zeb haradon wrote:
>
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
> >To: extropians@extropy.org
> >Subject: Re: Gay Extropians!!!
> >Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 15:49:43 -0400
> >
>
> >
> >I have often wondered if maybe there is some genetic switch, much like
> >those
> >found in Swamp Eels and some frogs with the ability to change gender
> >whenever
> >there are too many of one gender in the population, where in human
> >populations
> >that reach some level of social/population stress will tend to produce more
> >gay/lesbian members in order to reduce population growth....
>
> It doesn't make sense, from the point of view of an individual collection of
> genes (person) to have this switch. There's no evolutionary benefit to do
> what is best for society at large in exchange for what is best for himself
> (I use "best" here in the purely evolutionary sense). In finding a genetic
> benefit, ask what is the genetic benefit for a mother or father of having
> offspring who are homosexual. This is the general route taken by
> anthropologists/ psychologists, and the explanation centers around the fact
> that a childless individual is going to have more free time to do whatever,
> which, in a close-knit-family type of society, this means that having a gay
> child will lead to less work the other heterosexual offspring, which in
> theory leads to more grandchildren then if all your children were
> heterosexual.
> I guess that a gay individual in a close-knit-family society will in fact be
> contributing to the propogation of his own genes because he shares 50% of
> his genes with his siblings, if this theory is correct. But I suspect that
> it is not.. I guess it could be answered empirically by taking a survey of
> gays and heterosexuals as a control group, and finding out how many nieces
> and nephews each one has. Of course, the difference would have to be more
> then double for it to work out to the gay's evolutionary benefit.
This would only be if evolution only cared about quantitative versus qualitative
reproduction. Hominids are not insects. I don't remember the terms describing
the two strategies of reproduction in quantity versus quality, but humans, and
all hominids (and most mammals, for that matter) lean toward gaining
evolutionary advantages via qualitative reproductive strategies, versus
quantitative.
> Beginning of a better theory: I've read that women who identify themselves
> as lesbians (not bisexual, but lesbians) have actually had more sex with
> more men then women who identify themselves as heterosexual. This is
> paradoxical, I don't know why it would be like this.
I assume it is because they kept trying different males, assuming that the
problem was in the men they were picking, before they figured out they were
lesbians. A hetero female, I think, would find satisfaction with any male sooner
than a lesbian would figure out she was lesbian, or at least accepts that she
cannot live a lie anymore.
> I have not read the
> equivalent stat for gay males, but I think it wouldn't surprise me to learn
> that men who consider themselves gay have had sex with more women then have
> men who consider themselves straight, but (obviously) the number of sexual
> encounters with the opposite sex would be much less. So if this were true,
> the evolutionary benefit is easier to figure out, but why would it be like
> this? Can anyone think of reasons why a homosexual would actually lead to
> more heterosexual partners then a heterosexual?
In my experience, most women I have known have had gay male freinds, and they
have typically had a fantasy about bringing them back over the fence. Many gay
people I've known tend to be at least a little bisexual, or else are bisexuals
who are living the lie of just being gay...;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT