Now that is disgusting.
So, just to be clear, if there was some minor benefit to you you would be quite prepared to suck off some random man?
Try asking married women that question.
Why? It would be completely irrelevant to the topic at hand? 
Dio said he is indifferent to sucking dick. He’s also married. Surely married women, who aren’t (typically) indifferent to sucking dick would also be willing to blow random strangers for “minor benefits”.
Actually, it is how evolution works - it’s just that the details being asserted are in question.
If revulsion to the sight or thought of homosexual acts brought about an increased interest in heterosexual mating, and if this revulsion and reaction was a heritable trait, then it would be an evolutionary factor - additional to whatever else is going on. That positive reinforcement exists doesn’t mean a negative reinforcement factor couldn’t exist or be significant.
The logic is there - but it’s just based on imagination, rather than evidence.
So, just to be clear, if there was some minor benefit to you you would be quite prepared to have sex with the next stranger that caught your eye, betraying any loved one you might currently be engaged with?
Hey, I thought we were going to keep my private life out of this.
(Excuse me, but there’s a hot Chippendale over in the corner. Bye.)
There is a logic to it, but it would have drawbacks that I’ll get into in a moment. It is an example of imagined evolutionary processes, yet it is a trait that has never been observed. An animal’s mate preference is clearly influenced by biological forces, but the inverse–an animal’s mate anti-preference?–has never been seen. Peahens prefer males with bright colors, but if presented with a dull-colored mate they will not fly into a rage or begin vomiting.
The problem is that evolution is not a matter of design, but one of a whole bunch of “good enough.” There are many, many things we can imagine that would make “evolutionary sense”, yet they don’t happen. A mutation must occur to create the trait and it must be attached to a successful enough individual that the genes survive. Just because we can see that a mutation would make an individual successful doesn’t mean that the mutation has ever or will ever occur.
But even if such a mutation did occur, I’m not sure how much of an advantage it would be in the long run. With the example of the peahens, imagine a population of peafowl that carry this hardwired “revulsion” response to anything other than their preferred mate. When something happens so that only an undesirable male is left, they will refuse to mate and die out. Having flexibility and the ability to mate with things that don’t match your preference would be a benefit, even if this might lead to non-procreative sex at times. Sure, that dog that keeps humping people’s legs might not be making any puppies, but he is primed if he ever meets a bitch, regardless of whether she turns his doggy crank or not.
Elvis is with you on that one. If you can’t find a partner, use a wooden chair.
I think obviously a successful species is one that is going to be interested in mating on some level, but it’s going to be impossible to claim any individual preferences or “revulsions” have anything to do with that, even if there was some kind of genetic evidence to back this up. For example, I don’t think most men would have a much stronger negative emotional reaction to having sex with a premenopausal 10-year-old girl than with a postmenopausal woman in her late 40s, although both of those are also “reproductive dead ends” as far as that goes. I think if a 35-year-old man claims to be “revolted” by the mere thought of sex with a woman in her 40s there are more reasonable explanations than evolutionary pressure.
If these studies are meant to show that “homophobes” are more likely to secretly be homosexuals themselves, then I’ve always thought that there was a confounding variable, which is how turned on someone gets by “naughty” stuff. That is, if a person is a “homophobe” and gets turned on by watching gay sex, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are secretly a homosexual–it could mean they get turned on by watching stuff they consider “naughty.” Seems like it would be easy to test for this by determining what else the “homophobe” considers naughty and seeing what their peter does to watching that.
Now I know what to ask Santa for.
I’d just like to welcome the OP, and congratulate him on a damn fine pitting. Not only is the target deserving, but the OP delivers with style. The phrase “logic raping shit-brain” seems particularly apt. Well done, Sir.
I would not be interested.
Wht the hell are you alking about? What is “naughty stuff?”
The studies do not draw conclusions about sexual orientation, by the way. They just show that homohobes get turned on by gay porn.
So if Dio isn’t a male prostitute, then he must be lying? I like men and I wouldn’t blow some random person in exchange for “some minor benefit”. I guess all the straight women who aren’t streetwalkers are actually lesbians, too.
That’s what I always tell myself, at least. . . 
Not only that, but the only logical conclusion is that he evolved that way. Culture is irrelevant - it’s all biological.
Naughty stuff is Tim Curry in RHPS, as “forbidden fruit”. More seriously, it’s stuff that turns us on, but our parents and/or society regard it as wrong, or at least distasteful. When my (not yet) husband and I were dating in high school, we made out in his car. At least part of the turn on for me was the fact that I was doing something that was forbidden. When I went to college, and was dating another man, he had his own room in a shared house. Making out with him didn’t involve the thrill of getting caught. On the other hand, making out on a bed is considerably more comfortable than in the back seat of a Ford Falcon.
Back seat of Ford Falcon.
Bed.
We report-you decide! 