patrick.net

rando says

I didn't say gay men "settle" for same-sex spouses. I said the primary motivation for men to be gay to begin with is the extremely easy sex.

I don't think that's the case, but there is one situation that seems to support this assertion and I don't know enough about it to offer a counter-explanation. I'm talking about male on male prison rape, which is an epidemic in our terrible prison system. There does seem to be a propensity for men who are locked up and unable to mate with women to substitute sex with men often through rape. Does this make those men gay or desperate, or is it just a power game? I don't know. What happens when those men leave prison? Do they continue homosexual relations or revert to being homophobic heterosexuals? This is an area where I have no knowledge other than that prison rape happens a lot.

rando says

What's wrong with the theory that gay men have simply overcome an initial revulsion (as other men have done with sheep and goats)

First off, leave Call It Crazy out of this discussion. The last thing we need here is him.

rando says

I didn't say gay men "settle" for same-sex spouses. I said the primary motivation for men to be gay to begin with is the extremely easy sex.

curious2 says

You said "revulsion". Read your own comment, it's on the same page, instead of lying about it.

Clearly Patrick was stating that a man has to overcome his own repulsion to gay sex before he can enjoy said sex. I don't think this is actually true, but it's clearly not a statement that gay sex is inherently repulsive or disgusting. Nor is it a value judgement on whether or not gay sex should be considered revolting.

However, I think that Patrick is wrong on this one as well, but gay men could chime in. I suspect that some adolescent boys never feel a revulsion to sex with an attractive male peer, and so there is no hurdle to get over. I also suspect that in some cases any such hang ups may be the result of persistent conditioning by society and thus not indicative of a biological factor. Certainly many, if not all, heterosexual men find it unpleasant to imagine two men performing sexual acts on one another. Interestingly, there is a huge gender asymmetry in this matter. Heterosexual men find it very erotic for two women to perform sexual acts on one another. I believe that ties into the heterosexual male's biological drive to mate with as many fertile females as possible.

rando says

Re: Ricky Gervais, I do think being gay is actually very much like being fat.

Yes, I included that to demonstrate the point that gayness is not a choice, not to imply that anyone was arguing gayness and obesity were similar.

rando says

The bits of information in the brain are mostly from learning. The brain learns from its environment.

This is true. However, at birth, long before the brain has the chance to learn most things, there is hard-wired knowledge in the brain. For example, even babies know what is a good looking person and an ugly person. We know this because babies will look longer at attractive faces. This is not learned behavior, but rather hard-wired.

Another example is that the human brain is pre-wired for language learning. This requires significant information even before an actual language is learned. It is also a very non-trivial task, yet every toddler is capable of learning languages better than any adolescent or adult. So there most be a mechanism by which information is created in the building of the brain from instructions in genetic code. That mechanism remains a mystery for now. One of the interesting areas of research in genetics and anthropology is determining what genes were introduced into our ancestors that made language prevalent in our species while modern apes and our common ancestors with them do and did not possess a propensity for language. Apes can be taught sign language, but no non-human ape culture has ever developed a language on their own.

Dan8267 says

there is hard-wired knowledge in the brain. For example, even babies know what is a good looking person and an ugly person. We know this because babies will look longer at attractive faces. This is not learned behavior, but rather hard-wired.

Sure, I don't have any problem with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure the attraction men have for tits and ass is also hard-wired.

But I've also learned to like things which I really did not like at first, like coffee, blue cheese, and wine. And okra. Actually okra is still rather repulsive.

Dan8267 says

no non-human ape culture has ever developed a language on their own

They lack the critical genes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2

rando says

That's social/environmental/cultural etc. And it does shape the brain.

Yes, but not completely. Returning to the language example, human babies can learn any language with about the same ease. However, after a critical age the brain becomes good only at learning the group's language and foreign languages become more difficult to learn. So some things in learning languages are shaped by culture and the environment, but other things are not.

Humans and bonobo chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their genetic code. Yet there are mental tasks, especially after the age of three, that humans can do with ease that chimpanzees struggle with or cannot do. There was one famous case where two humans raised a chimp as a human, but it never behaved like a human. A mere 1.2% difference in genetic code can make a lot of difference in brain function.

You share over 99.9% of your genetic code with all other humans on this planet, including women. The difference between men and women in a society is basically just the Y chromosome, which itself is basically nothing but the SR-Y gene. Yet this single gene triggers a cascade of differences that make women's brains and minds significantly different from men's brains and minds. Even the brain structure is different with women possessing a greater percentage of white matter and men grey matter. All due to a single gene. Well, a single gene that causes many other genes to be expressed differently.

So clearly, the brain's structure is strongly influenced by genes. That's not to say that it's not also shaped by environment, but not every thing in the brain is shaped or influence by environmental factors. For example, our brains implement trichromatic vision, and that's something you can't change with upbringing.

Dan8267 says

You share over 99.9% of your genetic code with all other humans on this planet, including women.

Technically, that's not true, and technically correct is the best kind of correct!

There's a fun Ted talk where the speaker points out that men actually share a greater percentage of their genes with male chimpanzees than they share with human women. This is because of the difference in the sex chromosomes: X chromosomes have a lot of genes on them, and men have just one copy.

rando says

But clearly genes do not make men gay, because identical twins show that a man can be gay with the exact same genes as a heterosexual man.

This only demonstrates that genes do not act unilaterally in determining sexual orientation. The statement "genes have no influence on sexual orientation" is a lot stronger than the statement "genes alone do not determine sexual orientation". The former statement requires different evidence.

I don't know of any studies that deal with determining if there are genes that influence sexual orientation. However, based on my general knowledge of genetics and sexuality, I would be surprised if there weren't at least a couple of genes that had some influence on sexual orientation. After all, genetic code influences whether you find blue eyes sexy, thinner women sexier than those with broader hips, what complexions you like, etc.

There is a biological process called "sexual exaggeration" in which both a trait and the preference for that trait are passed down from generation to generation being amplified in the process. The entire reason why male humans like breasts on females and why women have breasts in the first place are due entirely to sexual exaggeration, as is the peacock's tail. It seems unlikely that there isn't a single gene that has any influence on sexual orientation, although this is certainly possible. In any case, it's all speculation. The fact that identical twins don't necessarily have the same sexual orientation does not prove that there is no genetic influence.

However, I don't think it's the primary influence. The study on testosterone in the womb makes me think that the epigenome has a greater influence. Of course, I could be wrong on that. The science is still very young. The epigenome was only discovered recently. I think sometime after 2000 if I remember correctly.

In any case, my point is that there is not sufficient evidence yet to rule out the possibility of genetic influence on sexual orientation. However, clearly genes, even if they do influence orientation, are not the only influence and may not be the primary influence. We'll just have to wait for more studies to be done to determine if there are any genes that affect orientation.

I don't think it's a big deal either way, since other factors would have to be understood to explain orientation. At best genes just add another piece of the puzzle. Although if genes do influence orientation, it would be interesting to know how exactly this plays out.

rando says

But I've also learned to like things which I really did not like at first, like coffee, blue cheese, and wine.

Ah, but can you learn to like broccoli or feces? The brain is plastic, but only to a limited extent. Finding out that extent is at the heart of this discussion.

men screwing men is "normal?" what's next?

sex with animals is normal?

sex with parents is also normal?

these are really sick that people need medical attention.

rando says

technically correct is the best kind of correct!

It's the only kind of correct. But to address the issue you brought up...

rando says

There's a fun Ted talk where the speaker points out that men actually share a greater percentage of their genes with male chimpanzees than they share with human women. This is because of the difference in the sex chromosomes: X chromosomes have a lot of genes on them, and men have just one copy.

I haven't seen that tech talk, but I think your counting wrong.

First, the statistic I quoted, 99.9%, is an accepted figure. However, I haven't read anything regarding there being a difference comparing males and females.

Second, and more importantly, I believe you are counting copies of genes rather than counting unique genes, i.e. identical base pair sequences. The figure I quoted deals with genes, not how many copies you have.

So it's true that men have a tiny bit of genetic material that women don't have because it's on the Y chromosome. It's also true that women have two X chromosomes and men usually only have one. It's further true that having two X chromosomes can make a difference for two reasons. First, the two X chromosomes aren't identical. You can have a mutated gene on one of them that malfunctions, but still have a good copy of the gene on the other. This is why men are more susceptible to some genetic diseases like color blindness. Second, having two copies of a gene can cause the gene to be more strongly expressed.

However, regardless of those points, the actual set of base pairs does not vary that much just by having a second X chromosome with pretty much all the same genes, maybe slightly different variations. So I would measure the differences by counting up base pair sequences that exist in only one of two individuals and dividing by the total number of base pairs in each individual. I believe that's where the 99.9% figure comes from. Having two copies of a gene is not the same thing as having two genes.

Another thought occurs. Genes can indirectly influence things. Let's say that subsequent sons are increasing likely to become gay due to testosterone increases in the womb. In that case, any gene that influences either men or women to want to have more children would tend to cause more sons to be born, and thus would trigger the situation in which a greater percentage of men would be gay. In contrast, any gene that makes men or women want to have a single child, would decrease second, third, and fourth sons and thus decrease the percentage of men who are gay.

So in this case, do you call that a genetic component? Certainly a gene is indirectly affecting the outcome, but it's not directly causing the sexual orientation. It's not a "gay gene" as much as a "have more babies gene" that has a side effect on orientation due to increasing the number of subsequent sons. In fact, it's the genetic code of the parent, not the child, that affects the child's orientation.

rando says

Actually okra is still rather repulsive

The boiled kind, okra in spit.

It seems like comments have numbers some days, but today they don't.

There are plenty of things that caused by a combination of genes and environment. Heart disease and cancer are examples. You can look at someones family health history and see if they are prone to heart disease or certain cancers. But, people can influence whether or not they get those diseases by their habits. Some diet doctors use the phrase, genes load the gun, but diet pulls the trigger.

A person might be genetically coded to get wood around people of the same sex. Their environment obviously affects whether or not the suppress that desire or act on it, and whether or not to do it in the open. Environment might also impact expression of genes in some way and help determine who the guy gets wood for in the first place. Homosexual behavior is all over the animal kingdom, so there is really no arguing that it goes against evolution. Evolution created homosexuality over and over again in many types of animals. The only question is understanding the mechanism for it.

P N Dr Lo R says

It seems like comments have numbers some days, but today they don't.

Are numbers important? I could put them back.

YesYNot says

A person might be genetically coded to get wood around people of the same sex.

Actually, that does not seem to be true in humans. If a man were "genetically coded" to be gay, then his identical twin would also be gay. But 93% of the time, the identical twin is not gay.

YesYNot says

Homosexual behavior is all over the animal kingdom, so there is really no arguing that it goes against evolution.

No, exclusive homosexuality is exceptionally rare in the animal kingdom. Lots of animals, especially males, will fuck basically anything they can. Your dog will hump your leg. You just get the impression gayness is common among animals because the exceptions are promoted so strongly in the press as the highly-desired "evidence" that gayness is in absolutely no way a choice.

rando says

P N Dr Lo R says

It seems like comments have numbers some days, but today they don't.

Are numbers important? I could put them back.

Helps when searching for a previous post.

OK, I'll put them back.

Strategist says

Helps when searching for a previous post.

rando says

OK, I'll put them back.

Thanks!

rando says

But 93% of the time, the identical twin is not gay.

There's a difference between being excited by someone of the same sex and admitting it. There's also a difference between what your genes make likely and what gets expressed. So your test whereby you expect 100% match is the wrong test. I'll ask you this. Is cancer caused by genes? Do some people get large muscles because of genes? The answer to both questions is mixed. Genes certainly help some people develop big muscles, but two identical twins separated at birth will not have the exact same size muscles. One might get cancer at 40 and the other might not develop it in his lifetime. If you your test for something being caused by genes is 100% equal results, then you will find that nothing is caused by genes.

If people find that the chance of being gay is affected by genes, then it is partially out of their control and not determined completely by nurture. Same goes for disease.

P N Dr Lo R says

Strategist says

Helps when searching for a previous post.

rando says

OK, I'll put them back.

Thanks!

@"P N Dr Lo R" The comment numbers are back now.

I guess they do add some useful info.