Evolutionary advantage of homosexuality: Super Uncles

[ulmont]

Could it be that we all find certain things attactive or not and those certain things vary greatly among individuals?

Of course not.  If we all found different things attractive, there would be all sorts of different porn designed to cater to those various tastes.

Wait...

[Malthus]

I find myself in agreement with CC. Human sexuality simply varies too much over time and between cultures to have any simple genetic origin.

I'm generally unimpressed with all flavours of evolutionary psychology, for the same reason. No doubt on some very basic level, human sexuality is genetic - the sex drive is very basic, after all. How it is expressed in actual behaviour is very complex, varies from place to place and over time.

[Sheilbh]

The thing that makes me wonder about such a thing as a gay gene is historical societies where homosexuality was more prevalent and in fact the norm - say Sparta or Greece.

Its unlikely that all males had such a gene in those societies and then the gene just died out suddenly.

Homosexuality doesn't exist.  It is a 19th century invention of psychology.  What exists is sexuality and sodomy (and other same-sex positions).  I do not know of any society in which that has ceased to exist, though there have been throughout time different cultural relations and reactions to it, that's without doubt.

Now you say how, if there were a gay gene, did homosexuality die out?  I don't think it did I think there was a cultural shift but what's remarkable is that it survived those shifts.  I suppose my objection is two fold: first of all I think you need something very deep indeed to survive systematic repression of the sort witnessed in a number of societies and number of periods.  But more it seems to me that it's unlikely that any of the psychological reasons I've heard of explain the variety of forms of homosexuality in a number of very different cultures and different periods when the psychological meaning of things would be, necessarily, different.

This, on the other hand, makes reasonable sense.  It's based on a widely accepted theory that there is no biological/physical reason for a woman to stop having children.  However generally speaking women aren't able to after a certain age.  Now why that's the case when - despite what's a popular myth - women survived for far longer than 35-40 is I believe still disputed, but the most common theory is that it's better for her to help her daughters and grand-children survive than to just keep popping them out.  At some point the evolutionary benefit shifts from a personal instinct to one that's social.

This is based on the fact that some scientists think they've identified a gay gene (the vast majority think male homosexuality is biological in cause - I've been to a few lectures by behavioural biologists (Bristol's specialty) and that was treated as a given by the scientists, students and so far as I could tell the work behind it all) that men who have this gene, who are more likely to be gay, and gay men are likely to have more fecund female relatives than controls of normal men.  I think it also ties in with the whole younger brother theory that a woman would - biologically and not consciously - be best served by having a child who won't necessarily compete with all her other children.  The big gay uncle to her grandma.

Could dividing society into gay and straight be an artificial divide.  Could it be that we all find certain things attactive or not and those certain things vary greatly among individuals?

Oh I think undoubtedly it is.  We have sexuality.  That's all.

[C.C.R.]

Doesn't this entire idea hinge on gay men not being allowed to adopt back in the stone age? I'd like to see some evidence for that.

Of course gay men adopted kids in the stone age.  Haven't you seen Beast Master?

[Queequeg]

Think there might be a distinction to be made between "preference" and "action".  Seems fair that a lot of men in prison would prefer to be with Emily Blunt than a toothless Ed Norton-lookalike, but when his choices are restricted he'll still chose the second over the first.  Similarly, entirely likely that certain cultural factors can let certain "things" out that most people in other societies find extremely unpleasant.  I think Pat's theory is actually largely spot-on here; the Greeks seem to have adopted pederasty partially in an attempt to control birth rates, and would also explain the practices' prevalence in areas humans find relatively difficult to thrive in.

With that said, I think even the Greeks had some notion of gender preference; Aristophenes' (in)famous story of the creation of Man in the Symposium is mostly an explanation of why certain men/women prefer the company of men/women.

[Josquius]

Think there might be a distinction to be made between "preference" and "action".  Seems fair that a lot of men in prison would prefer to be with Emily Blunt than a toothless Ed Norton-lookalike, but when his choices are restricted he'll still chose the second over the first.  Similarly, entirely likely that certain cultural factors can let certain "things" out that most people in other societies find extremely unpleasant.

Definitely.
All this talk about gays is often very confused with no exact definition of what gay is. Is it someone who is actually attracted to men no matter whether they act upon this or not or is it someone who actually acts gay and has sex with their own gender. The two groups do have a large overlap but there are outliers from both.
It ties in with the old cliche 'homosexuality isn't a choice' - of course it is. If you define it in one of these ways.

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:

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).

I'd agree....however I often find many gays get really really violently defensive about the prospect of such for some bizzare reason.

[Queequeg]

Also, I'm not totally sure I buy the argument that gay men are automatically somehow incapable or incredibly unlikely of fathering children.  My mom and I are reasonably sure my dad is a closeted homosexual.  I find it hard to believe that a paleolithic man with natural inclinations towards being attracted to men would not, at some point in his life, end up doing it with a female.

[Malthus]

I'd agree....however I often find many gays get really really violently defensive about the prospect of such for some bizzare reason.

Probably the unhappy history of having homosexuality alternatively treated as a "sin" or as a "treatable pathology" has something to do with it.

Gay people are, understandably, not happy with the notion that homosexuality is a "condition" that can (presumably) be "corrected", and labeling it as something influenced by cultural and environmental factors could support such a contention. If it is genetically determined it is part of inherant nature - you can't change your genes.

[Queequeg]

It ties in with the old cliche 'homosexuality isn't a choice' - of course it is. If you define it in one of these ways.

I'm a huge fan of the French, Brunnetes, Alain Delon in particular, but for all his shirtless escapades in Plein Soleil, my Johnson was about as flaccid as when I watched *THAT* scene in About Schmidt. 

Conversely, I tend to avoid watching movies with Eva Green with friends unless I'm wearing the loosest possible pants.

That's an anatomic thing, not a choice. 

[crazy canuck]

I think Pat's theory is actually largely spot-on here; the Greeks seem to have adopted pederasty partially in an attempt to control birth rates, and would also explain the practices' prevalence in areas humans find relatively difficult to thrive in.

Do you have any evidence the Spartans attempted to reduce birth rates.  The population of Spartan men was always a concern for them.  Women were praised for the number of boys they could produce and girls were socialized to serve the State by producing young males who could become warriors.

On top of that they had a whole people serving as their slaves to provide all the material necessities Spartan men and women needed.  The only thing the men needed to worry about was being a great warrior and the only thing a woman had to worry about was making healthy strong children.

Your observation makes no historical sense.

[Josquius]

I'm a huge fan of the French, Brunnetes, Alain Delon in particular, but for all his shirtless escapades in Plein Soleil, my Johnson was about as flaccid as when I watched *THAT* scene in About Schmidt. 

Conversely, I tend to avoid watching movies with Eva Green with friends unless I'm wearing the loosest possible pants.

That's an anatomic thing, not a choice. 

That would be the other definition of sexuality there, not the one that is a choice.
I'm a straight man but if I wanted to (and could find enough gay men with suitably low standards) I could start just having sex with men. I wouldn't be happy and I'd probally have to be a bottom but I'd be 'gay'.

[Queequeg]

Your observation makes no historical sense.

Aristotle attributed the invention of Pederasty to the Cretan King Midas as a form of population control in the Politics.  The Spartans may have continued the practice after it stopped making sense.

[Pat]

I think Pat's theory is actually largely spot-on here; the Greeks seem to have adopted pederasty partially in an attempt to control birth rates, and would also explain the practices' prevalence in areas humans find relatively difficult to thrive in.

Do you have any evidence the Spartans attempted to reduce birth rates.  The population of Spartan men was always a concern for them.  Women were praised for the number of boys they could produce and girls were socialized to serve the State by producing young males who could become warriors.

On top of that they had a whole people serving as their slaves to provide all the material necessities Spartan men and women needed.  The only thing the men needed to worry about was being a great warrior and the only thing a woman had to worry about was making healthy strong children.

Your observation makes no historical sense.

On the contrary, it does, taken as Greece as a whole, and not just Sparta, which was a part of the larger Greek culture.

Greek high-culture was only possible as long as there was a surplus of resources not eaten up by an increase in population. More specifically: It is only possible to dedicate a life to philosophy, mathematics or other metaphysics of no physical gain, if one can be reasonably sure one does not risk starving by not getting a real job.

Greek culture is a consequence of the greek economy. Cultivation of olive trees started in Crete in Minoan times, and soon spread to the rest of Greece. Olive oil was very valued - by Homer it is called liquid gold. Indeed it is still used for many things in mediterranean culture. The Greeks planted olive trees, let their slaves harvest them, and make the olive oils, and then they went on their ships to trade the olive oil throughout the mediterranean. They had a lot of spare time. But it wasn't very good to let the population balloon to eat up all the wealth.

[crazy canuck]

Your observation makes no historical sense.

Aristotle attributed the invention of Pederasty to the Cretan King Midas as a form of population control in the Politics.  The Spartans may have continued the practice after it stopped making sense.

King Midas was not from Crete. And you are making even less sense now.  What does this have to do with your theory that the Spartans engaged in homosexuality to reduce their populations.  Also, why did king midas for that matter  -  given his lengendary wealth.

[crazy canuck]

On the contrary, it does, taken as Greece as a whole, and not just Sparta, which was a part of the larger Greek culture.

Greek high-culture was only possible as long as there was a surplus of resources not eaten up by an increase in population. More specifically: It is only possible to dedicate a life to philosophy, mathematics or other metaphysics of no physical gain, if one can be reasonably sure one does not risk starving by not getting a real job.

Greek culture is a consequence of the greek economy. Cultivation of olive trees started in Crete in Minoan times, and soon spread to the rest of Greece. Olive oil was very valued - by Homer it is called liquid gold. Indeed it is still used for many things in mediterranean culture. The Greeks planted olive trees, let their slaves harvest them, and make the olive oils, and then they went on their ships to trade the olive oil throughout the mediterranean. They had a lot of spare time. But it wasn't very good to let the population balloon to eat up all the wealth.

Given that Sparta did not trade olive oil this explanation makes no sense.  Dont dodge the question about Sparta by referring to something unrelated to Sparta.