Evolutionary advantage of homosexuality: Super Uncles

[Josquius]

Nope. The psychological definition takes into account such things as being able to function in the society, which is more objective than "undesirable".

That definition places homosexuality as even more of a mental illness in many parts of the world.
And many people with actual mental problems are fully capable of functioning in society.
I prefer my definition. What counts as a mental illness and what doesn't tends to be pretty arbitrary.

[Neil]

A mental disorder is just a mental quirk which is deemed to be undesirable.

Nope. The psychological definition takes into account such things as being able to function in the society, which is more objective than "undesirable".

And since you're too gay to function, I would say that you have a disorder.

[MadImmortalMan]

So Marty, whose nest are you helping out in anyway? 

[BuddhaRhubarb]

It still causes stress amongst the those with the condition, so it should be a disorder.

That is a low bar you are setting.

It is the Bar set by the DSM IV.  A disorder is a condition that causes enough stress that it inhibits daily life.

So then it's simply a case by case basis. everyone handles "stress" differently. for example: I have struggled with all sorts of "identity issues" throughout my life. Never has it been so stressful that it interfered with my daily life (other than in banal annoying ways). I'm a whiner, but not a big whiner.  That's the real difference.

[DisturbedPervert]

How about Samoan lebiangs, not as helpful?

Usually would have had their own kids, whether they wanted to or not

[DGuller]

I'm a terrible uncle. 

[Pat]

I find it very unlikely that there should be a gay uncle gene. It is quite possible, however, that some men are made into gay uncles. I proposed this theory here not long ago:

Are you suggesting we could also eliminate homosexuality through education? Perhaps then Neil might be merciful.

While I do not have a personal interest in the subject, I am quite open to the possibility that homosexuality has a lot to do with cultural and environmental factors (which is not to say it is self-chosen).

One could imagine, for example, too many men in a tribe and not enough women. Instead of the tribe being ripped apart by violent conflict over women, some men take the roles of women, thus 1) bowing out of the competition 2) performing the role of women which is in short demand, along with the tasks associated with that role. For the individual, this has the advantage of not being killed in violent competition over women and from an evolutionary perspective he will be helping the survival of his genes as he will be contributing to the cohesion and strength of the tribe, i.e. his family and extended family, which, if torn apart by internal conflict, could easily be driven off its land/killed/enslaved by a stronger tribe. Presumably this would work at a sub-conscious level and be triggered by group dynamics and workings of the cultural super-ego beyond the  understanding of individuals (I'm not talking about our modern nation-wide cultural super-egos but the ones arising individually, and quite literally organically, as soon as people are grouped together).

It is interesting to note that a significant amount of tribal cultures practice ritualized homosexuality, i.e. homosexuality incorporated into the cultures and traditions as shaped by generations of experience, and presumably filling certain functions. 22%, if I recall correctly, of melanesian tribes practice ritualized homosexuality. There is correlation between ritualized homosexuality and low-productivity habitats, which indicates homosexuality can also have a role of counteracting over-population (*).

Essentially, my hypothesis is that homosexuality is genetic and innate in all men, but it is only triggered in specific circumstances. One would expect a priest living in celebacy being denied women having this mechanism triggered. One would also expect it to trigger in all-male or male-dominant environments (such as adolescent boys in a boarding school).

Maybe I'm wrong, but at least it's interesting to speculate about.




(*)

(This is tangential, but what I mean is that the sexual drive is not directed towards women, which would produce babies, but elsewhere: an example of this being taken to an extreme would be the Etoro tribe; reducing fertility might at a glance seem counter-intuitive from an evolutionary perspective but if you take the Malthusian dynamics into consideration it makes sense and one finds many examples of cultures counteracting overpopulation in various ways; other examples of measures to counter-act overpopulation is the practice of penile subinsicion found among various primitive peoples all over the world, which allows sperm to escape from the base of the penis outside of the vagina, and the practice among polynesians to ritually suicide-journey into the ocean, which occasionally led them to new lands, which is how they came to populate some quite remote islands in the Pacific and, presumably, even Madagascar across the Indian ocean.)

[crazy canuck]

Marti's intolerant rant about people who are intolerant coming in 5....4.....3......

[Pat]

Reading through my old post, I see there are two possible interpretations of "performing the role of women which is in short demand, along with the tasks associated with that role." Perhaps some clarification is in order.

The first possible interpretation is that of performing the works associated with the female role: cooking, sewing, etc. One should expect strict separation between gender roles - feminism is a very modern invention, and would be nonsensical in a tribe reliant on specialization and separation of labour. If there is a surplus of men, and a shortage of women, one can not expect men to perform women's roles without making them feel like women; making them into women. 

Hence: Making men into women is evolutionarily beneficial when there is a surplus of men and a shortage of women. It brings female work into the tribe, which is in short demand. There will be a surplus of men able to fulfill the roles associated with men, already, and one would expect the man being made into a homosexual to be the one at the bottom of the male hierarchy; i.e. a man offered comparatively little respect by other men because he is a poor hunter for example. So the cost of losing him as a man is small.

The second interpretation is filling the sexual task associated with the female role - that of the receiver. This role would also be in short demand. Making a man into a woman would, therefore, bring additional cohesion, by reducing competition for females by taking one man out of the competition, and offering him to another man, thus allowing a pair to be formed between two men who would otherwise be alone and frustrated. This reduces the risk of war over women which would rip the tribe apart. Even if the men who came out on the bottom of the competition for women would (presumably) be weak males they are still a source of discontent that can be exploited by one of the stronger males wishing to seize power in the tribe.

Well, this is my own theory. Let me know what you think of it.

[The Brain]

Executive summary?

[Pat]

No.

[The Brain]

 

[Eddie Teach]

What primitive society would have a shortage of women? That's what wars are for.

[The Brain]

What primitive society would have a shortage of women?

Mohammedans and Chinamen.

[Pat]

Well OK: Homosexuality is innate in all men, but is only activated in some men when it is beneficial to the tribe, under certain circumstances. This would explain homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective.

What primitive society would have a shortage of women? That's what wars are for.

Presumably a society too weak to wage war for women.