Re: Miss Pop Ulation (was: population, homosexuality)

Robert J. Bradbury (
Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:59:31 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Dan Fabulich wrote:

> Look, I was going to write about this earlier, but I feel like I can't
> help but mention something about it now. If homosexuality was some
> recessive trait which was advantageous in the heterozygous form, we'd be
> seeing a LOT more homosexuality than we actually do. "1 in 4, maybe more"
> would be true everywhere, all across the world, and bluntly, it's just
> not. It would surprise me a Great Deal if some kind of "gay gene" were
> ever found that provided some heterozygous advantage.

It may be much more subtle than this due to partial penetrance and other offsetting factors. To go from 25% down to 5-10% (current estimates of homosexuality) would only take 1-3 more genes being involved.

If you take a "hypersexuality" gene, combine it with a "mate" discrimination gene and a "pheromone" preference genes and already you are getting enough combinations to make selection & activity biases very complex.

I suspect you could subdivide homesexuals into hypersexual and hyposexual types depending on pheromone matches, and a combination of genetic & environmental "desirability" matches. E.g. if I get a pheromone match and "he" has characteristics my mother had, I'll go for him, but if she doesn't match my pheromone/"desirable" mate profiles, I'd have to be highly hypersexual to go for her.