In Large Type

brilliant ideas in a big font… often gay interest or political topics.

Posts Tagged ‘how homosexuality evolved’

Why a large percentage of women are bisexual

Posted by bert5 on 2 September 2015

My main theory is that having a good understanding of the attraction women can hold is an advantage to those women themselves. If a woman knows what looks sexy about a woman to a man, they can gain an benefits in attracting their favored male partners. Likely this can’t be a learned thing.  It might have to be instinctual to be effective and so this might be why women have some element of bisexuality by default. There is a kind of arms race of trying to look attractive to men, especially since men treat women’s looks as a priority, and so evolution has favored some amount of bisexuality in women.

In light of that I am amazed by contrast at how clueless straight men are about the attractions of men in a visual sense. For example, many straight men choose to shave daily such that they have faces and bodies as smooth as school girls. I think most girls would say it’s unmanly and unattractive, while I would actually go further and call it repulsive. For some reason, it is more rare for men to be bisexual. I think it is possibly because women don’t find looks as important in a man. Status and perhaps money can be more important factors to a woman, so a man who knows how to look attractive, appearance-wise, to a woman just doesn’t get much advantage from it, and so bisexuality in men did not evolve to be as common as in women.

More/related:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3209182/Women-likely-bisexual-men-change-minds.html

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual/

Posted in journal | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gays, Evolution: Population control, Uncles

Posted by bert5 on 8 February 2009

There is an italian study — Fox News story — which says that female relatives of gays men tended to have more children — are more fertile — than the average female.

I would reason that it makes sense for women who carry a gene for being very fertile might also find  benefit to also have a gene for homosexual offspring.   This is because it is difficult to provide for families that get very large over just a couple generations which is what would tend to happen if you are very fertile.  Obviously, there is benefit for being fertile in that you would tend to propagate your genes easily from relatively fewer matings.  In addition, even a single furtive session with a mate with better genes (possibly not the husband) would benefit offspring with increased survivability (perhaps higher testosterone for sons)[1].  On the other hand, there are difficulties in providing for an exponentially growing family.  In this case, there is a beneficial impact of a gay offspring in that they could help provide for extended family while not having many or any kids themselves[2].  So, it may be that the fertile gene was only able to survive difficult times such as famines by also developing at the same time a method for effectively reducing the ultimate extended family size.  So gayness came about in cooperation with this fertility gene.

One might think there should be evidence that gays help out their extended families if that were the case to prove out this benefit.  And indeed, this was done in the South Pacific.  Here’s the MSNBC article describing how gay uncles tended to help out their nieces and nephews more than would be expected from looking at single straight uncles.  (Is it possible that single straight uncles self-select for dislike of children?  I.e. if you’re not desperate enough to get married as a straight [lots of fish in the sea argument], then you probably don’t want children either.)

More recently, geneticists have described how the beneficial effect of increased fertility of a gene linked with increased homosexuality could negate any negative selection caused by the occasional gay offspring.

# # #

[1] Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Kanazawa, Miller… (cuckolding)

[2] This reminds me of the 60 minutes interview of Antonio Scalia who has several kids (he’s Catholic) and he talked about how one of the boys in a family with many boys is supposed to be become a priest.  I wonder if this ‘honor’ naturally is bestowed on the statistical gay one (who doesn’t show much interest in women anyway) and as Scalia says ‘takes one for the team.’  (Which then, in turn, perhaps explains Catholic priests and their reputations…)

# # #

P.S.  Don’t buy it?  My second best theory on gays and evolution here: https://bert5.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/gays-evolution-teamwork-sacrifice/

Posted in gay, gaydar | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gays, Evolution: Anti-machismo

Posted by bert5 on 15 May 2008

Psychology Today magazine has an interesting piece in their May/June 2008 issue. Here’s the story: Link.  A brief summary below.

Women might prefer less male like behaviors in selecting a mate. Since the gene pool is largely shared between males and females (except for the Y-chromosome), it may be that some less fratboy-like straight guys are better parents or are easier to get to do work around the house, or whatever. Perhaps selecting for this increases the possibility of gay offspring.

Another possibility highlighted is that a ‘male-love’ gene makes a woman really like men and like having children besides. This means more offspring. It might be that such a gene influences the male offspring to also sometimes really like men also. But since the percentage is low, this is not sufficient to counteract the evolutionarily beneficial effect of having more offspring.

Some of my previous posts on this topic:

Gays, Evolution: Teamwork, Sacrifice, and
Gays, Evolution: Hemispheric Brain Dominance

Posted in gay, psychology, science -ish | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Gays, Evolution: Teamwork, Sacrifice

Posted by bert5 on 15 April 2008

I was watching the recent Nature (PBS) shows about mating and what females want, and what males will do (or something like that title). There was an interesting segment about some male desert lizards. ‘Blue’ lizards apparently gang up to win females. They are supposedly genetically close, so that if one succeeds in mating it is helping to both. One of the males is willing even to sacrifice himself to allow his friend or brother to succeed. Without teamwork, the blue lizards don’t stand much chance against the bigger (older?) orange lizards of the same species. I was thinking that there could be a human analogy. We know that younger brothers tend to be disproportionately gay. Could this be a reproductive strategy to counter ‘larger’ sized male genes and older males who tend to be bigger and Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in gay, opinion, science -ish | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Brain hemispheres, Gays?

Posted by bert5 on 5 February 2008

There is something specific about left and right brained-ness which doesn’t fit about my previous theory [this post], not least of which is that on several of these brain tests, I land sort of in the middle. In fact, I sort of lean towards left brained-ness. Of course, I wonder at the effectiveness of these tests, because the language function has been known to move from one side of the brain to the other. So how does the test know based on the person’s responses whether a person who’s functions have flipped to the other side is physically dominant on the ‘side’ corresponding to the answers? Perhaps, just semantics, perhaps not. Another hole is that supposedly right brained people are terrible at spelling, and I know some terrible spellers who are straight.

# # #

I remember some sparse details from a Technology Review article on language development. The human brain is asymmetric. With better functioning ones having portions handling language located on one side or the other — presumably for efficiency and the faster processing which language requires. For right-handed folks, almost always this is the left side. For left-handed folks, it is only 60% of the time on the left side.

# # #

And then there was an article about a genetic link between left handedness and schizophrenia. I seem to recall that males tend to have schizophrenia more often than females. Then I recall that this might be because men need to differentiate themselves from the crowd by taking risks and gaining status, and genes that support the divergence of brain capability: some geniuses, but some real idiots, might actually have been rewarded in the past.

Posted in gay, psychology, science -ish | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Gays, Evolution: Hemispheric Brain Dominance

Posted by bert5 on 14 January 2008

One very off the wall theory of mine:

A disproportionate number of gay people are lefties. Lefties tend to right brain dominance. This is not 100% correlated though, so some right handers could be right brain dominant, just as some right handers can be gay. The right brain is more visual, intuitive, impulsive, and global thinking. It has also been found that gays (or was it lefties?) tend to have more communication between hemispheres of the brain. The visual thing does seem to correlate with the number of gay designers and architects.

I’ve also read that in crabs, left handed crabs tended to not engage in conflicts because they might be at a disadvantage in fighting mostly Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in gay, psychology | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »