homosexuality vs. evolution

You guys/gals are not going to like this, because I can’t remember where I read about it, but similar opinions were presented in a couple of medical and psychiatric journals over the years.

We live under a mildly variable sun, which gives us a healthy dosage of radiation. Without such, various mutations probably would never have developed to make the world as it is. Geological strata holds the remains of many dead end species and the traces of new, survivable mutations.

This contributes to evolution. It was once even surmised that without the level of radiation we get, that the world would probably be populated by vegetation and low level bacteria-like organisms.

While homosexuality has been around probably forever, it has been noticed that the incidence of it increases every time a population goes over a certain level and starts crowing itself into small areas instead of spreading out. Prior to our technology, homosexuality would have been a form of population control, it was reasoned, because of the inability to male/female reproduce.

Bisexuality is not considered homosexuality in many opinions.

Down through history, an increase in homosexuality has been observed in the great cities of the past, where the standard of living went up and people lived virtually on top of each other with the corresponding problems inherent in such clumping. In societies where the community is more spread out, similar to the Vikings, Scottish Clans, American Indians, African tribal states, Brazilian tribal territories, the mortality rates are high through natural means and combat, homosexuality levels in the population are low.

Usually, they are so low, that very rarely are such individuals treated with the hostility faced in today’s world. Often, they are considered different and left alone to do their own thing like anyone else.

Here, the learned opinions split.

One faction feels that homosexuality is simply a form of birth control created by nature to thin out an over crowded population when war or disease does not decimate it enough, yet still providing useful members of society.

The other faction agrees in part, but is of the opinion that since a very high number of homosexuals lean towards creativity in the arts, that they are an extension of a creative society.

Either way, the inability to reproduce naturally is seen as a natural population control, which appears as necessary throughout the centuries. A true homosexual, male or female, cannot willingly copulate with an opposite sex partner because the sexual cues are not there.

Today, artificial insemination changes that.

If this is the case, then watch China for the following reasons:

Huge population crowded into limited land.

Strained resources forcing State limited birth control which, due to ‘tribal’ mentality, encourages the birth of more men than women.

A great disparity in the male/female population. Women are now in short supply. (I guess it never dawned on the general public that promoting the birth of boys without women just isn’t going to work.)

Overcrowding in most cities.

Insufficient deaths by war or natural means.

If we could ever get accurate records out of the secretive Chinese government, we might discover an increase in the numbers of homosexuals.

My personal opinion here.

With the exception of some form of mental/emotional illness, a homosexual does not just decide to become attracted to that which nature says he/she should be repelled, meaning same sex. Genetics has to provide the sexual cues and triggers naturally. Without them, humans would be as much interested in sex as an elephant would be in humping a tree.

There are recorded cases of people suffering emotional and mental trauma and changing sexual orientation and cases of them being changed back. However, no psychiatric therapy, to my knowledge, as ever persuaded a true homosexual to reverse polarity.

There is a time in a males life when he takes on feminine traits, where such attraction could be generated in not only homosexual males, but even straight ones, and that is pre-puberty. That is the age where one hears boys called ‘pretty.’

This is also the age which seems to attract most child molesters who prey on boys. Shortly after entering puberty, the boy looses baby fat, develops hair, bone growth turns him lanky, his face changes and becomes angular, his skin starts to roughen, his sex drive jumps, and with increased testosterone levels, he becomes more aggressive.

Child molestation of boys in that age drops sharply. There has been noted that prepuberty boys often voluntarily have exploratory homosexual acts i.e.; comparing and exploring their newly functioning equipment, plus since they mostly look a bit girlish, some physical penetration has been noted.

It is said that 1 out of 3 of all men have had a homosexual encounter before the age of 17. Usually through such sexual exploration. During such times, it is possible that the homosexual polarity emerges if it is there and bisexuality, it is theorized, might also arise from such encounters.

History is full of eras where young boys were used for sex and beauty.

Lastly, to confuse the issue even more, I read about a tribe in Africa where, until, marriage, the men hang with each other and believe in fellatio because it is felt that the consumption of male sperm infuses the ‘warriors’ with maleness, and makes them more fearsome in battle.

That has too be a learned behavior, because the men do marry and reproduce.

You know, there’s a lot of information in that post (and most of it sounds sound to me), but I’m still gonna ask for some cites to back some of it up, if possible. This is, after all, the SDMB.

I might also add that homosexual activity (which isn’t really an accurate measurement of true homosexual orientation, but it’ll do for the sake of argument) increases among higher primates when exposed to high population densities (I seem to recall some experiments with mice).

FWIW.

Esprix

Other animals exhibit homosexuality. Lions and chimps come to mind.

Convicts in prisons, who are not normally gay, will engage in homosexual relations.

I’m not a homosexual, but it seems to me that homosexuality is a natural part of the human condition.

How it happens, and why, is anyone’s guess.

I don’t think anyone really knows.

Can’t give you cites. I have this bad habit of reading everything voraciously, remembering whole bunches of stuff, but rarely the author or publication. Some of it, if I recall correctly, came from Psychology Today, which I used to subscribe to. More came from a psychiatric journal I used to get from a psychiatrist friend and some came from JAMA. All of it is at least 5 to 15 years old. Some came from the learning channel, some came from the Masters and Johnston series on human sexuality broadcast some time back on HBO. Some came from homosexuals I know.

Way back then, prior to the big homosexual outing, psychiatrists were developing theories on homosexuality after finding that conventional psychotherapy was not working. (This is when they discovered that intense emotional trauma, even organic brain disease could reverse the polarity. Around about this time they were also discovering that many human males, under certain conditions, would not only temporarily turn homosexual, like in prison, but just as happily poke a hole in a melon and screw it. Currently, they are still investigating this primarily in prisons under the testosterone/dominance/psycho-sexual heading. It is suspected that criminal males use sex on other males as a sadistic form of dominance.)

Chimps use homosexuality for dominance. Lions, I’ve not heard about. Homosexuality is a natural condition, but it depends on just why such a condition or increase in the amount of people being homosexual fluctuates through the centuries.

During the, what, 16, 1700s in England, when the Renaissance was in full swing and guys dressed like fops and women wore layers of clothing, people carried swords and hidden daggers and big communities became the norm rather than spread out clusters, homosexuality was not only known, but generally accepted.

By the 1800s, it seems to have dropped off. When nations spilled over into colonization, the levels dropped. In new colonies, the levels were almost nothing. It seems that when the struggle to survive becomes part of life, such as clearing new lands and fighting off hostile natives, or when being involved in many wars, the level drops.

Each time, in my opinion, that civilization crowds around a central point, with the restriction of spaces, privacy, freedoms and sanitation, the amount of homosexuals increase.

It is known that many great artists were homosexual. Many brilliant minds were homosexual. If homosexuality is natures birth control, then why generate remarkable genius so often within it? Could this be a survival trait given to such an individual to keep him/her from being removed from society? It seems to me, again, in my opinion only, that the instances of creative minds popping up in the homosexual community outweigh the same happenings in the straight population, based on population averages.

Everything in nature has a purpose. Humanity’s design is to reproduce. A non-reproducing species is a dead end. The genetic pool does not get passed on. Homosexuals do not reproduce, yet contribute readily to society. Is homosexuality then a Wild Card, tossed in for population control while enhancing society at the same time?

Today, in the entertainment field, it is ‘in’ to know or be homosexual. The same in fashion design, art, literature (Truman Capoti), and some music. I recall an interview, some time ago, on a discovery station, where a hair dresser said that he got more business and money by acting homosexual than playing it straight, which he was.

Another drawback is the general opinion of society towards homosexuals of both sexes, especially since society is still basically male oriented. Lesbians are accepted so long as they look pretty. Men enjoy watching women on woman sex acts. When they look too much like men, they are rejected. The male homosexual is usually met with hostility by straight men, much, much less by straight women.

I have heard, through posing a question on a talk radio show, that while many men enjoy watching lesbian acts, roughly 95% of the woman do not like watching male homosexual acts. Yet the woman get along better with homosexuals than men do.

Now, with such a response, that questions the natural potential of homosexuality being creative population control, because nature tends to protect it’s important projects with various forms of adaptation and camouflage. Like, the Chameleon blends in. Cleaner birds and fish are accepted by their potential predators because of the service they perform. Perhaps in this case, the homosexual community is using intelligence and numbers to provide ‘natural’ protection through laws, education and exposure.

I’ll admit I get uncomfortable being around homosexuals who might find me sexually attractive, and understand why so many men will react violently for this same reason. I have known many homosexuals who I found not only delightful, but experts in making themselves up, funny and generally non-threatening.

I’ve also known or met those that I find disgusting and repulsive, but then, I can find the same among straights.

Like Bobcat Goldthwait once said: “Men get angry at gays because they think the guys want to fk them, then they see them in drag and think how good they look and want to pound them because now they want to fk the gays, but they feel that’s not right because those pretty women are guys and f**king guys is not good, but they look real woman-like with tits and all and that gets their hormones going which confuses them even more until they’re not sure what to do.”

It all has to be genetics.

Purely as spectator, since that’s what I do more than anything else in GD, I have to say that is highly enjoyable to be reading a thread of this nature (nurture? haha?) and see it be so civil. Thank you. :slight_smile:

As for the topic at hand, I have to go in with those that say some of it is environment and some is genetic. You can have two people born with that extra-infusion of hormones and one’s environment cultivates a homosexual orientation while the other remains heterosexual. I don’t think we will ever be able to truly identify the factors at hand. For some it’s a choice, for some it’s all they have ever known. I don’t think it really matters much either way, in the end. I love my gay friends for who they are, just as I love my straight friends for who they are. Sometimes, I love my gay friends more. :smiley: Just don’t tell my straight friends that. :wink:

Ok don’t mind me. Keep talking, keep educating, I’m loving it.

I’ve always had a hunch that what Melpo said about the cause (of anything, not just of a gay orientation!) being a combination of factors is pretty much on target. As I think I said back in my first post to this thread.

It might be interesting to see what the gay posters have to say about the subject. Kind of a “When did you realize you were gay? To what did you attribute it then? And have your views changed, and if so to what?” IMHO session. Though the conclusion from this would, I think, be the grist for a GD attempt to answer the OP.