kristoff wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:53 pm Not much. Pandering to the procreationists and religionists. I fuck men because I dig men. Has nothing to do with women or making children or the unavailability of pussy.

I either failed to make the point clearly, or you missed it, but I was attempting to deduce WHY we dig men (me too), not simply why we fuck them. I was looking for the evolutionary reason why men might have developed sexual desire for other men, and concluding (admittedly without much evidence) that it might be due to the difference in mating cycles between males and females, the former being virtually continuous, and the latter being nearly a year long, once pregnant.

Sweetpickle (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:21 pm My explanation is

LUST

I think that's the underlying cause

Definitely more succinct anyway.

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:13 am by leaving a hormonal trace in his mother's womb that converts his brothers to fags, Dean gets the reproductive jump on the hopelessly straight competition. That is an evolutionarily plausible explanation for gayness.

Interesting theory. For what it's worth, I'm queer and had two older brothers!

transward (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:20 pm And like any gene it's distribution among the population would follow normal distribution with a few getting none, most getting some and a few getting a lot. For a submission gene, too little would get you killed in dominance battles, some would give you an evolutionary advantage by swinging both ways as circumstances dictated, and too much would make you too submissive to pass along your genes when the opportunity arose.

Transward

Problem with this part of your theory, for me anyway, is that a gene is a gene and having more gay genes or less wouldn't make you more gay or less. True that 'gayness' follows a spectrum from mostly straight to mostly gay with most people somewhere in between toward the straight end of the spectrum. But how could a 'gay gene' survive for thousands of years (hundreds of thousands in fact) if it exists at all? It would have been bred out of the species by now wouldn't it? Homosexuality seems to just be a feature of the organism not necessarily controlled by a specific gene.

Issinoho (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:08 am That has got to be the most ham-fisted, poorly written, poorly reasoned piece of shit I have ever read. Did he really write that or is he just publishing it on behalf of his 1st year psychology student son/daughter?

Rahtha odd way to be "looking for friends" innit? Can you direct me (us) to a credible (as opposed to ham fisted) theory for the evolutionary development of homosexuality?

HairyHarry (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:01 am Question from a Brit.

What are "pazoozies"?

The unit of exchange in Rocky and Bullwinkle's Fractured Fairy tales

sensenbender (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:09 pm Problem with this part of your theory, for me anyway, is that a gene is a gene and having more gay genes or less wouldn't make you more gay or less. True that 'gayness' follows a spectrum from mostly straight to mostly gay with most people somewhere in between toward the straight end of the spectrum. But how could a 'gay gene' survive for thousands of years (hundreds of thousands in fact) if it exists at all? It would have been bred out of the species by now wouldn't it? Homosexuality seems to just be a feature of the organism not necessarily controlled by a specific gene.

If there is one or more gay genes it would not necessarily have been bred out of the gene pool if the product of that gene was evolutionarily better off and added value to the gene pool through qualities such as intelligence or whatever. If in a family group that has gay gene “A” but this gene does not always result in homosexuality, and higher intelligence possibly , but the existence of that member of the group improves the survivability of the group who can then pass on that gene.

Also, except for the exclusively homosexual, which until relatively recently was rare as there were often social pressures to be a “breeder” the gene would still be passed on, particularly if the person with that gene had a better survivability because of that gene.

In one sense, evolution is not about the survival of the individual but also survival of the gene through improving its chances to be passed along sufficiently.

That’s my two cents worth. Please be gentle in your taking it apart.

The nice thing about theories is that they enable us to think, ponder, and debate.

There is only 1 fact: We can't know for sure if what we think is a fact is in fact a fact.

That life is and will always be a mystery is the fun part.

sensenbender (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:00 pm Interesting theory. For what it's worth, I'm queer and had two older brothers!

True. Very interesting. I am gay and had four older brothers. Late in life I did find out that my oldest brother enjoyed sucking dick also. The others were all straight.

raymar2020 (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:25 am The original post is just about the most ridiculous piece of fiction that I ever read. Where did this guy get the data to support his "theory"?

Raymar

My understanding of the scientific method is, "First the theory, then the data."