

EXC wrote:
Homosexuality is a paradox because obviously they would be less 'successful' and according to theories of evolution

 

So is stupidity, and yet there is no lack of it out there.

Many people think it is an interested question whether intelligence/stupidity really has much correlation with evolutionary success especially in modern society. "Stupid" people have no problems find another "Stupid" person to mate with and make "stupid" offspring.

Marquis wrote:

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. Ask yourself who needs this information, and to what end. Who asks such a question as to why some people have homosexual preferences and others not? Why do they want to know? How is that any of their fucking business? This piece of shit "study" is sailing along on the subtextual presupposition that homosexuality is a "condition" - perhaps even a "syndrome" - and, as such, object to medical studies. It is, simply put, an invasion of privacy that no sane person would tolerate unless they have an axe to grind. 

I somewhat agree with you because politics usually trumps good objective science. For instance, I think it is rational to assume that sexual orientation like all human behaviors is a combination of genetics and conditioning(environment). But the leftists will insist that it is 100% genetic and therefore you can't get your kids to be strait through conditioning and environment. While the religious right will insist will insist it is sin and the devil and therefore the right kind of religious upbringing(i.e conditioning) will make any child not be gay.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:you can't get your

EXC wrote:
you can't get your kids to be strait through conditioning and environment

 

Being the father of two such creatures (my oldest is 22), I have some first-hand experience with how this shit works. (Naturally, it also involves a quite vigorous exchange of information with other people in the same situation.) My impression is that you can do very little to influence how this is going to play out, and what kind of choices your kids are going to make later. All you can do is to facilitate their upbringing and lead through example. Nobody - least of all your offspring - really gives a fuck what you say, but they will watch closely and relate to what you do. For example, if you are a sexally repressed bully, then that's what your kids are going to be as well. Or, if you are a careless slob, then that's what you're bringing up. So the best choice, and my advice to anyone in this situation, is to behave towards your kids as if the word 'justice' really means something - and answer their questions in earnesty and seriousness, to the best of your knowledge, as they arise (not prematurely!). All and any 'ideology' that you try to 'teach' them beyond that will almost certainly cause conflict, sooner or later, and thus fail.

In my opinion, it is a moot question what nature 'intended' for the human race. It is also a moot point whether or not we really have a free will. Most people's subjective experience is that we do, and that we can to a great extent design our own life with our will. I do think it is a sign of political realism if and when a government (such as the parent(s) of a household) seeks to facilitate this (perceived or real) freedom of choice to a reasonable degree. Since every person's sexuality is of such a vital importance to their mental and emotional well-being, I believe that this is the most basic and most important area of 'freedom'. Consequently, it is also the most important area to bestow with the freedom of choice and the freedom from judgment and all kinds of suggestive innuendo, whatever the source. It cannot be stressed enough how essential human sexuality is to human life. This is of course well known to the various sociopathic projects that seek power and domination over masses of people, such as religions. Keep people confused over and ashamed of their natural desires and you will pretty much ensure that they will be weak and twisted in all other areas of life as well.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Some additional studies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492513/?tool=pubmed (some physiological differences)

http://www.amenclinics.com/blog/1119/are-heterosexual-brains-different-from-homesexual-brains/ (more evidence of physiological differences)

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/6539.html  (you know, I think pheromone response is probably not learned and if it is learned, it is not consciously or at a very young age.)

My theory (and I have not seen any research on this) is that non-reproducing aunties and uncles can assist with raising the children without competing with the parents.  Similar to a dog (or wolf) pack where there is one breeding pair and the rest of the pack support the pups produced by that one pair.  If you are on the edge of subsistence, having help feeding the kids is always welcome.  And perhaps if the aunties and uncles are related to mom or dad, they will be willing to assist to get at least 1/4 of their genes into the next generation.  (Like bees.)  This is somewhat supported by the first article which states that homosexuality in males is somewhat positively correlated to increased fecundity in their female relatives.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
While their findings may be

While their findings may be interesting, the whole premise for the investigation has a serious flaw. They're starting from the assumption that homosexuals NEVER mate with members of the opposite sex and NEVER procreate. This is patently absurd. It's not even the case that they're less likely to procreate, quite the opposite. Up until about forty years ago, aside from certain isolated periods in human history, homosexuality has been seen as an aberration. But the majority of gay people are quite capable of mating with the opposite sex. For one thing, testicles don't stop functioning just because there's no eligible mates around. Give me two weeks with no relief and a pile of dirty laundry will start looking like an "eligible mate." In the interests of avoiding being ostracized for not being "normal," which is terribly important for a social (and xenophobic) species like ours, I'd say people with minority preferences were MORE likely to at least attempt it, in order to appear the same as everyone else. Even for the most effeminate man, having a child is sort of a get out of jail free card. "Well, he seems gay, but he can't possibly be...he's a father."


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:the whole

smartypants wrote:

the whole premise for the investigation has a serious flaw

 

My point exactly. The basic premise for any 'freedom of choice' is that there actually exists an assembly of alternatives from which you can choose. Any attempt to limit this assembly, however well intended, is a frontal attack on the human right to have a freedom of choice. Thus, I believe it a harmful fallacy to spread a message which turns the free-flowing manifestations of human sexuality into fixed categories. It is not at all uncommon for either males and females who prefer to (mostly) express their sexuality with partners of the same gender to have children. I believe those 'gay rights' groups who claim that sexuality is something which is fixated in an 'orientation' are shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of a more open sexual landscape, they are arguing for group identities that are antagonistic towards one another. I believe it must be made crystal clear that your choice of sexual partner(s) is a choice which is based in personal taste and preference which is no more right or wrong than what bloody colour you prefer to paint your living room walls with. All the drama which is associated with just about any discussion on human sexuality often makes people throw the baby out with the bath water.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com