In Large Type

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

Posts Tagged ‘lgbt’

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.


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

Why Chinese Males are less hairy and less brawny

Posted by bert5 on 8 February 2014

Chinese culture appears to be more chauvinistic and female suppressing than average in the world. For example, during Song dynasty many women’s feet were bound and basically crippled. It was said to enhance beauty, but it also meant women were completely dependent on men and could also not run away easily.

Also from Wikipedia: “In China, arranged marriages (baoban hunyin, 包辦婚姻) – sometimes called blind marriages (manghun, 盲婚) – were the norm before mid 20th century. A marriage was a negotiation and decision between parents and other older members of two families. The boy and girl, were typically told to get married, without a right to consent [emphasis mine], even if they had never met with each other until the wedding day.” In combination with male chauvinism, I believe women had little influence on who they married and had children with and because of physical impediments they may have been unlikely to cuckold their husbands.

So say we accept at face value that Chinese culture is more chauvinistic and arranged (actually: forced) marriages were very common. What does this mean to selection — in an evolutionary sense? It means the Chinese man did not have to prove himself worthy to the woman in a physical sense for many hundreds or even thousands of years. I believe this is significant.

Elsewhere in the world, men would prove themselves to women in terms of size, strength and physical attractiveness (not to mention courageousness and chivalry). But in China, men would not have to show these traits. And because of this, the genes for these traits were not selected for and exited the gene pool. What came in its place, perhaps genes that would appeal to parents (mostly the father, in such a paternalistic society) making matches: obedience, diligence, and perhaps brains. While these attributes are great, they don’t compete as well today when Asian women have ability to select for pools which are stronger for other very important or even overriding attributes.

Over time, even Chinese males began to appear more feminine and youthful as only attractive female appearance traits were heavily selected in an evolutionary sense.

The Chinese can only perhaps fault themselves. Their sons cannot compete well for mates outside of China, but their daughters do exceptionally well.

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

Bullying of gay teens

Posted by bert5 on 24 September 2011

One of the conundrums of gay teen suicide is the dynamic of how bullying leads to suicide.  A recent NYTimes op-ed doesn’t seem to enlighten us too much on the issue.

I call it a conundrum because on the face of it, it seems the ultimate case of doing what your opponent wants.  If a bully calls you a f*g and says you should die, why would you help him?

I think it might be that, surprise — a little like in domestic violence cases — the victim actually likes the bully.  Crazy, right?  From what we hear in the news, this isn’t made terribly evident.  Take a related case, though not the same in base criminality: the killing of Lawrence King by a classmate.  In this case, King probably liked his classmate killer, and maybe at least in the beginning hoped his killer was gay, too.  And when it was clear the killer classmate was straight, perhaps King switched to dressing like a girl.

But okay back to suicide.  I think committing suicide due to bullying means that actually you care a lot about the bully’s opinion.  If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t give suicide a second thought.  In the vast majority of cases, the bully perpetrator and victim are male.  And in almost all cases the victim is gay and the bully is straight, so what comes to mind, is that probably the victim somehow liked the bully and wished the bully would return the affection.  When the bully inevitably rejects the victim with anti-gay slurs of course, this hurts a lot.  Why doesn’t the victim, leave off after this?  Reminder, we’re talking about teenage crushes here, and so it might be some sort of lingering and immature obsession by the victim with the bully.  And when the bully increases the intensity of his rejection and his bullying, the victim perhaps remains in an emotionally aroused psychological state (no, not the other kind of aroused state).  Once in this state, it is possible to do crazy things, and there you have it.

Perhaps it is here that the bully sees his power and uses it to wicked ends.  The bully sees that the victim likes him and wants to make him happy and is willing to do anything.  His orders are for the victim to make himself scarce, so scarce that the bully never has to see him again.

Summary: There is of course the obvious ego destructive feelings of people saying you are worthless, etc, etc.  But this would only have an effect if you believed them, and you would more likely believe them if you really liked them or admire them.

Diagnosis made, but how to prevent it?  Reject the bully in your life!

## Some are saying that bullying rarely causes suicide.

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

Height and gayness

Posted by bert5 on 15 December 2010

If studies of male homosexuality are to be believed, you are more likely to be gay if you have more older brothers.  This implies that if you are gay your birth order number is likely to be greater than the normal population.  Birth order has been found to relate slightly to height to the tune of up to 1-2 cm less for later offspring.

Another piece of data which I gleaned from Simon LeVay’s recent book: Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why was that in one study gay males tended to have smaller limb versus trunk ratios.  The reason for this could perhaps be earlier puberty.  Limbs tended to grow more before puberty and trunk grows more after puberty.  (The later the onset of puberty, the more chance you had to grow longer limbs.)  Or it could be less sex hormones (testosterone).

A separate Canadian study found that gay males tended to be shorter and lighter than straight males.

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

You’re disgusting! No, you are!

Posted by bert5 on 14 November 2010

If you’re a polite person, you don’t go around saying other people are disgusting and not to their face.  You think you’re being honest and saying something ‘obvious’ that everyone else must feel.  But no, this is not polite, and you’re not being a nice person by being ‘honest’.

This is not something I have been stunned by many times, but I can say that whenever it happens I am struck wanting to say something untrue in return.  Like: ‘Nooo, you straights are the disgusting ones!’

What’s interesting is that it is actually untrue.  You would think that as a gay male, to me it would be gross to see heterosexual sex (or as close as Hollywood gets to a simulation of it) on screen.  But it’s actually okay.  I mean, Hollywood sex generally targets the woman, and I’m not attracted at all, but I find nothing objectionable about it.  Mind you, it’s not something I go out of my way to see, I mean, the steamy Hollywood sex scenes focusing on the woman generally in the missionary position.  But I specifically must say, I do not feel disgusted.

So now you straights for the coaching you need:  The correct response when seeing a gay kiss or gay sex scene is to applaud, but failing that to simply be quiet and appreciate a different human condition.  Later, whenever you speak of the scene you saw, you will say exactly what I said: “I wouldn’t go out of my way to see that, but it was okay.”  If you are feeling brave, maybe you could say it was “interesting”.  If you are my friend, I will never hear you say it was otherwise.

Posted in gay, opinion | 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:

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

Can a gay guy become straight?

Posted by bert5 on 9 December 2008

This is something probably up until recently almost every young gay male might have at least asked himself once.  You don’t have to come to this blog to find out that the general consensus on the answer for males is no.  Supposedly, women are more fluid in this regard, but I have no personal experience to supplement this observation.  The most that I tried was trying to well, um, imagine doing it with a girl.  Probably some gay guys go all the way with this experimentation.  But well, for me, nothing.  I suppose straight guys might be too fearful of trying the reverse, but I imagine if they were to try, it might come as a relief to them (just the certainty of it, of course, not a moral judgment here) that they would also feel nothing.   (NYT: bisexuality)

The title of this post is a query which somehow reached another of my blog posts.  And what’s unstated in the above query of course is more troubling.  Why would a gay person want to be straight?  (And why aren’t any queries ever written the other way?  i.e. Can a straight guy become gay?)  Is there in fact — counter to Seinfeld’s statements — anything wrong with being gay?  Of course, I would say there isn’t anything wrong with it, in fact, there are actually a lot of benefits to being gay.

The religious and social conservatives say otherwise, but they are wrong.  In the process of putting down gays, they have created a society where search queries such as the above occur (along with even more troubling ones like: “I’m gay and I don’t want to be”).

Here is an excerpt from Stephen Carter’s Stanford’s Commencement address in 1994 which illustrates the problem:

… I [Carter] had the very great privilege of serving as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court. I also spent much of the last year of his life working with him on an oral history project and listening with fascination and simple joy to the marvelous story of his life.

Justice Marshall was a wonderful storyteller and most of his stories were intended to inspire to uplift, or simply to amuse. But one story was different. One story was chilling. I heard it more than once. The last time was at a banquet just five months before Justice Marshall died, a banquet up in San Francisco, and the story for me, and I think for Thurgood Marshall, too, captured the principal point of what the civil rights movement was all about. I will tell the story. Obviously, I can’t tell it with Justice Marshall’s flair, but I will use as many of his words as possible.

During the time that he and other lawyers for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund were handling criminal and civil rights cases throughout the South, he happened to stop in a small town for a fundraiser. When his formal remarks were over, he was taken aside by a black man from the audience. “Lawyer,” said the man. “Yes,” said Marshall. “Lawyer, you’re educated. You’ve been to college.” “Yes, I have,” said Marshall. “Well, then tell me, do you know anything about this thing called reincarnation?” “A little bit,” said Marshall. “Well, if you do,” the man said, “and it’s true, there’s something you ought to arrange for me. I want you to fix it so if I come back, I can make it as a pig or a goat or a cow, anything but a Negro.”

“Anything but a Negro”–that’s what the man said. Now, Justice Marshall, by his own account, was stunned by that story, and that story illustrates more that anything else what the civil rights movement was about–a social system so totalizing and so oppressive that it generates a kind of self-hatred, that makes a man hate the color of his own skin, so that he would rather be an animal. If someone tells you, for example, that affirmative action programs somehow run contrary to the spirit of the civil rights movement, think about that story. The movement was about much more than discrimination or color- blindness. It was about eliminating, doing what we could to eliminate, this oppressive force in American society, a force for self-hatred.”

Some may take offense to the notion that racism is anything like homophobia.   But when people like Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King are killed simply because they are gay and larger percentages of gay teens commit suicide, I would say homophobia can certainly be as bad as racism.  Perhaps worse at least up until recently because of the isolation of the closet or “the double life” such that gays often do not even receive support from family or friends.

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