The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Consequences"
 All Comments / On "Consequences"
    Readers here will recall my recital of Greg Cochran's hypothesis that obligate male homosexuality is caused by a pathogenic agent, likely a virus (please see 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Homosexuality (the “gay germ” hypothesis)). This is by far the most likely explanation for male homosexuality (see...
  • […] (For those curious about my own view on these things, I don’t have a problem with same-sex marriage. I don’t see it causing any particular harm, even if it likely confers little benefit. Live and let live. For that matter, I have a similar view towards polygamy. I have said before that the main issue arises in only if the polygamy rate gets too high, which it’s unlikely to in the West. Society can – contra Peter Frost – easily tolerate low levels of polygamy, since indeed, it essentially already does. Though it will be interesting to see how attitudes towards homosexuality will be affected by knowledge of its pathogenic origin. I expect it will not be well.) […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Alex
    JayMan: I remember reading about how a gene which increased the likelihood of homosexuality in males, also increased fertility in females. This might provide enough of an advantage that the genes survive.

    Also bear in mind that men are the disposable sex. If the homosexual man reproduces less, or even does not reproduce, he may still contribute to the continuation of his genetic line by improving the ability of the group to survive and thrive.
    Indeed, a gay hunter might improve the group's ability to hunt, because he does not mind the lack of female companionship so much.

    Obviously, all speculation, and it does not discount the existence of a homosexual pathogen.

    A gene being detrimental in some aspects does not mean that it cannot provide an overall advantage.

    I remember reading about how a gene which increased the likelihood of homosexuality in males, also increased fertility in females. This might provide enough of an advantage that the genes survive.

    See m’s comment above.

    If the homosexual man reproduces less, or even does not reproduce, he may still contribute to the continuation of his genetic line by improving the ability of the group to survive and thrive.

    Group Selection (and homosexuality) | West Hunter

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Can you go into why the evolutionary explanation is impossible?

    How much does homosexuality reduce your fitness by?

    How often would gays need to reproduce for the gay genes to stick around?

    JayMan: I remember reading about how a gene which increased the likelihood of homosexuality in males, also increased fertility in females. This might provide enough of an advantage that the genes survive.

    Also bear in mind that men are the disposable sex. If the homosexual man reproduces less, or even does not reproduce, he may still contribute to the continuation of his genetic line by improving the ability of the group to survive and thrive.
    Indeed, a gay hunter might improve the group’s ability to hunt, because he does not mind the lack of female companionship so much.

    Obviously, all speculation, and it does not discount the existence of a homosexual pathogen.

    A gene being detrimental in some aspects does not mean that it cannot provide an overall advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Alex:

    I remember reading about how a gene which increased the likelihood of homosexuality in males, also increased fertility in females. This might provide enough of an advantage that the genes survive.
     
    See m's comment above.

    If the homosexual man reproduces less, or even does not reproduce, he may still contribute to the continuation of his genetic line by improving the ability of the group to survive and thrive.
     
    Group Selection (and homosexuality) | West Hunter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Two predispositions towards male homosexuality:
    1) A study of women pregnant (1st trimester) in London in the U.K. during the Blitz (German bombing campaign in fall 1940) found increased odds of male babies ending up homosexual. Apparently, stress hormones damage fetuses towards homosexuality.
    2) Unwed mothers have a 40% higher chance of their sons ending up gay as well. (Look up article “Effects of Fatherlessness” to see.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] seen previously in my post Gay Germ Fallout?, Yankeedom, the Left Coast, New Netherland, and to a lesser extent, the Midlands and El Norte have […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Mostly, the gulf is about race. But I want to start with a different topic, since it figured heavily in the firestorm at the genetic genealogy blog (which blog I won’t link, because I don’t want to plague the blogger, whom I admire, with controversy not much related to her blog). That topic is the “gay germ.” The blogger to whom she had linked, you see, is Jayman, a strong advocate of the Greg Cochran’s “gay germ” theory. Jayman has called the gay germ “by far the most likely explanation for male homosexuality,” writing that […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] is an interesting statement on where we are, intellectually, as a society. Now, I have said that there will likely be some unpleasant consequences if knowledge of the gay germ were to become widespread. At least belief in a genetic cause leaves […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • They also found genes of female bisexuality is not?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • He’s not my friend. An acquaintance, so I’ll be using a repellent?

    I did not suggest that the genes for intelligence (or” intelligence”), whatever, of the Ashkenazi could also be” gay gene”, or some of them, I quoted an example of selection with deleterious effects in an attempt to explain that are not all the traits of human behavior that are the result of selection.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    ''The “gay germ” hypothesis doesn’t talk about male bisexuality (which is rare anyway) or female bi/homosexuality, it talks only about obligate male homosexuality. That problem is fundamentally different from those others mentioned.''


    Well, I know several gay. (Humanities you can find everything and especially WEIRD class, of which I am part). Has a special once told me that all gays are actually bisexual. Therefore, bi and gay men are exactly the same or very close, what changes is the self designation. I think anyone, even a parasite compel a man to give the anus if he has his own penis as a toy. And nowadays, with the increasing availability of casual sex, anyone with a little money can get a bitch and satisfy their physiological needs.


    ''Traits come to prevalence only through selection (everything starts out as a rare mutation).''


    Do not know why the Ashkenazi would be so stupid to select genetic diseases that they have today. Well, they're not selected, because nobody is as crazy enough to do this. Is there any vantage, cognitive, fertility, whatever, that makes homosexuality continue to exist.

    ''It’s unclear if that is the case. Further, the impact for family would have to be huge to counteract the fitness loss sustained by the homosexuals themselves.''


    Yes, in 'this case' I agree with you.


    ''Left-handedness appears to the product of frequency-dependent selection; that is, there is an optimum point in the population for the trait to exist, and so it balances there. Homosexuality is always a fitness deficit, so couldn’t be the result of frequency-dependent selection.

    Read Cochran’s posts on the topic – or for that matter, read the commentary to this post. All these things and more have been considered.''

    I've read, but all were considered to arrive at a single conclusion?
    I'm left-handed, bad for me, Buaaaaaa
    Cochran did not have any study on the incidence of left-handedness in the Ashkenazi Jewish population? This could explain a number of issues regarding the same.

    ''If it is a virus, a vaccine is the most likely solution.''


    But has the moral question of personal choice, should not be borne by the person himself to decide that?
    I think for you to consider homosexuality as a disease before need to totally destroy the assumptions of Freud.


    ''It’s not clear that they do.''

    But it is clear that they no longer do.

    Well, I know several gay. (Humanities you can find everything and especially WEIRD class, of which I am part). Has a special once told me that all gays are actually bisexual. Therefore, bi and gay men are exactly the same or very close, what changes is the self designation.

    Your friend is full of you know what.

    Do not know why the Ashkenazi would be so stupid to select genetic diseases that they have today. Well, they’re not selected, because nobody is as crazy enough to do this. Is there any vantage, cognitive, fertility, whatever, that makes homosexuality continue to exist.

    The Ashkenazi diseases are result of heterozygote advantage, thanks to intense selection for intelligence. No such genes exist involved in homosexuality, as GWAS would have found it.

    GWAS (Genome Wide Association Studies) have been employed to search for genes involved in homosexuality. They rule out sexually antagonistic selection and heterozygote advantage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ”The “gay germ” hypothesis doesn’t talk about male bisexuality (which is rare anyway) or female bi/homosexuality, it talks only about obligate male homosexuality. That problem is fundamentally different from those others mentioned.”

    Well, I know several gay. (Humanities you can find everything and especially WEIRD class, of which I am part). Has a special once told me that all gays are actually bisexual. Therefore, bi and gay men are exactly the same or very close, what changes is the self designation. I think anyone, even a parasite compel a man to give the anus if he has his own penis as a toy. And nowadays, with the increasing availability of casual sex, anyone with a little money can get a bitch and satisfy their physiological needs.

    ”Traits come to prevalence only through selection (everything starts out as a rare mutation).”

    Do not know why the Ashkenazi would be so stupid to select genetic diseases that they have today. Well, they’re not selected, because nobody is as crazy enough to do this. Is there any vantage, cognitive, fertility, whatever, that makes homosexuality continue to exist.

    ”It’s unclear if that is the case. Further, the impact for family would have to be huge to counteract the fitness loss sustained by the homosexuals themselves.”

    Yes, in ‘this case’ I agree with you.

    ”Left-handedness appears to the product of frequency-dependent selection; that is, there is an optimum point in the population for the trait to exist, and so it balances there. Homosexuality is always a fitness deficit, so couldn’t be the result of frequency-dependent selection.

    Read Cochran’s posts on the topic – or for that matter, read the commentary to this post. All these things and more have been considered.”

    I’ve read, but all were considered to arrive at a single conclusion?
    I’m left-handed, bad for me, Buaaaaaa
    Cochran did not have any study on the incidence of left-handedness in the Ashkenazi Jewish population? This could explain a number of issues regarding the same.

    ”If it is a virus, a vaccine is the most likely solution.”

    But has the moral question of personal choice, should not be borne by the person himself to decide that?
    I think for you to consider homosexuality as a disease before need to totally destroy the assumptions of Freud.

    ”It’s not clear that they do.”

    But it is clear that they no longer do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Gottlieb:

    Well, I know several gay. (Humanities you can find everything and especially WEIRD class, of which I am part). Has a special once told me that all gays are actually bisexual. Therefore, bi and gay men are exactly the same or very close, what changes is the self designation.
     
    Your friend is full of you know what.

    Do not know why the Ashkenazi would be so stupid to select genetic diseases that they have today. Well, they’re not selected, because nobody is as crazy enough to do this. Is there any vantage, cognitive, fertility, whatever, that makes homosexuality continue to exist.
     
    The Ashkenazi diseases are result of heterozygote advantage, thanks to intense selection for intelligence. No such genes exist involved in homosexuality, as GWAS would have found it.

    GWAS (Genome Wide Association Studies) have been employed to search for genes involved in homosexuality. They rule out sexually antagonistic selection and heterozygote advantage.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    So your math must be wrong because it is not possible to say that natural selection selected bisexuality in women and not in men. It is not possible why? What is GWAS?
    His theory is sounds like with the theories of Sigmund Freud who managed a fantastic reverse mode operandi of scientific empiricism to complete the conclusion before proving their evidence or better, before selecting their evidence. I repeat that I do not doubt that it may be true that you guys are theorizing, but for now just know that changing sexual choice occurs with some animals. There is also to think humans are so similar so with the sheep (not the socio-political sense). If true then the anthropocentrism, will be the next ISM to fall to the ground.
    Another problem in their approach, in my simple opinion, an opinion that you want to contribute and do not criticize. Not everything is caused by selection. Have you ever thought about the real possibility that the brothers of homosexuals and bisexuals are more fertile?
    The deviant sexual behavior is not the only trait that appears in the minority in the human species, we also know about left-handedness. You must take into consideration a number of possibilities before concluding that sexual behavior is caused by infestation.
    On the moral issues raised in relation to the hypothetical possibility of this theory to be correct. I think to suggest a vaccine is improbable, because you're leaving to the parents and not the infected, the choice of immunization or not.
    As a result, scientists should work with the possibility of drugs that control impulsive behavior homosexual, which in my opinion is similar to obsessive compulsive disorder and make available those who want to use them for this purpose.
    Even if homosexuality is actually a selectable trait and not an extra sexual selection, then, as I said earlier, we have a heterogeneous population, like any other, in that some people are more predisposed to engage fully in deviant behavior while others, because of their personality traits, tend to control his impulses and carry a heterosexual life. You could also explain to me why asexuals exist today?

    So your math must be wrong because it is not possible to say that natural selection selected bisexuality in women and not in men.

    The “gay germ” hypothesis doesn’t talk about male bisexuality (which is rare anyway) or female bi/homosexuality, it talks only about obligate male homosexuality. That problem is fundamentally different from those others mentioned.

    Another problem in their approach, in my simple opinion, an opinion that you want to contribute and do not criticize. Not everything is caused by selection.

    Traits come to prevalence only through selection (everything starts out as a rare mutation).

    Have you ever thought about the real possibility that the brothers of homosexuals and bisexuals are more fertile?

    It’s unclear if that is the case. Further, the impact for family would have to be huge to counteract the fitness loss sustained by the homosexuals themselves.

    The deviant sexual behavior is not the only trait that appears in the minority in the human species, we also know about left-handedness. You must take into consideration a number of possibilities before concluding that sexual behavior is caused by infestation.

    Left-handedness appears to the product of frequency-dependent selection; that is, there is an optimum point in the population for the trait to exist, and so it balances there. Homosexuality is always a fitness deficit, so couldn’t be the result of frequency-dependent selection.

    Read Cochran’s posts on the topic – or for that matter, read the commentary to this post. All these things and more have been considered.

    I think to suggest a vaccine is improbable, because you’re leaving to the parents and not the infected, the choice of immunization or not.

    If it is a virus, a vaccine is the most likely solution.

    You could also explain to me why asexuals exist today?

    It’s not clear that they do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So your math must be wrong because it is not possible to say that natural selection selected bisexuality in women and not in men. It is not possible why? What is GWAS?
    His theory is sounds like with the theories of Sigmund Freud who managed a fantastic reverse mode operandi of scientific empiricism to complete the conclusion before proving their evidence or better, before selecting their evidence. I repeat that I do not doubt that it may be true that you guys are theorizing, but for now just know that changing sexual choice occurs with some animals. There is also to think humans are so similar so with the sheep (not the socio-political sense). If true then the anthropocentrism, will be the next ISM to fall to the ground.
    Another problem in their approach, in my simple opinion, an opinion that you want to contribute and do not criticize. Not everything is caused by selection. Have you ever thought about the real possibility that the brothers of homosexuals and bisexuals are more fertile?
    The deviant sexual behavior is not the only trait that appears in the minority in the human species, we also know about left-handedness. You must take into consideration a number of possibilities before concluding that sexual behavior is caused by infestation.
    On the moral issues raised in relation to the hypothetical possibility of this theory to be correct. I think to suggest a vaccine is improbable, because you’re leaving to the parents and not the infected, the choice of immunization or not.
    As a result, scientists should work with the possibility of drugs that control impulsive behavior homosexual, which in my opinion is similar to obsessive compulsive disorder and make available those who want to use them for this purpose.
    Even if homosexuality is actually a selectable trait and not an extra sexual selection, then, as I said earlier, we have a heterogeneous population, like any other, in that some people are more predisposed to engage fully in deviant behavior while others, because of their personality traits, tend to control his impulses and carry a heterosexual life. You could also explain to me why asexuals exist today?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Gottlieb:

    So your math must be wrong because it is not possible to say that natural selection selected bisexuality in women and not in men.
     
    The "gay germ" hypothesis doesn't talk about male bisexuality (which is rare anyway) or female bi/homosexuality, it talks only about obligate male homosexuality. That problem is fundamentally different from those others mentioned.

    Another problem in their approach, in my simple opinion, an opinion that you want to contribute and do not criticize. Not everything is caused by selection.
     
    Traits come to prevalence only through selection (everything starts out as a rare mutation).

    Have you ever thought about the real possibility that the brothers of homosexuals and bisexuals are more fertile?
     
    It's unclear if that is the case. Further, the impact for family would have to be huge to counteract the fitness loss sustained by the homosexuals themselves.

    The deviant sexual behavior is not the only trait that appears in the minority in the human species, we also know about left-handedness. You must take into consideration a number of possibilities before concluding that sexual behavior is caused by infestation.
     
    Left-handedness appears to the product of frequency-dependent selection; that is, there is an optimum point in the population for the trait to exist, and so it balances there. Homosexuality is always a fitness deficit, so couldn't be the result of frequency-dependent selection.

    Read Cochran's posts on the topic – or for that matter, read the commentary to this post. All these things and more have been considered.


    I think to suggest a vaccine is improbable, because you’re leaving to the parents and not the infected, the choice of immunization or not.
     
    If it is a virus, a vaccine is the most likely solution.

    You could also explain to me why asexuals exist today?
     
    It's not clear that they do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    I try to understand how you want to prove that male homosexuality is caused by infestation while making a text that says that female bisexuality is natural, advantageous and has been selected in some way.
    I read the Evo and Proud, a text on the occurrence of light eyes and hair in Europeans. Something struck me this text.
    These features appeared or were selected primarily on women and were later passed to men, so that nowadays, a higher percentage of women have eyes and hair than men.
    I continue with the idea that there may be no causal link between infestation and homosexuality. And I still think that homosexuality is a combination of traits that were selected for some reason advantageous now been selected is a way of thinking a bit wrong, it passes an idea of passivity. Not that heterosexual men selected homosexuals to be friends of their women. Is that many gay and bisexual men, a number of issues,
    personality, intelligence, social pressure, willingness to believe in God or not, married and had children.
    Like Blue Eyes is a feminine trait that was passed to the men, or light skin, so does sexual deviancy, which is abundant and natural in women, and appears in the minority in the opposite sex.
    Of course, the two cases are exactly alike and result in proportion, but the idea is exactly the same.

    I continue with the idea that there may be no causal link between infestation and homosexuality. And I still think that homosexuality is a combination of traits that were selected for some reason advantageous now been selected is a way of thinking a bit wrong, it passes an idea of passivity. Not that heterosexual men selected homosexuals to be friends of their women. Is that many gay and bisexual men, a number of issues,
    personality, intelligence, social pressure, willingness to believe in God or not, married and had children.

    Math my friend, math. Sure, homosexual men married and had children. But, on the whole, they always did so at a lower rate than heterosexual men. This would have led any genes for such traits to have been selected out.

    The other aspect you mention, sexually antagonistic selection, has been ruled out by GWAS analysis. It doesn’t happen.

    What you’re saying simply does not work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    I try to understand how you want to prove that male homosexuality is caused by infestation while making a text that says that female bisexuality is natural, advantageous and has been selected in some way.
    I read the Evo and Proud, a text on the occurrence of light eyes and hair in Europeans. Something struck me this text.
    These features appeared or were selected primarily on women and were later passed to men, so that nowadays, a higher percentage of women have eyes and hair than men.
    I continue with the idea that there may be no causal link between infestation and homosexuality. And I still think that homosexuality is a combination of traits that were selected for some reason advantageous now been selected is a way of thinking a bit wrong, it passes an idea of passivity. Not that heterosexual men selected homosexuals to be friends of their women. Is that many gay and bisexual men, a number of issues,
    personality, intelligence, social pressure, willingness to believe in God or not, married and had children.
    Like Blue Eyes is a feminine trait that was passed to the men, or light skin, so does sexual deviancy, which is abundant and natural in women, and appears in the minority in the opposite sex.
    Of course, the two cases are exactly alike and result in proportion, but the idea is exactly the same.

    And finally, the explanation for homosexuality persists is the same way that light eyes continue to exist, even though there isn’t a great advantage in having them. Both traits are initially female and overflowed the border of the sexes appearing in the male population, and, clear eyes have the advantage aesthetics only.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I try to understand how you want to prove that male homosexuality is caused by infestation while making a text that says that female bisexuality is natural, advantageous and has been selected in some way.
    I read the Evo and Proud, a text on the occurrence of light eyes and hair in Europeans. Something struck me this text.
    These features appeared or were selected primarily on women and were later passed to men, so that nowadays, a higher percentage of women have eyes and hair than men.
    I continue with the idea that there may be no causal link between infestation and homosexuality. And I still think that homosexuality is a combination of traits that were selected for some reason advantageous now been selected is a way of thinking a bit wrong, it passes an idea of passivity. Not that heterosexual men selected homosexuals to be friends of their women. Is that many gay and bisexual men, a number of issues,
    personality, intelligence, social pressure, willingness to believe in God or not, married and had children.
    Like Blue Eyes is a feminine trait that was passed to the men, or light skin, so does sexual deviancy, which is abundant and natural in women, and appears in the minority in the opposite sex.
    Of course, the two cases are exactly alike and result in proportion, but the idea is exactly the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gottlieb
    And finally, the explanation for homosexuality persists is the same way that light eyes continue to exist, even though there isn't a great advantage in having them. Both traits are initially female and overflowed the border of the sexes appearing in the male population, and, clear eyes have the advantage aesthetics only.
    , @JayMan
    @Gottlieb:

    I continue with the idea that there may be no causal link between infestation and homosexuality. And I still think that homosexuality is a combination of traits that were selected for some reason advantageous now been selected is a way of thinking a bit wrong, it passes an idea of passivity. Not that heterosexual men selected homosexuals to be friends of their women. Is that many gay and bisexual men, a number of issues,
    personality, intelligence, social pressure, willingness to believe in God or not, married and had children.
     
    Math my friend, math. Sure, homosexual men married and had children. But, on the whole, they always did so at a lower rate than heterosexual men. This would have led any genes for such traits to have been selected out.

    The other aspect you mention, sexually antagonistic selection, has been ruled out by GWAS analysis. It doesn't happen.

    What you're saying simply does not work.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Could a germ be making people gay to benefit somehow? If so why?

    The sexual orientation change is likely a side effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Could a germ be making people gay to benefit somehow? If so why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    The sexual orientation change is likely a side effect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Interestingly, none of the commenters to my previous post (Gay Germ Fallout?), with the exception of Luke Lea, seems to be talking about the main point of the post: the consequences should people discover that there is a gay germ. The discussion is focusing on whether or not the pathogen exists, which it almost certainly...
  • @Gottlieb
    Thanks Dan.
    Interesting that homossexuality or non-heterossexuality are more common in left handed persons and probably, in jews. Kanazawa theory make strong sense for me, smarter people TEND to experiment new behaviours, for men= long hair, radical sports, living in a extrem conditions or new conditions, adopt new costumes, ideologies or create new costumes or and ideologies.... for women= feminism, lesbianism...
    Higher intelligence are related with many traits, are probably influences indirectly. Smarter people tend to have less testosterone (obviously, many smarter men are more 'masculine' and more testosterone but there are many subtypes, much more than left of bell curve).
    Intelligence stronger related for curiosity, individualism, divergent thinking, creativity and obviously openess. Obviously that there are many types of intelligence or ''cognitive styles''.
    This people with these traits and openess behaviour tendencies (genetic expression) tend to have one intelligence type, ''non-iq intelligence type''.
    Don't exist ''gay genotype'', this is a typical western predisposition to classify everything. In many differentes cultures determined behaviours are commons than others.
    Gay and lesbians actually are people that find tolerance by express our sexual preferences than old times.Many others nominal heterossexuals, have unusual sexual preferences but don't persecute this way of life, multiple explanations, personality traits like impulsivity, cognitive intelligence that explain ''environmental explanations''. I think that when intelligence level increase ''abstract and philosofical intelligence'', an a luxurious traits.

    m–actually, lefties do take a fitness hit, I have seen articles about this.
    It probably has to do with attempting to function in a society where major things like cars are designed for righties. But it might also have to do with some lefties being lefties because of brain damage in the first place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Readers here will recall my recital of Greg Cochran's hypothesis that obligate male homosexuality is caused by a pathogenic agent, likely a virus (please see 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Homosexuality (the “gay germ” hypothesis)). This is by far the most likely explanation for male homosexuality (see...
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The greatest biggot against gays, is not any person at all but nature itself. Gays aren’t even allowed to have actual sex with each other. Their acts of simulated sex aren’t allowed to produce children, two gays are not permitted make another person that is a combination of themselves, and homophobic nature cruelly decides that their recreactional activities should bring high levels of disease and, in the whole of human history until recently, extraordinary levels of death? This is all so homophobic on the part of nature.

    Why is nature such a bigoted, intolerant hater, so full of homophobia and small-mindedness?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Interestingly, none of the commenters to my previous post (Gay Germ Fallout?), with the exception of Luke Lea, seems to be talking about the main point of the post: the consequences should people discover that there is a gay germ. The discussion is focusing on whether or not the pathogen exists, which it almost certainly...
  • About the ”germ gay” in mainstream and possibilities…
    We do not need to do absolutely nothing about” treat” homosexuals.
    Looks like you guys are trying to pass as a tractor over many evidences that help explain homosexual behavior. It is not so simple.
    As I see you using statistics on IQ to explain everything, is not so simple. Yes, I totally believe that IQ is very important to explain many things, but no work on it, try to give it legitimacy, should summarize the intelligence to him. That is why social scientists have a full plate to attack their work, after all, all the time you guys are making it clear that conventional intelligence tests alone can explain the human intellect.
    I continue with the main idea that pathogen and homosexual behavior is just a neutral relationship. Homosexuals tend to mature more slowly, have higher proportions of autoimmune diseases, precisely because they have higher proportions of left-handed and ambidextrous. So they have weaker immune systems and are more easily attacked by pathogens.

    The homossexual man split into two groups striking, hyper masculinized (high testosterone) and less masculine (low testosterone, high estrogen). This latter group may be more compatible with the pathogen infestation.
    But if all suffer the presence of germs in our bodies so the question” gay” seed should not be discussed in a separate way, after all, it is unfair to say that behavior outside of the rule and evolutionarily illogical is a disease, if we all have germs interacting with us.

    About heterozygous advantage, Ashkenazi Jews seem to be an example.

    http://www.humanevolution.net/humanevolution/a/jewish.html

    http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03014467800002861

    http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1945-02685-001

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com.br/2012/07/jews-more-than-twice-as-likely-to-be.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Jayman, I want to ask for some questions off topic, since you’re skilled on maps and statistics. I want to make a worldwide map with social features on cad/dad trends of each country. But I dont know what statistics markers I´d focus attention on: divorce rates? Illegitimacy Rate?, birth rate?, single-parent household? Age of the fist marriage? Operational sex ratio? Several mixed markers?

    By the other hand, I'm trying to find worldwide statistics about eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) but there are few data sources available. I can not find information (large-scale national surveys or rates of hospitalization) for most of countries. How I could make a map about anorexia /bulimia?

    Thank u so much.

    Jayman, I want to ask for some questions off topic, since you’re skilled on maps and statistics. I want to make a worldwide map with social features on cad/dad trends of each country. But I dont know what statistics markers I´d focus attention on: divorce rates? Illegitimacy Rate?, birth rate?, single-parent household? Age of the fist marriage? Operational sex ratio? Several mixed markers?

    I’d combine all of those, at least the ones you find easiest to obtain data.

    By the other hand, I’m trying to find worldwide statistics about eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) but there are few data sources available. I can not find information (large-scale national surveys or rates of hospitalization) for most of countries. How I could make a map about anorexia /bulimia?

    Good question. If I come across any, I’ll let you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Jayman, I want to ask for some questions off topic, since you’re skilled on maps and statistics. I want to make a worldwide map with social features on cad/dad trends of each country. But I dont know what statistics markers I´d focus attention on: divorce rates? Illegitimacy Rate?, birth rate?, single-parent household? Age of the fist marriage? Operational sex ratio? Several mixed markers?

    By the other hand, I’m trying to find worldwide statistics about eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) but there are few data sources available. I can not find information (large-scale national surveys or rates of hospitalization) for most of countries. How I could make a map about anorexia /bulimia?

    Thank u so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Jayman, I want to ask for some questions off topic, since you’re skilled on maps and statistics. I want to make a worldwide map with social features on cad/dad trends of each country. But I dont know what statistics markers I´d focus attention on: divorce rates? Illegitimacy Rate?, birth rate?, single-parent household? Age of the fist marriage? Operational sex ratio? Several mixed markers?
     
    I'd combine all of those, at least the ones you find easiest to obtain data.

    By the other hand, I’m trying to find worldwide statistics about eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) but there are few data sources available. I can not find information (large-scale national surveys or rates of hospitalization) for most of countries. How I could make a map about anorexia /bulimia?
     
    Good question. If I come across any, I'll let you know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • JayMan, you or others might enjoy this It’s a presentation by one of the lead researchers doing the work on the effects of serotonin on sexual orientation in mice, research to which I referred in a post above. He goes over his team’s earlier results on male mice (research published in 2011) and then on that on female mice (research published just recently.) I think his team and the ones lead by Catherine Dulac of Harvard are leading the way in the area of the mechanisms that control innate behaviors, including sexual behaviors. No, it has nothing to do with a pathogen connection, but I maintain that as long as no one is actually testing the pathogen hypothesis in labs, we might be able to get the cause of homosexual orientations if we first discover the mechanisms of heterosexuality, and these teams seem most likely to be the ones that provide answers to that question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Readers here will recall my recital of Greg Cochran's hypothesis that obligate male homosexuality is caused by a pathogenic agent, likely a virus (please see 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Homosexuality (the “gay germ” hypothesis)). This is by far the most likely explanation for male homosexuality (see...
  • @James B. Shearer
    Just as having the host randomly fall asleep doesn’t help the narcolepsy virus spread…

    I was wondering about that. On the other hand it is easy enough to imagine ways more gay sex could help a gay germ spread.

    Not really. Most gay men were clearly gay before having gay sex. Indeed, many, if not most, were “different” in youth. Gay sex is not likely the primary mode of transmission.

    Indeed, it is possible that adult gay men aren’t even contagious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Just as having the host randomly fall asleep doesn’t help the narcolepsy virus spread…

    I was wondering about that. On the other hand it is easy enough to imagine ways more gay sex could help a gay germ spread.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Not really. Most gay men were clearly gay before having gay sex. Indeed, many, if not most, were "different" in youth. Gay sex is not likely the primary mode of transmission.

    Indeed, it is possible that adult gay men aren't even contagious.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James B. Shearer
    If the germ doesn't benefit then the argument that evolution hasn't been able to eliminate the bad effects because the germ is evolving also doesn't apply. So the damage could be just as well be caused by some random environmental factor.

    If the germ doesn’t benefit then the argument that evolution hasn’t been able to eliminate the bad effects because the germ is evolving also doesn’t apply.

    The sexual orientation effect could be an integral side effect. That is, having a person be gay may not help the pathogen spread, but it is an inevitable result of the infection of whatever brain system the pathogen attacks in the course of doing whatever it does to survive.

    Just as having the host randomly fall asleep doesn’t help the narcolepsy virus spread…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If the germ doesn’t benefit then the argument that evolution hasn’t been able to eliminate the bad effects because the germ is evolving also doesn’t apply. So the damage could be just as well be caused by some random environmental factor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    If the germ doesn’t benefit then the argument that evolution hasn’t been able to eliminate the bad effects because the germ is evolving also doesn’t apply.
     
    The sexual orientation effect could be an integral side effect. That is, having a person be gay may not help the pathogen spread, but it is an inevitable result of the infection of whatever brain system the pathogen attacks in the course of doing whatever it does to survive.

    Just as having the host randomly fall asleep doesn't help the narcolepsy virus spread...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James B. Shearer
    Regarding the second link by m above saying sickle like genes have only been observed when they protect against malaria isn't exactly proof that they can't arise in other situations. To some extent I am nitpicking but saying the gay germ hypothesis is almost certain (as JayMan does in the next post) is a pretty strong statement particularly when a big part of the argument appears to be that you have eliminated all the other possibilities.

    Btw is part of the gay germ hypothesis a claim that the germ benefits from turning people gay?

    You’re talking about heterozygote advantage. Cochran does indeed address it. GWAS analysis rule it out.

    Btw is part of the gay germ hypothesis a claim that the germ benefits from turning people gay?

    No. That’s likely a side effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Regarding the second link by m above saying sickle like genes have only been observed when they protect against malaria isn’t exactly proof that they can’t arise in other situations. To some extent I am nitpicking but saying the gay germ hypothesis is almost certain (as JayMan does in the next post) is a pretty strong statement particularly when a big part of the argument appears to be that you have eliminated all the other possibilities.

    Btw is part of the gay germ hypothesis a claim that the germ benefits from turning people gay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @James B. Shearer:

    You're talking about heterozygote advantage. Cochran does indeed address it. GWAS analysis rule it out.


    Btw is part of the gay germ hypothesis a claim that the germ benefits from turning people gay?
     
    No. That's likely a side effect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James B. Shearer
    The comments by Cochran linked by m above don't even mention the sickle cell gene. He does not discuss genes (like the sickle cell gene) where one copy is good but two copies is bad. In such cases the fact that two copy individuals have lousy fitness doesn't necessarily mean the gene will go away. Perhaps there are good reasons to doubt the existence of gay genes but the fact that male homosexuals have greatly reduced fitness isn't sufficient.

    Sorry–that link only gave a truncated version of what used to be there. So start here:

    http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/feedback/An_Evolutionary_Look_at_Human_Homosexuality.htm

    Then go to West Hunter and type in the search box “homosexuality.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The comments by Cochran linked by m above don’t even mention the sickle cell gene. He does not discuss genes (like the sickle cell gene) where one copy is good but two copies is bad. In such cases the fact that two copy individuals have lousy fitness doesn’t necessarily mean the gene will go away. Perhaps there are good reasons to doubt the existence of gay genes but the fact that male homosexuals have greatly reduced fitness isn’t sufficient.

    Read More
    • Replies: @m
    Sorry--that link only gave a truncated version of what used to be there. So start here:

    http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/feedback/An_Evolutionary_Look_at_Human_Homosexuality.htm


    Then go to West Hunter and type in the search box "homosexuality."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • m says:
    @James B. Shearer
    The argument that there can't be gay genes because of the fitness impact isn't entirely convincing. Such genes could have other positive effects. Like the sickle cell gene.

    Go to the blog West Hunter. Find the topic “homosexuality” listed in the right hand margin. You will find several posts on the topic along with many comments. Read them. Within the posts, you’ll find the answer to why it isn’t “like the sickle cell gene” at all from someone who knows a lot about evolution and who has explained many times why it “can’t be like the sickle cell gene. Of course, Jayman knows a lot about evolution too, but I think he’d point you to that place as well because the answer to your point is already spelled out there in detail in those posts.

    And/Or, try these: http://entitledtoanopinion.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cochranrants.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The argument that there can’t be gay genes because of the fitness impact isn’t entirely convincing. Such genes could have other positive effects. Like the sickle cell gene.

    Read More
    • Replies: @m
    Go to the blog West Hunter. Find the topic "homosexuality" listed in the right hand margin. You will find several posts on the topic along with many comments. Read them. Within the posts, you'll find the answer to why it isn't "like the sickle cell gene" at all from someone who knows a lot about evolution and who has explained many times why it "can't be like the sickle cell gene. Of course, Jayman knows a lot about evolution too, but I think he'd point you to that place as well because the answer to your point is already spelled out there in detail in those posts.

    And/Or, try these: http://entitledtoanopinion.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cochranrants.pdf

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @philosophe22
    This study found a homosexual rate of 1.7%: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf

    Looks like the U.S. rate is about 2.2%. Lower than most estimates, but still in the ballpark.

    Good find.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    A couple of points there:

    How reliable is that statistic of intersexed births? If we file intersexed birth under the category (Cochran's) of "funny looking genetalia", even a 1% prevalence sounds way too high.

    Apparently, the prevalence varies depending on how you define it. Left with no intervention, how many would develop to have fairly normal looking genitalia (men with small penises and women with large clitorises do exist)?

    Cochran left a post explaining why mutational errors are an unlikely explanation.

    Cochran also notes the lack of syndromic forms of homosexuality. Its expression is pretty consistent, making random errors an unconvincing explanation.

    And even if we accept 1% as the rate of intersexed births, the 3% rate of homosexuality still struggles for explanation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Looks like the U.S. rate is about 2.2%. Lower than most estimates, but still in the ballpark.

    Good find.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    Maybe we should consider the fact (I think it is a fact) that between one and two percent of all births are intersexual -- i.e., not clear whether the baby is a male or a female, sometimes with surgical decisions made on the spot. Whatever interfered with these people's sexual develoment it happened before birth. (For all I know some of them grow up to be classed as gay -- bull dikes maybe.) So why haven't these mistakes been eliminated? And if developmental mistakes of this magnitude are possible why not subtler effects? Admittedly some intersexuals are xxy, but I don't think they all are are they?

    A couple of points there:

    How reliable is that statistic of intersexed births? If we file intersexed birth under the category (Cochran’s) of “funny looking genetalia”, even a 1% prevalence sounds way too high.

    Apparently, the prevalence varies depending on how you define it. Left with no intervention, how many would develop to have fairly normal looking genitalia (men with small penises and women with large clitorises do exist)?

    Cochran left a post explaining why mutational errors are an unlikely explanation.

    Cochran also notes the lack of syndromic forms of homosexuality. Its expression is pretty consistent, making random errors an unconvincing explanation.

    And even if we accept 1% as the rate of intersexed births, the 3% rate of homosexuality still struggles for explanation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @philosophe22
    This study found a homosexual rate of 1.7%: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Maybe we should consider the fact (I think it is a fact) that between one and two percent of all births are intersexual — i.e., not clear whether the baby is a male or a female, sometimes with surgical decisions made on the spot. Whatever interfered with these people’s sexual develoment it happened before birth. (For all I know some of them grow up to be classed as gay — bull dikes maybe.) So why haven’t these mistakes been eliminated? And if developmental mistakes of this magnitude are possible why not subtler effects? Admittedly some intersexuals are xxy, but I don’t think they all are are they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    A couple of points there:

    How reliable is that statistic of intersexed births? If we file intersexed birth under the category (Cochran's) of "funny looking genetalia", even a 1% prevalence sounds way too high.

    Apparently, the prevalence varies depending on how you define it. Left with no intervention, how many would develop to have fairly normal looking genitalia (men with small penises and women with large clitorises do exist)?

    Cochran left a post explaining why mutational errors are an unlikely explanation.

    Cochran also notes the lack of syndromic forms of homosexuality. Its expression is pretty consistent, making random errors an unconvincing explanation.

    And even if we accept 1% as the rate of intersexed births, the 3% rate of homosexuality still struggles for explanation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    What about the possibility of external environmental shocks which are not germ related? Something that interferes with androgen/testosterone ratio (or whatever hormones control) at a certain, perhaps very brief moment in eve-devo process. There might be a window that is open for only a day, or an hour, or a minute even. Maybe the mother is exposed to something for a brief moment, a food additive, an unlucky event triggered by radiation, some strange element or chemical in the environment. Why does it have to be a germ? And why do you think it comes into play after birth? Just wondering.

    What about the possibility of external environmental shocks which are not germ related? Something that interferes with androgen/testosterone ratio (or whatever hormones control) at a certain, perhaps very brief moment in eve-devo process.

    Greg Cochran wrote an excellent post on why that’s unlikely. In short, because of the huge fitness hit involved, natural selection would have made such a mode of failure rare. Homosexuality wouldn’t be as common as 3% of all men. You need an agent that “fights back” evolutionarily, and only a pathogen will do.

    The reason it’s likely something that occurs after birth – in childhood – is because of the low concordance in twins (11%). It can’t be too late either; it has to be early enough so that it can account for the effeminate behaviors often observed in boys who go on to become gay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What about the possibility of external environmental shocks which are not germ related? Something that interferes with androgen/testosterone ratio (or whatever hormones control) at a certain, perhaps very brief moment in eve-devo process. There might be a window that is open for only a day, or an hour, or a minute even. Maybe the mother is exposed to something for a brief moment, a food additive, an unlucky event triggered by radiation, some strange element or chemical in the environment. Why does it have to be a germ? And why do you think it comes into play after birth? Just wondering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    What about the possibility of external environmental shocks which are not germ related? Something that interferes with androgen/testosterone ratio (or whatever hormones control) at a certain, perhaps very brief moment in eve-devo process.
     
    Greg Cochran wrote an excellent post on why that's unlikely. In short, because of the huge fitness hit involved, natural selection would have made such a mode of failure rare. Homosexuality wouldn't be as common as 3% of all men. You need an agent that "fights back" evolutionarily, and only a pathogen will do.

    The reason it's likely something that occurs after birth – in childhood – is because of the low concordance in twins (11%). It can't be too late either; it has to be early enough so that it can account for the effeminate behaviors often observed in boys who go on to become gay.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Interestingly, none of the commenters to my previous post (Gay Germ Fallout?), with the exception of Luke Lea, seems to be talking about the main point of the post: the consequences should people discover that there is a gay germ. The discussion is focusing on whether or not the pathogen exists, which it almost certainly...
  • Well we’d openly try to prevent its spread, so it would be in the open that we disapprove of it. But, we’re so good at using cultural glasses and speech filters to be nice that perhaps not much would change in how we treat gays. On the other hand, knowing that they’re the victim of some bug would make us feel sorry for them, in a bad way. They’d be cripples, perverted from what they were intended to be, poor things, because of a mechanism that’s not them, instead of gay being just how they are. A non-genetic mechanism would make their gayness would stop being a mystery making them untouchably holy; we’d go back to homophobia / looking down on them, but now with justification. Only, we’ll have become better at not discriminating, at least outwardly. I’m sure it would spin off a lot more interesting thoughts. Interesting question!

    As for the contagion aspect it depends on the form of transmission. I think we’d act about appropriately; we did get through AIDS, which will kill you after all, just settling on things not to do – certainly no mass slaughters or quarantines or anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @The Man Who Was . . .
    I don't know what we can do to protect gays when the gay germ is found, but I do applaud you for at least thinking about it. We really do need to think what we can do to minimize the violence.

    I also think we need to be thinking about how to manage the return of religion to the West. As a conservative, I generally applaud this, but religious people have their peculiar biases and there will be downsides. We need to start thinking about how to minimize those too.

    I ever was favorable to TRUE aristocratic elite, noble, smart and fair to drive the masses. It look like a “iluminatti dolar discourse“ but i believe that is a unique form to educate people about the human nature, obviously without psychopath satanic leaders with power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @m
    HOFables,

    Oh my, such tolerance.

    Tell me, what is it that the blog host has said that would cause you to react in this manner? You attack him instead of his arguments. Is that because you have no good counter-argument?

    Assuming you are upset at his belief in the pathogen hypothesis, can you explain why? What does difference will it ultimately make what the biological cause of homosexuality is? A germ trigger? A blocked ion channel? An enzyme irregularity? Receptor problems? A mother who ate or drank x, y, or z in month a, b, or c of pregnancy? Huh? No matter the trigger, all will be explained in terms of neurochemistry as something over which no one has control.

    Or are you upset that understanding its etiology will one day lead to parents having kids who can have kids themselves? (I suspect that's the real issue.) Convince me otherwise.

    I banned him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • m says:

    HOFables,

    Oh my, such tolerance.

    Tell me, what is it that the blog host has said that would cause you to react in this manner? You attack him instead of his arguments. Is that because you have no good counter-argument?

    Assuming you are upset at his belief in the pathogen hypothesis, can you explain why? What does difference will it ultimately make what the biological cause of homosexuality is? A germ trigger? A blocked ion channel? An enzyme irregularity? Receptor problems? A mother who ate or drank x, y, or z in month a, b, or c of pregnancy? Huh? No matter the trigger, all will be explained in terms of neurochemistry as something over which no one has control.

    Or are you upset that understanding its etiology will one day lead to parents having kids who can have kids themselves? (I suspect that’s the real issue.) Convince me otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    I banned him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    This is no better than your comment because I have no backup, but, my impression is that it's common that boys abused by men become gay in turn. How common, I don't know. Maybe it's just a couple of anecdotes.

    Probably just anecdotal. Were most gay men abused as boys?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @m
    I thought it was clear that it "would depend." If gays themselves were carriers of an infectious agent that could be spread to little boys or adolescents then yes, of course, there would be wide-spread fear. Yes, if I thought a homosexual, family member or not, could "spread the gay" to my youngster, I'd keep him away from him until such a time as the danger had passed. After all, I want my kid to be able to father kids himself, the old fashioned way, too. To expose my child to something that would, in essence, pose a great threat of making him sterile, would be child neglect. But, whoa, Nellie. We are getting way ahead of ourselves.

    First, if there is an infectious agent that can cause this condition, it surely appears it is not the result of gay men doing sexual things to little boys for most gay men have not been sexually accosted by someone when they were young. Further, among males who have been sexually accosted by gay men, we've no evidence these boys become gay.

    Second, there's no evidence such a bug is passed by gays at all by any means, not just by sexual means. The likely pathogen is one that is common. Your brother, sister, classmates are just as likely to be those who pass it along, and for some unlucky reason, some kids have some cell damage as a result (hypothetically).

    You'd have to specify, as you mentioned earlier, the manner in which this germ spread for us to have any idea at all about the response to it and responses to gays, in general. If researchers announced tomorrow that there was such a bug, identified it and specified the area of damage but didn't or weren't able to specify the mode of transmission, then you'd see panic and real fear. At that point the word "homophobia" would have an accurate meaning, but I think this is far from the realm of possibility.

    While I think this germ hypothesis has legs, I don't think male homosexuals pass it along. We'd have evidence of it by now in looking at family histories.

    This is no better than your comment because I have no backup, but, my impression is that it’s common that boys abused by men become gay in turn. How common, I don’t know. Maybe it’s just a couple of anecdotes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Probably just anecdotal. Were most gay men abused as boys?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I doubt if much would happen for decades. Progress against non-epidemic germs tends to be very slow. When I had cancer 15 years ago, I was told it was probably caused by a virus. But I haven’t seen much progress on that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    My point is that conditioning is not something that is easily selected against because:

    The genes for conditioning are not about sex specifically. The genes for conditioning are about response to reward generally.

    Conditioning is a general thing where if there is a rewarding physical stimulus (from nerve endings, taste buds, the stomach, etc.) the surrounding conditions that were present at the time of physical stimulus become so deeply ingrained that even physical arousal can occur just from the conditions and not the physical stimulus. In the case of Pavlov's dog, there was salivation in response to bell ringing, with no food present. Pavlov used bell ringing, but he could have clapped or shown a blue card or something else.

    Conditioning which is a general thing, is not something to be selected against because it terribly useful in most cases. Environments are different in every era and it is much better than instinct in such circumstances because individuals can adjust within their lifetimes.

    People have such an enormous range of sex fetishes that get them going that I don't see how it can be anything other than conditioning.

    My point is that conditioning is not something that is easily selected against because:

    The genes for conditioning are not about sex specifically. The genes for conditioning are about response to reward generally.

    Conditioning is a general thing where if there is a rewarding physical stimulus (from nerve endings, taste buds, the stomach, etc.) the surrounding conditions that were present at the time of physical stimulus become so deeply ingrained that even physical arousal can occur just from the conditions and not the physical stimulus. In the case of Pavlov’s dog, there was salivation in response to bell ringing, with no food present. Pavlov used bell ringing, but he could have clapped or shown a blue card or something else.

    Dan, you can’t mix and match. That’s not how the human brain works. Pop neuroscience (which includes the yourbrainonporn crowd) may make it seem like the superficial similarities in brain response to pleasure derived from different sources (like food, drugs, and sex) are all the same, but they are all distinct systems in the brain. The brain processes each in different ways, with many dedicated responses for each. Basic sexual attraction to the opposite sex simply cannot be hijacked that way.

    People have such an enormous range of sex fetishes that get them going that I don’t see how it can be anything other than conditioning.

    All human behavioral traits are heritable, Dan, that’s how. Your incredulity means nothing.

    I’m starting to have my fill of this discussion. Please think carefully before commenting further on it (or I will have to start moderating your comments)…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dan says:
    @Dan
    In your last post you wrote, "If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is"...

    Jayman, you stray very far from the tone of a scientist here. Scientists are skeptical and expect evidence. The tangible, positive observational evidence for a 'gay germ' so far does not exist as far as I know. Has even one trace of the germ been observed?

    Big issues:

    (1) Sexuality is extremely complex, and for a germ to do the complex job of reversing a person's sexuality and leaving that person otherwise perfectly healthy and with no other symptoms would be astonishing indeed. Examples of infectious agents cause conditions once thought to be environmental or genetic (e.g. cervical cancer) are not like this at all.

    (2) The problem raised by Ron Unz in “Gay Gene” vs. “Gay Germ”, written in April
    "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    (3) As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.

    (4) The list of reputable scientists who hold this theory has only one name, Gregory Cochran, and he is a physicist who has no laboratory experience in pathology or epidemiology. I have not heard from a single expert in the field who shares this view.

    (5) There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization -- any rationalization such as that it is good for bonding is no good because the man is wasting an excellent opportunity at present with no promise of anything in the future and actual sex would be just as good or better for bonding). Porn use is a behavior that is still more maladaptive.

    The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward. Eventually the dog becomes physically oriented to bell-ringing such that he has uncontrolled symptoms of physical arousal (salivation) in relation to bell ringing even when there is no reward (food) present.

    The conditioning explanation has much greater explanatory power because it addresses not only homosexuality but 100 other sexual behaviors, many of which are maladaptive and others (e.g. whips and chains, schoolgirl uniforms) of which have no analogue to the circumstances under which people developed.

    The gay germ theory explains none of the rest. Is there another separate germ for each of the myriad other sexual behaviors out there? They need to be explained too, and some of them are quite maladaptive as well.

    My point is that conditioning is not something that is easily selected against because:

    The genes for conditioning are not about sex specifically. The genes for conditioning are about response to reward generally.

    Conditioning is a general thing where if there is a rewarding physical stimulus (from nerve endings, taste buds, the stomach, etc.) the surrounding conditions that were present at the time of physical stimulus become so deeply ingrained that even physical arousal can occur just from the conditions and not the physical stimulus. In the case of Pavlov’s dog, there was salivation in response to bell ringing, with no food present. Pavlov used bell ringing, but he could have clapped or shown a blue card or something else.

    Conditioning which is a general thing, is not something to be selected against because it terribly useful in most cases. Environments are different in every era and it is much better than instinct in such circumstances because individuals can adjust within their lifetimes.

    People have such an enormous range of sex fetishes that get them going that I don’t see how it can be anything other than conditioning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan:

    My point is that conditioning is not something that is easily selected against because:

    The genes for conditioning are not about sex specifically. The genes for conditioning are about response to reward generally.

    Conditioning is a general thing where if there is a rewarding physical stimulus (from nerve endings, taste buds, the stomach, etc.) the surrounding conditions that were present at the time of physical stimulus become so deeply ingrained that even physical arousal can occur just from the conditions and not the physical stimulus. In the case of Pavlov’s dog, there was salivation in response to bell ringing, with no food present. Pavlov used bell ringing, but he could have clapped or shown a blue card or something else.
     

    Dan, you can't mix and match. That's not how the human brain works. Pop neuroscience (which includes the yourbrainonporn crowd) may make it seem like the superficial similarities in brain response to pleasure derived from different sources (like food, drugs, and sex) are all the same, but they are all distinct systems in the brain. The brain processes each in different ways, with many dedicated responses for each. Basic sexual attraction to the opposite sex simply cannot be hijacked that way.

    People have such an enormous range of sex fetishes that get them going that I don’t see how it can be anything other than conditioning.
     
    All human behavioral traits are heritable, Dan, that's how. Your incredulity means nothing.

    I'm starting to have my fill of this discussion. Please think carefully before commenting further on it (or I will have to start moderating your comments)...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @chrisdavies09
    @Dan - "Why is conditioning not a possibility?"

    I can see your point about the other maladaptive sexual behaviours besides homosexuality. But in the case of homosexuality, if a male has absolutely no innate sexual attraction to the physical characteristics another human male's body, and is only sexually aroused by female bodies, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that he can be 'conditioned' in to desiring sexual activity with another male. Unless the other male in question happens to be a very convincing transsexual. Of course, the 'reward' for various different types of sexual activity, including the maladaptive ones, should be achieving an orgasm. But if the male cannot be sufficiently aroused in the first place, he cannot achieve the 'reward' either, so no conditioning will take place.

    Do prison homosexuals stay gay post release?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don’t know what we can do to protect gays when the gay germ is found, but I do applaud you for at least thinking about it. We really do need to think what we can do to minimize the violence.

    I also think we need to be thinking about how to manage the return of religion to the West. As a conservative, I generally applaud this, but religious people have their peculiar biases and there will be downsides. We need to start thinking about how to minimize those too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gottlieb
    I ever was favorable to TRUE aristocratic elite, noble, smart and fair to drive the masses. It look like a ``iluminatti dolar discourse`` but i believe that is a unique form to educate people about the human nature, obviously without psychopath satanic leaders with power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chip Smith
    erica,

    In your reply to my comment, you assert that I left out "the likelihood that this hypothetical germ does other damage." Just wanted to note that my speculation was in reply to M's scenario where such "other damage" is suggested as the primary basis for vaccination.

    But this makes me wonder: How likely is it that exposure to the hypothetical germ might instead turn out be beneficial in some other respect? This possibility is at least implicit in Steve Sailer's first "gay germ" article, where he talks about SCA and malaria.

    As for “the hypothetical germ might turn out to be beneficial in some other respect”….you’re thinking of something like heterozygote advantage that exists in sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis? The heterozygote advantage of one sickle cell protected against the biggest killer known to man, falciparum malaria. Last I read many still believe the cystic fibrosis carrier gene of Europeans protected against another huge killer, cholera, but others are now arguing it likely provided protection against tuberculosis. Whatever the case, these confer advantages against huge killers; in fact, so deadly are they, we notice them whether we are looking for them or not. Similarly, genomic scans reveal the genes that confer benefit.

    1.) What would be a disease so deadly, so far-flung in its ability to kill that a heterozygote advantage has resulted in approx. 3% of the population. Why don’t we know of such a disease that great?

    2.) Why hasn’t such a heterozygote advantage been spotted yet with our technology? (Answer: Because it doesn’t exist).

    As for balanced selection–go read comments on the subject from others at “West Hunter.” If traits that reduce the fitness of some members of a family (males) somehow are balanced by the enhanced fertility of other members of a family (females) even the least observant of us would have noticed the phenomenon by now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    "The low fertility rate in Japan exists, fundamentally, for the same reason it does in much of the developed world. Overpopulation, with correspondingly tight resources."

    We cannot possibly know definitively why Japan has such a low fertility rate. For one thing, Japan has a much higher level of resources per capita than at almost any time in its history. For another, nations do not necessarily go to extremely low fertility. They settle at different levels and some are Malthusian.

    That you would make the argument "it doesn’t support your case because you’re talking about fitness over evolutionary time" shows that you missed my central point in the conversation that just occurred. I made the point about 'conditioning' -- as in the general concept of conditioned response to reward. The concept of evolutionary fitness misses the point because these are learned behaviors not rooted in genes at all except at the very general level of ability to respond to conditioning and rewards.

    We cannot possibly know definitively why Japan has such a low fertility rate. For one thing, Japan has a much higher level of resources per capita than at almost any time in its history. For another, nations do not necessarily go to extremely low fertility. They settle at different levels and some are Malthusian.

    Indeed, but my money is on population density, and its impact on peoples with certain (highly K-selected) evolutionary histories.

    That you would make the argument “it doesn’t support your case because you’re talking about fitness over evolutionary time” shows that you missed my central point in the conversation that just occurred. I made the point about ‘conditioning’ — as in the general concept of conditioned response to reward.

    You were talking about the “maladaptive” nature of non-vaginal sex (as a supposed maladaptive sexual behavior, like obligate homosexuality, that is purportedly mysterious, evolutionarily). My discussion of this was to demonstrate that these weren’t maladaptive, hence, there is no mystery there.

    The concept of evolutionary fitness misses the point because these are learned behaviors not rooted in genes at all except at the very general level of ability to respond to conditioning and rewards.

    Let’s review: you are claiming that human sexuality can be “conditioned” to find various things desirable, and that this “conditioning” can explain male homosexuality. Apparently, as evidence, you use the instance of Japan and the phenomenon there of young men who are voluntarily celibate (apparently “conditioned” to prefer pornography to real women).

    Now here’s the problem with that, and why evolutionary fitness is relevant: male homosexuality has existed for a very long time. If you’re claiming that gay men are gay because they’ve been “conditioned” to prefer men over women, the trouble is with that is this: natural selection would have made this potential rare. Unless you’re saying the factors “conditioning” men to be gay are brand new (which they’re not), evolution would have selected out men with this problem.

    On top of that, the evidence for sexual conditioning in humans is weak, at best.

    Indeed, the low-heritability of homosexuality further makes “conditioning” suspect – if it were real, twins would be similar in their response (as they are with any other personality trait); the heritability would be even higher.

    Even in the case of Japan, even if the modern environment is proving detrimental to their fitness, this is example of a previously adaptive traits becoming maladaptive in a new environment (say the Japanese aversion to confrontation, which suits them poorly today). Homosexuality is not like that. It’s an old trait, immune to change, with gays apparently exhibiting morphological changes in brain and body. “Conditioning” just doesn’t work as an explanation.

    I would add that conditioning would have been the likeliest answer from experts and scientists to these questions for most of the 20th century… until TPTB required innateness. It is surprising to me that conditioning now gets virtually no airtime.

    This is an appeal to authority, not an argument… ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    In your last post you wrote, "If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is"...

    Jayman, you stray very far from the tone of a scientist here. Scientists are skeptical and expect evidence. The tangible, positive observational evidence for a 'gay germ' so far does not exist as far as I know. Has even one trace of the germ been observed?

    Big issues:

    (1) Sexuality is extremely complex, and for a germ to do the complex job of reversing a person's sexuality and leaving that person otherwise perfectly healthy and with no other symptoms would be astonishing indeed. Examples of infectious agents cause conditions once thought to be environmental or genetic (e.g. cervical cancer) are not like this at all.

    (2) The problem raised by Ron Unz in “Gay Gene” vs. “Gay Germ”, written in April
    "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    (3) As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.

    (4) The list of reputable scientists who hold this theory has only one name, Gregory Cochran, and he is a physicist who has no laboratory experience in pathology or epidemiology. I have not heard from a single expert in the field who shares this view.

    (5) There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization -- any rationalization such as that it is good for bonding is no good because the man is wasting an excellent opportunity at present with no promise of anything in the future and actual sex would be just as good or better for bonding). Porn use is a behavior that is still more maladaptive.

    The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward. Eventually the dog becomes physically oriented to bell-ringing such that he has uncontrolled symptoms of physical arousal (salivation) in relation to bell ringing even when there is no reward (food) present.

    The conditioning explanation has much greater explanatory power because it addresses not only homosexuality but 100 other sexual behaviors, many of which are maladaptive and others (e.g. whips and chains, schoolgirl uniforms) of which have no analogue to the circumstances under which people developed.

    The gay germ theory explains none of the rest. Is there another separate germ for each of the myriad other sexual behaviors out there? They need to be explained too, and some of them are quite maladaptive as well.

    I would add that conditioning would have been the likeliest answer from experts and scientists to these questions for most of the 20th century… until TPTB required innateness. It is surprising to me that conditioning now gets virtually no airtime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “what evolutionary advantage could a germ possibly derive from changing the sexual orientation of its host?”

    Say a bug that found it easier to reproduce in the gut of a male. Men and women differ in flora environment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    My own personal experience tells me that the types of behaviors matter quite a lot. My wife is expecting number five in seven years, and we had four blessed surprises even with 'measures taken' in part by being so darn one-tracked. If my wife and I were into BJs or something else, at least some of these surprises probably wouldn't have occurred. I am rather glad they did.

    This is where I though you were coming from. In today’s developed world, there is a fertility difference between liberals and conservatives, as you know. One of the big thing that separates the two, by in large, is their attitudes towards sex. As Jason Malloy demonstrated, the most fecund today shun recreational sex in favor of procreational sex. (also see here at Neuropolitics). The trouble arises here because you are projecting this distinction backwards in time. This fertility divide between those that favor procreational vs. recreational sex didn’t always exist, and indeed, may not have gone much past the Baby boom. In fact, the ancestors of many of today’s American liberals, the Puritans, averaged 7 children (and that’s just the number they brought to adulthood)!. Contrary to the misconception, the Puritans weren’t “puritanical” when it came to sex (indeed, the gave us most modern American liberal values). Recreational sex, including non-vaginal sex, was not evolutionarily maladaptive.

    My wife is expecting number five in seven years, and we had four blessed surprises even with ‘measures taken’ in part by being so darn one-tracked. If my wife and I were into BJs or something else, at least some of these surprises probably wouldn’t have occurred. I am rather glad they did.

    Congrats! But do know it doesn’t take much (vaginal) sex to generate a lot of children…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dan says:
    @Dan
    In your last post you wrote, "If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is"...

    Jayman, you stray very far from the tone of a scientist here. Scientists are skeptical and expect evidence. The tangible, positive observational evidence for a 'gay germ' so far does not exist as far as I know. Has even one trace of the germ been observed?

    Big issues:

    (1) Sexuality is extremely complex, and for a germ to do the complex job of reversing a person's sexuality and leaving that person otherwise perfectly healthy and with no other symptoms would be astonishing indeed. Examples of infectious agents cause conditions once thought to be environmental or genetic (e.g. cervical cancer) are not like this at all.

    (2) The problem raised by Ron Unz in “Gay Gene” vs. “Gay Germ”, written in April
    "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    (3) As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.

    (4) The list of reputable scientists who hold this theory has only one name, Gregory Cochran, and he is a physicist who has no laboratory experience in pathology or epidemiology. I have not heard from a single expert in the field who shares this view.

    (5) There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization -- any rationalization such as that it is good for bonding is no good because the man is wasting an excellent opportunity at present with no promise of anything in the future and actual sex would be just as good or better for bonding). Porn use is a behavior that is still more maladaptive.

    The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward. Eventually the dog becomes physically oriented to bell-ringing such that he has uncontrolled symptoms of physical arousal (salivation) in relation to bell ringing even when there is no reward (food) present.

    The conditioning explanation has much greater explanatory power because it addresses not only homosexuality but 100 other sexual behaviors, many of which are maladaptive and others (e.g. whips and chains, schoolgirl uniforms) of which have no analogue to the circumstances under which people developed.

    The gay germ theory explains none of the rest. Is there another separate germ for each of the myriad other sexual behaviors out there? They need to be explained too, and some of them are quite maladaptive as well.

    “The low fertility rate in Japan exists, fundamentally, for the same reason it does in much of the developed world. Overpopulation, with correspondingly tight resources.”

    We cannot possibly know definitively why Japan has such a low fertility rate. For one thing, Japan has a much higher level of resources per capita than at almost any time in its history. For another, nations do not necessarily go to extremely low fertility. They settle at different levels and some are Malthusian.

    That you would make the argument “it doesn’t support your case because you’re talking about fitness over evolutionary time” shows that you missed my central point in the conversation that just occurred. I made the point about ‘conditioning’ — as in the general concept of conditioned response to reward. The concept of evolutionary fitness misses the point because these are learned behaviors not rooted in genes at all except at the very general level of ability to respond to conditioning and rewards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    We cannot possibly know definitively why Japan has such a low fertility rate. For one thing, Japan has a much higher level of resources per capita than at almost any time in its history. For another, nations do not necessarily go to extremely low fertility. They settle at different levels and some are Malthusian.
     
    Indeed, but my money is on population density, and its impact on peoples with certain (highly K-selected) evolutionary histories.

    That you would make the argument “it doesn’t support your case because you’re talking about fitness over evolutionary time” shows that you missed my central point in the conversation that just occurred. I made the point about ‘conditioning’ — as in the general concept of conditioned response to reward.
     
    You were talking about the "maladaptive" nature of non-vaginal sex (as a supposed maladaptive sexual behavior, like obligate homosexuality, that is purportedly mysterious, evolutionarily). My discussion of this was to demonstrate that these weren't maladaptive, hence, there is no mystery there.

    The concept of evolutionary fitness misses the point because these are learned behaviors not rooted in genes at all except at the very general level of ability to respond to conditioning and rewards.
     
    Let's review: you are claiming that human sexuality can be "conditioned" to find various things desirable, and that this "conditioning" can explain male homosexuality. Apparently, as evidence, you use the instance of Japan and the phenomenon there of young men who are voluntarily celibate (apparently "conditioned" to prefer pornography to real women).

    Now here's the problem with that, and why evolutionary fitness is relevant: male homosexuality has existed for a very long time. If you're claiming that gay men are gay because they've been "conditioned" to prefer men over women, the trouble is with that is this: natural selection would have made this potential rare. Unless you're saying the factors "conditioning" men to be gay are brand new (which they're not), evolution would have selected out men with this problem.

    On top of that, the evidence for sexual conditioning in humans is weak, at best.

    Indeed, the low-heritability of homosexuality further makes "conditioning" suspect – if it were real, twins would be similar in their response (as they are with any other personality trait); the heritability would be even higher.

    Even in the case of Japan, even if the modern environment is proving detrimental to their fitness, this is example of a previously adaptive traits becoming maladaptive in a new environment (say the Japanese aversion to confrontation, which suits them poorly today). Homosexuality is not like that. It's an old trait, immune to change, with gays apparently exhibiting morphological changes in brain and body. "Conditioning" just doesn't work as an explanation.


    I would add that conditioning would have been the likeliest answer from experts and scientists to these questions for most of the 20th century… until TPTB required innateness. It is surprising to me that conditioning now gets virtually no airtime.
     
    This is an appeal to authority, not an argument... ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • erica,

    In your reply to my comment, you assert that I left out “the likelihood that this hypothetical germ does other damage.” Just wanted to note that my speculation was in reply to M’s scenario where such “other damage” is suggested as the primary basis for vaccination.

    But this makes me wonder: How likely is it that exposure to the hypothetical germ might instead turn out be beneficial in some other respect? This possibility is at least implicit in Steve Sailer’s first “gay germ” article, where he talks about SCA and malaria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @erica
    As for "the hypothetical germ might turn out to be beneficial in some other respect"....you're thinking of something like heterozygote advantage that exists in sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis? The heterozygote advantage of one sickle cell protected against the biggest killer known to man, falciparum malaria. Last I read many still believe the cystic fibrosis carrier gene of Europeans protected against another huge killer, cholera, but others are now arguing it likely provided protection against tuberculosis. Whatever the case, these confer advantages against huge killers; in fact, so deadly are they, we notice them whether we are looking for them or not. Similarly, genomic scans reveal the genes that confer benefit.

    1.) What would be a disease so deadly, so far-flung in its ability to kill that a heterozygote advantage has resulted in approx. 3% of the population. Why don't we know of such a disease that great?

    2.) Why hasn't such a heterozygote advantage been spotted yet with our technology? (Answer: Because it doesn't exist).

    As for balanced selection--go read comments on the subject from others at "West Hunter." If traits that reduce the fitness of some members of a family (males) somehow are balanced by the enhanced fertility of other members of a family (females) even the least observant of us would have noticed the phenomenon by now.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    In your last post you wrote, "If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is"...

    Jayman, you stray very far from the tone of a scientist here. Scientists are skeptical and expect evidence. The tangible, positive observational evidence for a 'gay germ' so far does not exist as far as I know. Has even one trace of the germ been observed?

    Big issues:

    (1) Sexuality is extremely complex, and for a germ to do the complex job of reversing a person's sexuality and leaving that person otherwise perfectly healthy and with no other symptoms would be astonishing indeed. Examples of infectious agents cause conditions once thought to be environmental or genetic (e.g. cervical cancer) are not like this at all.

    (2) The problem raised by Ron Unz in “Gay Gene” vs. “Gay Germ”, written in April
    "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    (3) As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.

    (4) The list of reputable scientists who hold this theory has only one name, Gregory Cochran, and he is a physicist who has no laboratory experience in pathology or epidemiology. I have not heard from a single expert in the field who shares this view.

    (5) There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization -- any rationalization such as that it is good for bonding is no good because the man is wasting an excellent opportunity at present with no promise of anything in the future and actual sex would be just as good or better for bonding). Porn use is a behavior that is still more maladaptive.

    The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward. Eventually the dog becomes physically oriented to bell-ringing such that he has uncontrolled symptoms of physical arousal (salivation) in relation to bell ringing even when there is no reward (food) present.

    The conditioning explanation has much greater explanatory power because it addresses not only homosexuality but 100 other sexual behaviors, many of which are maladaptive and others (e.g. whips and chains, schoolgirl uniforms) of which have no analogue to the circumstances under which people developed.

    The gay germ theory explains none of the rest. Is there another separate germ for each of the myriad other sexual behaviors out there? They need to be explained too, and some of them are quite maladaptive as well.

    Please continue this discussion, very interesting read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dan says:
    @Dan
    In your last post you wrote, "If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is"...

    Jayman, you stray very far from the tone of a scientist here. Scientists are skeptical and expect evidence. The tangible, positive observational evidence for a 'gay germ' so far does not exist as far as I know. Has even one trace of the germ been observed?

    Big issues:

    (1) Sexuality is extremely complex, and for a germ to do the complex job of reversing a person's sexuality and leaving that person otherwise perfectly healthy and with no other symptoms would be astonishing indeed. Examples of infectious agents cause conditions once thought to be environmental or genetic (e.g. cervical cancer) are not like this at all.

    (2) The problem raised by Ron Unz in “Gay Gene” vs. “Gay Germ”, written in April
    "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    (3) As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.

    (4) The list of reputable scientists who hold this theory has only one name, Gregory Cochran, and he is a physicist who has no laboratory experience in pathology or epidemiology. I have not heard from a single expert in the field who shares this view.

    (5) There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization -- any rationalization such as that it is good for bonding is no good because the man is wasting an excellent opportunity at present with no promise of anything in the future and actual sex would be just as good or better for bonding). Porn use is a behavior that is still more maladaptive.

    The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward. Eventually the dog becomes physically oriented to bell-ringing such that he has uncontrolled symptoms of physical arousal (salivation) in relation to bell ringing even when there is no reward (food) present.

    The conditioning explanation has much greater explanatory power because it addresses not only homosexuality but 100 other sexual behaviors, many of which are maladaptive and others (e.g. whips and chains, schoolgirl uniforms) of which have no analogue to the circumstances under which people developed.

    The gay germ theory explains none of the rest. Is there another separate germ for each of the myriad other sexual behaviors out there? They need to be explained too, and some of them are quite maladaptive as well.

    My own personal experience tells me that the types of behaviors matter quite a lot. My wife is expecting number five in seven years, and we had four blessed surprises even with ‘measures taken’ in part by being so darn one-tracked. If my wife and I were into BJs or something else, at least some of these surprises probably wouldn’t have occurred. I am rather glad they did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    This is where I though you were coming from. In today's developed world, there is a fertility difference between liberals and conservatives, as you know. One of the big thing that separates the two, by in large, is their attitudes towards sex. As Jason Malloy demonstrated, the most fecund today shun recreational sex in favor of procreational sex. (also see here at Neuropolitics). The trouble arises here because you are projecting this distinction backwards in time. This fertility divide between those that favor procreational vs. recreational sex didn't always exist, and indeed, may not have gone much past the Baby boom. In fact, the ancestors of many of today's American liberals, the Puritans, averaged 7 children (and that's just the number they brought to adulthood)!. Contrary to the misconception, the Puritans weren't "puritanical" when it came to sex (indeed, the gave us most modern American liberal values). Recreational sex, including non-vaginal sex, was not evolutionarily maladaptive.

    My wife is expecting number five in seven years, and we had four blessed surprises even with ‘measures taken’ in part by being so darn one-tracked. If my wife and I were into BJs or something else, at least some of these surprises probably wouldn’t have occurred. I am rather glad they did.
     
    Congrats! But do know it doesn't take much (vaginal) sex to generate a lot of children...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    You said, "What you’re saying simply makes no sense." That is not an argument.

    As for 'a whole plethora of behaviors that clearly do not have that problem, the most being being...'

    It is not at all clear to me that those are not a problem. The fertility rate in Japan has been far below replacement for a generation with one of the highest standards of living anywhere in history (if life expectancy is any measure). A high percentage of Japanese men make do with nothing but an Internet connection and satisfaction derived from the virtual. Meanwhile Japanese production of adult material has gone parabolic.

    from the everpresent wiki...
    "Herbivore men (草食(系)男子, Sōshoku(-kei) danshi?) is a social phenomenon in Japan of men who shun marriage or gaining a girlfriend.[1] They are characteristically described as frugal, and interested in personal grooming.[2] Under this categorization scheme, men and women are either herbivore type (草食系, sōshoku-kei?) or carnivore type (肉食系, nikushoku-kei?). As of September 2010, 36% of Japanese men between the ages of 16 and 19 perceived themselves in this way.[3] Additionally, two surveys of single men in their 20s and 30s found that 61% and 70%, respectively, considered themselves grass-eating men.[4] This phenomenon is viewed by the Japanese government as a leading cause in the nation's declining birth rate, prompting the government to provide incentives for couples that have children, including payouts and free health care"

    Is it your contention that this enormous percentage of Japanese men is not engaging in any type of, ahem, substitution?

    You talk about 'the arena of an ongoing relationship' -- entirely ignoring my points that (1) much of conception is outside of committed relationships, and (2) even within committed relationships unplanned pregnancies are the norm.

    You said, “What you’re saying simply makes no sense.” That is not an argument.

    Dan, By itself it’s not. It the context however…

    It is not at all clear to me that those are not a problem. The fertility rate in Japan has been far below replacement for a generation with one of the highest standards of living anywhere in history (if life expectancy is any measure). A high percentage of Japanese men make do with nothing but an Internet connection and satisfaction derived from the virtual. Meanwhile Japanese production of adult material has gone parabolic.

    The low fertility rate in Japan exists, fundamentally, for the same reason it does in much of the developed world. Overpopulation, with correspondingly tight resources.

    In any case, even if something is up in Japan today, it doesn’t support your case because you’re talking about fitness over evolutionary time. It’s possible for a trait to have been adaptive in the past and be maladaptive today.

    You talk about ‘the arena of an ongoing relationship’ — entirely ignoring my points that (1) much of conception is outside of committed relationships,

    I didn’t ignore them Dan, I addressed your points.

    The vast majority of pregnancies historically have occurred in the confines of semi-permanent relationships. Your problem is a non-problem.

    and (2) even within committed relationships unplanned pregnancies are the norm.

    I fail to see the relevance of this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dan says:
    @Dan
    In your last post you wrote, "If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is"...

    Jayman, you stray very far from the tone of a scientist here. Scientists are skeptical and expect evidence. The tangible, positive observational evidence for a 'gay germ' so far does not exist as far as I know. Has even one trace of the germ been observed?

    Big issues:

    (1) Sexuality is extremely complex, and for a germ to do the complex job of reversing a person's sexuality and leaving that person otherwise perfectly healthy and with no other symptoms would be astonishing indeed. Examples of infectious agents cause conditions once thought to be environmental or genetic (e.g. cervical cancer) are not like this at all.

    (2) The problem raised by Ron Unz in “Gay Gene” vs. “Gay Germ”, written in April
    "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    (3) As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.

    (4) The list of reputable scientists who hold this theory has only one name, Gregory Cochran, and he is a physicist who has no laboratory experience in pathology or epidemiology. I have not heard from a single expert in the field who shares this view.

    (5) There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization -- any rationalization such as that it is good for bonding is no good because the man is wasting an excellent opportunity at present with no promise of anything in the future and actual sex would be just as good or better for bonding). Porn use is a behavior that is still more maladaptive.

    The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward. Eventually the dog becomes physically oriented to bell-ringing such that he has uncontrolled symptoms of physical arousal (salivation) in relation to bell ringing even when there is no reward (food) present.

    The conditioning explanation has much greater explanatory power because it addresses not only homosexuality but 100 other sexual behaviors, many of which are maladaptive and others (e.g. whips and chains, schoolgirl uniforms) of which have no analogue to the circumstances under which people developed.

    The gay germ theory explains none of the rest. Is there another separate germ for each of the myriad other sexual behaviors out there? They need to be explained too, and some of them are quite maladaptive as well.

    You said, “What you’re saying simply makes no sense.” That is not an argument.

    As for ‘a whole plethora of behaviors that clearly do not have that problem, the most being being…’

    It is not at all clear to me that those are not a problem. The fertility rate in Japan has been far below replacement for a generation with one of the highest standards of living anywhere in history (if life expectancy is any measure). A high percentage of Japanese men make do with nothing but an Internet connection and satisfaction derived from the virtual. Meanwhile Japanese production of adult material has gone parabolic.

    from the everpresent wiki…
    “Herbivore men (草食(系)男子, Sōshoku(-kei) danshi?) is a social phenomenon in Japan of men who shun marriage or gaining a girlfriend.[1] They are characteristically described as frugal, and interested in personal grooming.[2] Under this categorization scheme, men and women are either herbivore type (草食系, sōshoku-kei?) or carnivore type (肉食系, nikushoku-kei?). As of September 2010, 36% of Japanese men between the ages of 16 and 19 perceived themselves in this way.[3] Additionally, two surveys of single men in their 20s and 30s found that 61% and 70%, respectively, considered themselves grass-eating men.[4] This phenomenon is viewed by the Japanese government as a leading cause in the nation’s declining birth rate, prompting the government to provide incentives for couples that have children, including payouts and free health care”

    Is it your contention that this enormous percentage of Japanese men is not engaging in any type of, ahem, substitution?

    You talk about ‘the arena of an ongoing relationship’ — entirely ignoring my points that (1) much of conception is outside of committed relationships, and (2) even within committed relationships unplanned pregnancies are the norm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan:

    You said, “What you’re saying simply makes no sense.” That is not an argument.
     
    Dan, By itself it's not. It the context however...

    It is not at all clear to me that those are not a problem. The fertility rate in Japan has been far below replacement for a generation with one of the highest standards of living anywhere in history (if life expectancy is any measure). A high percentage of Japanese men make do with nothing but an Internet connection and satisfaction derived from the virtual. Meanwhile Japanese production of adult material has gone parabolic.
     
    The low fertility rate in Japan exists, fundamentally, for the same reason it does in much of the developed world. Overpopulation, with correspondingly tight resources.

    In any case, even if something is up in Japan today, it doesn't support your case because you're talking about fitness over evolutionary time. It's possible for a trait to have been adaptive in the past and be maladaptive today.


    You talk about ‘the arena of an ongoing relationship’ — entirely ignoring my points that (1) much of conception is outside of committed relationships,
     
    I didn't ignore them Dan, I addressed your points.

    The vast majority of pregnancies historically have occurred in the confines of semi-permanent relationships. Your problem is a non-problem.


    and (2) even within committed relationships unplanned pregnancies are the norm.
     
    I fail to see the relevance of this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chip Smith
    M,

    I sincerely hope you are right in your speculation about how this would go down, but there are a lot of necessary steps that might not fall in line, and I think you profoundly underestimate the political fallout that would follow the inevitable headlines no matter how the news is couched. Homosexuality isn't like mental retardation or even deafness; it's a culturally rooted and celebrated group identity that matters very much to a great many people for reasons personal and political. To understand what I am suggesting, imagine the same scenario you outline with the difference being that the doctor advises parents that the secondary effect of the recommended vaccine is that it will make their children far less receptive to religious belief (I know this is an outlandish hypothetical, but religiousity does have a biological component). Do you think this would remain a matter that takes place in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, or do you think it would explode in sensational headlines about doctors programming kids' brains for atheism -- and under Obamacare?! I think the latter scenario would predominate, and I think that's more or less what we'll see if pathogenic homosexuality is proven and treatable.

    Against this we should keep in mind the cultural -- and cross-cultural -- backdrop characterized by overwhelming scientific illiteracy and profoundly differing cultural priors regarding the moral status of same-sex attraction. Some governments would mandate vaccination, and in some Western democracies the issue would be politicized with genocidal rhetoric attending the debate. There would be appeals for political asylum. There would be folk beliefs about the germ's origin. A cultural paradigm built around dubious science would be shattered. People would take sides

    Notwithstanding the best PR and the most optimal alignment of secondary facts, I can't imagine this going well.

    Of course, there is the possibility of great irony here, esp. with those liberals for whom abortion rights is a religion and with Obamacare…should ever there be the ability to determine in utero if a fetus will be gay and some decide to abort, you’d have liberals yelling their heads off but not having a leg to stand on as they already argue that a woman need no reason at all to abort for any reason at all and the most extreme of them arguing at any time at all, even up to and including a few minutes before the child travels the birth canal.

    On the other hand, religious fundamentalists who believe homosexual behavior to be sinful and abortion to be sinful would face something they’d not faced before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chip Smith
    M,

    I sincerely hope you are right in your speculation about how this would go down, but there are a lot of necessary steps that might not fall in line, and I think you profoundly underestimate the political fallout that would follow the inevitable headlines no matter how the news is couched. Homosexuality isn't like mental retardation or even deafness; it's a culturally rooted and celebrated group identity that matters very much to a great many people for reasons personal and political. To understand what I am suggesting, imagine the same scenario you outline with the difference being that the doctor advises parents that the secondary effect of the recommended vaccine is that it will make their children far less receptive to religious belief (I know this is an outlandish hypothetical, but religiousity does have a biological component). Do you think this would remain a matter that takes place in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, or do you think it would explode in sensational headlines about doctors programming kids' brains for atheism -- and under Obamacare?! I think the latter scenario would predominate, and I think that's more or less what we'll see if pathogenic homosexuality is proven and treatable.

    Against this we should keep in mind the cultural -- and cross-cultural -- backdrop characterized by overwhelming scientific illiteracy and profoundly differing cultural priors regarding the moral status of same-sex attraction. Some governments would mandate vaccination, and in some Western democracies the issue would be politicized with genocidal rhetoric attending the debate. There would be appeals for political asylum. There would be folk beliefs about the germ's origin. A cultural paradigm built around dubious science would be shattered. People would take sides

    Notwithstanding the best PR and the most optimal alignment of secondary facts, I can't imagine this going well.

    I’m not suggesting the homosexual community would be happy to hear that the way they became homosexual was via a pathogen (even though as young adolescents almost all gay or, for lack of a better term “pre-gay” boys knew they were “different” and didn’t like that difference.)

    I don’t think it likely the hypothetical finding would “explode” in sensational stories because the media (who are in charge of all “explosions” or lack of explosions) would not report the scientific research as “Are gays being euthanized?” The editors making those headline choices are people who are parents/grandparents and they realize that the actual sane prospective mothesr and fathers want a boy child who can reproduce and do so naturally and btw, they also want a masculine behaving boy child.

    However, let’s say, for the sake of argument I’m all wrong about this. Let’s say the editors use National Enquirer type headlines and write sensational stories about the research findings: yes, it’ll fire up the gay community, but to what end? No way would the gay community, no matter who they have in power and where they have people in power be able to stop anything. If we got so silly as to pass laws preventing the means we’ve discovered to prevent homosexuality, we could still go to nations who’d take care of things. If it ever reached that point, though, you’d likely have a nation in a civil war, though. Seriously, people would take up arms over that. I would. To tell me there’s a prevention or cure for my daughter who is infertile, but you won’t allow her the cure, or to tell me there’s a prevention of cure for my son who is infertile, but you won’t all him the cure (that’s the same as being homosexual), I’d take up arms.

    You are also leaving out the likelihood that this hypothetical germ does other damage. What if, for example, you found out the bug for mono is the bug that causes homosex in a few people? You think the gay lobby can prevent people from getting their kids vaccinations against it, even though no one wants to get mono? We now know that many of the bugs we get in childhood from which we escape the acute infectious stage with varying symptoms of discomfort/illness or no “illness” at all are responsible for chronic diseases that do damage over a lifetime or kill ( most obvious example, HPV). Who the hell would care if the gay lobby was “offended” if we developed vaccines against such bugs? Think I would give a damn if they said, “But, but, but, if you give your kid that vaccine against virus x, you are committing genocide against gay people.” Come off it, drama kings and queens, don’t try that. It’s MY CHILD!!!!! I have a duty to do all I can to keep him well. Besides, it’s not as if gay people would disappear all at once.

    I would say this. If we discovered there is a parasite that has actually hijacked the child’s brain, things get dicey because of the ick factor, but the reporting of that would be cloaked in scientific jargon, and you can still be sure the public would be advised how best to avoid the exposure that led to the parasitic infection.

    Face it: I don’t know when, but the kind of homosexuality about which we are speaking here, the kind resulting in males who don’t respond sexually to females (and to males who from an early age in childhood probably demonstrated strong aversion to typical boy play and aggression) will be a thing of the past one day. If you’re under 50 right now, I’d guess you’d see that happen, the beginning of the end. Perhaps much much sooner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    "That was a pretty silly claim. Please don’t bring it up again."

    I will bring it up again because, with sincerest respect and no snark (I am very impressed with the general quality of your posts -- that is why I am here), I feel quite certain that your argument on this one point is not valid.

    Perhaps a man in a committed relationship will have plenty of additional chances, but the last time I checked a very large percentage of pregnancies are outside of a committed relationship. In such cases, passing up one change for vaginal intercourse does not bring a guarantee of another. And even among pregnancies within a committed relationship, many of those are unplanned. I cannot even imagine that a proclivity toward anal or oral sex can be anything but a reproductive hit. Monica Lewinsky (among many others) might be a mother to Clinton's child if history took a slightly different trajectory. As it stands, one of the most powerful men in recent American history has a single child. Another charismatic southern politician, John Edwards, was it seems more traditional in his predelictions and the results show.

    The reproductive hit for these activities will certainly not be total, but neither will it be negligible.

    What you’re saying simply makes no sense. As noted, you have a whole plethora of sexual behaviors that clearly do not have that problem, most prominent being masturbation.

    Humans are, all told, K-selected (even the more r-selected peoples are K-selected relative to the rest of the animal kingdom). Most pregnancies occur in the confines of semi-permanent relationships. What you’re saying would predict only a bias towards vaginal sex in opportunistic sexual encounters. I’d imagine that that is in fact what occurs. The penchant for indulgence in non-vaginal sex – which is hardly a negative in the arena of an ongoing relationship – that leads to the occasional missed opportunity for conception in opportunistic sexual encounters is hardly a mystery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dan says:
    @Dan
    In your last post you wrote, "If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is"...

    Jayman, you stray very far from the tone of a scientist here. Scientists are skeptical and expect evidence. The tangible, positive observational evidence for a 'gay germ' so far does not exist as far as I know. Has even one trace of the germ been observed?

    Big issues:

    (1) Sexuality is extremely complex, and for a germ to do the complex job of reversing a person's sexuality and leaving that person otherwise perfectly healthy and with no other symptoms would be astonishing indeed. Examples of infectious agents cause conditions once thought to be environmental or genetic (e.g. cervical cancer) are not like this at all.

    (2) The problem raised by Ron Unz in “Gay Gene” vs. “Gay Germ”, written in April
    "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    (3) As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.

    (4) The list of reputable scientists who hold this theory has only one name, Gregory Cochran, and he is a physicist who has no laboratory experience in pathology or epidemiology. I have not heard from a single expert in the field who shares this view.

    (5) There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization -- any rationalization such as that it is good for bonding is no good because the man is wasting an excellent opportunity at present with no promise of anything in the future and actual sex would be just as good or better for bonding). Porn use is a behavior that is still more maladaptive.

    The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward. Eventually the dog becomes physically oriented to bell-ringing such that he has uncontrolled symptoms of physical arousal (salivation) in relation to bell ringing even when there is no reward (food) present.

    The conditioning explanation has much greater explanatory power because it addresses not only homosexuality but 100 other sexual behaviors, many of which are maladaptive and others (e.g. whips and chains, schoolgirl uniforms) of which have no analogue to the circumstances under which people developed.

    The gay germ theory explains none of the rest. Is there another separate germ for each of the myriad other sexual behaviors out there? They need to be explained too, and some of them are quite maladaptive as well.

    “That was a pretty silly claim. Please don’t bring it up again.”

    I will bring it up again because, with sincerest respect and no snark (I am very impressed with the general quality of your posts — that is why I am here), I feel quite certain that your argument on this one point is not valid.

    Perhaps a man in a committed relationship will have plenty of additional chances, but the last time I checked a very large percentage of pregnancies are outside of a committed relationship. In such cases, passing up one change for vaginal intercourse does not bring a guarantee of another. And even among pregnancies within a committed relationship, many of those are unplanned. I cannot even imagine that a proclivity toward anal or oral sex can be anything but a reproductive hit. Monica Lewinsky (among many others) might be a mother to Clinton’s child if history took a slightly different trajectory. As it stands, one of the most powerful men in recent American history has a single child. Another charismatic southern politician, John Edwards, was it seems more traditional in his predelictions and the results show.

    The reproductive hit for these activities will certainly not be total, but neither will it be negligible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan:

    What you're saying simply makes no sense. As noted, you have a whole plethora of sexual behaviors that clearly do not have that problem, most prominent being masturbation.

    Humans are, all told, K-selected (even the more r-selected peoples are K-selected relative to the rest of the animal kingdom). Most pregnancies occur in the confines of semi-permanent relationships. What you're saying would predict only a bias towards vaginal sex in opportunistic sexual encounters. I'd imagine that that is in fact what occurs. The penchant for indulgence in non-vaginal sex – which is hardly a negative in the arena of an ongoing relationship – that leads to the occasional missed opportunity for conception in opportunistic sexual encounters is hardly a mystery.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Let me offer an alternative to m: assuming a germ cause, definitive proof of a germ cause will not be forthcoming anytime soon. It's not like the medical community is falling all over themselves to study the topic. It's taboo. What will happen is, again hypothetically, a new herpes vaccine will be introduced, and 20 or so years later people will start to note declining numbers of gays. Cause and effect will only be definitively known well after the fact.

    That would be clever, and possibly quite effective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Chip Smith
    It would be the worst of politics, the stuff wars are made of. At least that's what I fear and suspect, especially so if it turns out that gay people transmit the germ. And even if that isn't the case, good luck educating the masses once the genie's out. This is a genuinely dangerous idea.

    Maybe it will also turn out that valuing truth is a pathogenic trait.

    Let me offer an alternative to m: assuming a germ cause, definitive proof of a germ cause will not be forthcoming anytime soon. It’s not like the medical community is falling all over themselves to study the topic. It’s taboo. What will happen is, again hypothetically, a new herpes vaccine will be introduced, and 20 or so years later people will start to note declining numbers of gays. Cause and effect will only be definitively known well after the fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    That would be clever, and possibly quite effective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @chrisdavies09
    In Daily Mail last week:-

    "Childhood diabetes could be triggered by an infectious disease spread by wild animals"

    -Study found distinct peaks in cases suggesting caused by environment
    -Scientists suspect that condition could be spread like flu or measles
    -Type 1 diabetes may be carried by rats or mice
    -Cases on the rise as is that many children have weaker immune systems

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341209/Childhood-diabetes-triggered-infectious-disease-spread-wild-animals.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    [Study carried out in North-East England, where HLA haplotype A1-B8-DR3-DQ2 which confers susceptibility to Type 1 Diabetes is at much higher frequency in the population relative to other parts of Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLA_A1-B8-DR3-DQ2#In_insulin_dependent_diabetes_mellitus ].

    Aside from any other theories doing the rounds, I am coming round to being convinced that the 'Gay Germ' theory holds weight and is the most plausible theory out there. Environmental exposure to the pathogen in infancy, coupled with inherited genetic susceptibility to the infection could be the two factors at work.

    Thanks for pointing out this link –hadn’t seen it. The consensus for a while now has been that T1D is triggered by an infection prompting an autoimmune reaction. The question, of course, becomes which bug or bugs are involved. A quick google search shows how many are under suspicion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    Many heterosexual men also suffer from mood disorder.
    I do not intend to further extend this conversation, because what he had to say, I said. It is simply too complex to summarize it all one or two fundamental causes. I have no problem accepting this theory as part of the puzzle, but it seems that you guys do not want to take into account a whole host of features that are involved.

    There are many questions that arise when we only see this other theory of the mutant gene. After all, is that all gay men have this gene, the effect will be the same?
    If this is true, then the heritability of homosexual behavior will not be only 10-30%, but much larger.
    Like I said, if homosexual behavior is a puzzle of different traits, including the main sexual attraction to the same sex, then maybe the heritability of this type of behavior should be added to the other traits that are related to it as openess, for example.
    So if this personality trait is around 60% of heredity, then the heritability of deviant sexual behavior, will be higher than what was found.
    It's like in the case of the human races, the white race is not white just because of skin color. Millions of Asians are white skin.

    Like I said, if homosexual behavior is a puzzle of different traits, including the main sexual attraction to the same sex, then maybe the heritability of this type of behavior should be added to the other traits that are related to it as openess, for example.
    So if this personality trait is around 60% of heredity, then the heritability of deviant sexual behavior, will be higher than what was found.

    That kind of equivocation doesn’t fly…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    @Jayman --

    (A)

    I wrote "As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle."

    And you replied: Not if no one is looking for it. You’d be surprised how easy it is to not find things.

    I now reply: I am a bit older than you so I have more memory of the massive hunt to identify get to the bottom of AIDS which consumed a decade of the top minds in epidemiology and virology and infectious diseases and pathology. The investment of time and money was enormous and this was the biggest problem in medicine for many years running. The primary test subjects were gay men since these men were overwhelmingly the ones who got AIDS in America. Pathologists had to sort through a whole variety of common and rare diseases that these gay men were facing, because the immunosuppressive nature of AIDS. Scientists had no idea what they were looking for and looked high and low for unusual pathogens seen in the bodies of gay men and not in others. And they were looking with a very open mind because they didn't know at all what the cause would turn out to be.

    (B)

    I quoted Unz: "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    And you replied: "Unz is quite often spectacularly wrong about things, as the Hispanic IQ fiasco should have demonstrated. Look, pathogens are always going to have the evolutionary advantage over their hosts, because microorganisms evolve so much faster.

    I now reply: Ad hominem re Unz is not an argument. In any case, Unz is (unfortunately) righter than most journalists on the Hispanic case since he at least admits that the present IQ gap is real (he imagines it will soon close for dubious reasons but at least his assessment of the present is better than most).

    But to continue on this line, what evolutionary advantage could a germ possibly derive from changing the sexual orientation of its host?

    (C)

    I wrote: There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization.

    And you replied: Are you serious? Do you know what it would take to make those things “maladaptive”? They would need to preclude procreative sex, which they clearly do not. Humans enjoy all manner of sexual behaviors other than regular intercourse. Obviously that’s a silly proposition.

    I now reply: Of course I am serious. This is a real objection. Heterosexual anal sex and oral sex *do* preclude vaginal sex, at the time that they occur. Every load deposited in the anus or rectum is a load not deposited where acts procreatively. When I 'blow my wad' that is it. I physically cannot follow it up with another instance. I am done for the entire encounter. If a person has anal or oral sex 50% of the time, that means they biologically have sex 50% less often than they would if they had vaginal sex exclusively. That this is a reproductive hit is obvious.

    (D)

    I wrote: The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward.

    You replied: Evolution would not allow it, because individuals who could be swayed to having no interest in the opposite sex would be clearly selected out. This is why the people worried about porn are on really shaky ground.

    I now reply: Conditioning in general (gaining a positive feeling about some environment when rewards are associated with it) is a huge evolutionary plus generally in terms of learning, generally.

    As for the issues with porn, the big porn consuming nations of Korea and Japan have among the lowest fertility rates in the world. Correlation is not causation, but the jury's definitely still out on the porn thing.

    what evolutionary advantage could a germ possibly derive from changing the sexual orientation of its host?

    Changing sexual orientation is probably not the main effect (i.e., what aids the pathogen’s reproduction), it’s probably a side effect.

    And you replied: Are you serious? Do you know what it would take to make those things “maladaptive”? They would need to preclude procreative sex, which they clearly do not. Humans enjoy all manner of sexual behaviors other than regular intercourse. Obviously that’s a silly proposition.

    I now reply: Of course I am serious. This is a real objection. Heterosexual anal sex and oral sex *do* preclude vaginal sex, at the time that they occur. Every load deposited in the anus or rectum is a load not deposited where acts procreatively.

    You’re touching on a bigger issue, one that should illustrate the problem with what you’re describing. You’re talking about the difference between procreational and recreational sex. Biologists define “recreational” sex as sex when conception is not possible, i.e., when the female is not in heat. Many other species engage in recreational sex (bonobos, dolphins) in addition to humans. What those animals do is similar to human sex that is not vaginal intercourse. Obviously, those things are not selectively disadvantageous, otherwise they wouldn’t evolve.

    When I ‘blow my wad’ that is it. I physically cannot follow it up with another instance. I am done for the entire encounter. If a person has anal or oral sex 50% of the time, that means they biologically have sex 50% less often than they would if they had vaginal sex exclusively. That this is a reproductive hit is obvious.

    You act as if sperm is an expensive resource, and when it’s lost, it’s gone. This is clearly not true. Many, if not most, men are capable of ejaculating several times a day, often in succession. Even if a couple derive 50% of the male orgasms from non-vaginal sex, that wouldn’t mean 50% fewer pregnancies. Indeed, the fitness loss would be negligible. The bonding aspect of the sex clearly demonstrates the advantage.

    And then, what about male masturbation to orgasm? Men clearly do this even when they have a female partner available.

    That was a pretty silly claim. Please don’t bring it up again.

    I wrote: The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward.

    You replied: Evolution would not allow it, because individuals who could be swayed to having no interest in the opposite sex would be clearly selected out. This is why the people worried about porn are on really shaky ground.

    I now reply: Conditioning in general (gaining a positive feeling about some environment when rewards are associated with it) is a huge evolutionary plus generally in terms of learning, generally.

    But it would be a big evolutionary minus if that derailed something as vital as sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Just as you can’t be conditioned to dislike food or drink, a man can’t be “conditioned” to lose sexual attraction to women.

    As for the issues with porn, the big porn consuming nations of Korea and Japan have among the lowest fertility rates in the world. Correlation is not causation, but the jury’s definitely still out on the porn thing.

    Fair enough. We will see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @chrisdavies09
    @Gottlieb - What if left-handedness in men had a greater tendency to correlate with higher average i.q. as one factor, higher average level of creativity as another factor [right-brained men], and *also* with weaker immune function on average as a third factor? [Not that I can offer a mechanism as to why this should be so, this is purely hypothetical]. If this were the case it would mean that creative and higher i.q. left-handed men would be more susceptible to the 'gay germ' as they all had in common weaker immune function relative to the general population [or a specific MHC profile which conferred greater susceptibility to the germ].

    Assumptions are based on logic.
    Creativity is a very complex and difficult to understand, although it is not entirely impossible. I leave the logic, if lefties are more likely to use more actively the creative part of the brain and more lefties than righties are gay, then there are some relationships, although they are complex.
    High creativity should not necessarily relate well with high qi. I start from the assumption that a truly creative person is not only or mainly one that invents things, leaving other ever created before. We know that most scientists are so. Creating something completely new is surely the main exercise in creativity.
    In science, it seems that more than half of what is discovered are just logical assumptions. But we do not make assumptions of nowhere. There is a pattern here.
    I believe in the power of qi have, but it fails in many other possibilities. I believe there is a kind of intelligence, convergent by nature, the qi can measure very well. But creativity is totally derived from divergent thinking.
    Most people with high qi are a lesser or greater degree, more creative than the low-qi. But there are hierarchies of creativity and I do not see most geeks as creative geniuses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @chrisdavies09
    @Dan - "Why is conditioning not a possibility?"

    I can see your point about the other maladaptive sexual behaviours besides homosexuality. But in the case of homosexuality, if a male has absolutely no innate sexual attraction to the physical characteristics another human male's body, and is only sexually aroused by female bodies, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that he can be 'conditioned' in to desiring sexual activity with another male. Unless the other male in question happens to be a very convincing transsexual. Of course, the 'reward' for various different types of sexual activity, including the maladaptive ones, should be achieving an orgasm. But if the male cannot be sufficiently aroused in the first place, he cannot achieve the 'reward' either, so no conditioning will take place.

    Prisons? The ‘entertainment’ in saloons of the early American West when it was 10-1 male out there? The things young male performing arts aspirants do to get ahead? A lot is mechanics and friction and nerve endings as right hands worldwide would attest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Erica mentions a study where they apparently altered the sexual orientation of mice by interfering with them so that they could no longer make or respond to serotonin. If this is true, and the effect held true for other mammals, including humans, maybe if there is a ‘gay germ’, the pathogen alters sexual orientation by interfering with the functioning of the host’s serotonin system in the brain? Just a thought.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • – What if left-handedness in men had a greater tendency to correlate with higher average i.q. as one factor, higher average level of creativity as another factor [right-brained men], and *also* with weaker immune function on average as a third factor? [Not that I can offer a mechanism as to why this should be so, this is purely hypothetical]. If this were the case it would mean that creative and higher i.q. left-handed men would be more susceptible to the ‘gay germ’ as they all had in common weaker immune function relative to the general population [or a specific MHC profile which conferred greater susceptibility to the germ].

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gottlieb
    Assumptions are based on logic.
    Creativity is a very complex and difficult to understand, although it is not entirely impossible. I leave the logic, if lefties are more likely to use more actively the creative part of the brain and more lefties than righties are gay, then there are some relationships, although they are complex.
    High creativity should not necessarily relate well with high qi. I start from the assumption that a truly creative person is not only or mainly one that invents things, leaving other ever created before. We know that most scientists are so. Creating something completely new is surely the main exercise in creativity.
    In science, it seems that more than half of what is discovered are just logical assumptions. But we do not make assumptions of nowhere. There is a pattern here.
    I believe in the power of qi have, but it fails in many other possibilities. I believe there is a kind of intelligence, convergent by nature, the qi can measure very well. But creativity is totally derived from divergent thinking.
    Most people with high qi are a lesser or greater degree, more creative than the low-qi. But there are hierarchies of creativity and I do not see most geeks as creative geniuses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Still on homosexuality and handedness. Some early studies suggested that non-handers are more prone to autoimmune diseases. The theory of maturational delay in relation to homosexuals, many of them are left-handed and ambidextrous, quickly dismissed by Jayman, it makes sense to look at it this way.
    It would make sense that humans slower in maturation hormone have a tendency to present a weaker immune system than those with fast maturing.

    The theory of homosexuality-related creative intelligence (which would also be more related to non-destrismo) is interesting. Was seeing a chart, made ​​by Chris McManus, author of” Righ, Left hand”. In the specific case, the book was about the geographical distribution of left-handed people in the world. Interestingly, he found that lefties prevail nowadays, at least in Europe, in highly industrialized regions. For example, the emblematic case of Italy, north and south, lefties would be more common in northern Italy than in the south. Of course, many possible interpretations should be taken into consideration.
    I thought, if lefties are more likely to be homosexual, then homosexual lefties would also increase their desire to emigrate from southern Italy, tribalist and male-cultural, for most cosmopolitan regions as the major fashion centers of northern Italy.
    Throughout history left-handers have gone through periods of increase and decrease. MacManus found that by the eighteenth century, lefties were around 10% of the population, as it is today. But from this period the percentage of left-handed people dropped to 3%. How do you explain this collapse? Biological or cultural factors? Or both?
    Another interesting thing about the ‘two’ human brains, the left and right.

    The left brain would be predominantly active for the majority of the population, especially the right hand. In return the right brain is more active in 30% of left-handers, which could explain some advantage in creativity.
    An interesting case is also of Ashkenazi Jews, despite the small amount of work I could find, there seems to be a higher prevalence of left-handers in this population than in any other. That would explain many things. Greater use of the right brain, greater creativity, greater incidence for mental disorders, constant feeling of paranoia, persecution and differentiation, strong divergent thinking, higher rates for schizophrenic personalities, psychotic and neurotic etc …
    Besides the blatant campaign of the Jews in favor of tolerance for sexual diversity.
    In the same book about ‘autism and social change’ that I recommended for Jayman has a little text that talks briefly about the distribution of handedness among Jews, Protestant

    http://www.humanevolution.net/humanevolution/a/jewish.html

    ””As with handedness and marital status, the patterns do not match those for the total sample. For example, among white males, the highest proportions for each handedness group is: Lefts and Rights, Jews: Left Mixeds, None: and Right Mixed, Protestants.” (Lansky, LM, Feinstein H, & Peterson JM (1988) Demography of handedness two samples of randomly selected adults (N = 2083). Neuropsychologia 26: 474) [note: Jews polarized to the left right extremes]”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @erica
    Did you see this?

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/22/1220712110.abstract


    It made it into the popular press: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

    First, I offer it as some evidence that the question of how sexual orientation works being studied. We have the GWAS research; we have the sheep guy, Roselli (still looking for organizational effects on the brain by hormones in utero); we have Dulac, who has done remarkable work on the innate behaviors of rodents, including mating and gender discrimination in mating, and we have this Peking team (China, of course!):

    "We demonstrate that a genetic manipulation reverses sexual preference without involving sex hormones. Our results indicate that serotonin controls sexual preference."

    Interesting sentence--"without involving sex hormones."

    I realize that serotonin may be responsible for a whole kit and caboodle of behaviors, but I am glad to know that the sexual orientation angle is being pursued.

    It hasn't escaped my attention that so many gay males suffer mood disorders and that mood disorders seem related to serotonin.

    Many heterosexual men also suffer from mood disorder.
    I do not intend to further extend this conversation, because what he had to say, I said. It is simply too complex to summarize it all one or two fundamental causes. I have no problem accepting this theory as part of the puzzle, but it seems that you guys do not want to take into account a whole host of features that are involved.

    There are many questions that arise when we only see this other theory of the mutant gene. After all, is that all gay men have this gene, the effect will be the same?
    If this is true, then the heritability of homosexual behavior will not be only 10-30%, but much larger.
    Like I said, if homosexual behavior is a puzzle of different traits, including the main sexual attraction to the same sex, then maybe the heritability of this type of behavior should be added to the other traits that are related to it as openess, for example.
    So if this personality trait is around 60% of heredity, then the heritability of deviant sexual behavior, will be higher than what was found.
    It’s like in the case of the human races, the white race is not white just because of skin color. Millions of Asians are white skin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Like I said, if homosexual behavior is a puzzle of different traits, including the main sexual attraction to the same sex, then maybe the heritability of this type of behavior should be added to the other traits that are related to it as openess, for example.
    So if this personality trait is around 60% of heredity, then the heritability of deviant sexual behavior, will be higher than what was found.
     
    That kind of equivocation doesn't fly...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In Daily Mail last week:-

    “Childhood diabetes could be triggered by an infectious disease spread by wild animals”

    -Study found distinct peaks in cases suggesting caused by environment
    -Scientists suspect that condition could be spread like flu or measles
    -Type 1 diabetes may be carried by rats or mice
    -Cases on the rise as is that many children have weaker immune systems

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341209/Childhood-diabetes-triggered-infectious-disease-spread-wild-animals.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    [Study carried out in North-East England, where HLA haplotype A1-B8-DR3-DQ2 which confers susceptibility to Type 1 Diabetes is at much higher frequency in the population relative to other parts of Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLA_A1-B8-DR3-DQ2#In_insulin_dependent_diabetes_mellitus ].

    Aside from any other theories doing the rounds, I am coming round to being convinced that the ‘Gay Germ’ theory holds weight and is the most plausible theory out there. Environmental exposure to the pathogen in infancy, coupled with inherited genetic susceptibility to the infection could be the two factors at work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @erica
    Thanks for pointing out this link --hadn't seen it. The consensus for a while now has been that T1D is triggered by an infection prompting an autoimmune reaction. The question, of course, becomes which bug or bugs are involved. A quick google search shows how many are under suspicion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dan says:
    @Dan
    In your last post you wrote, "If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is"...

    Jayman, you stray very far from the tone of a scientist here. Scientists are skeptical and expect evidence. The tangible, positive observational evidence for a 'gay germ' so far does not exist as far as I know. Has even one trace of the germ been observed?

    Big issues:

    (1) Sexuality is extremely complex, and for a germ to do the complex job of reversing a person's sexuality and leaving that person otherwise perfectly healthy and with no other symptoms would be astonishing indeed. Examples of infectious agents cause conditions once thought to be environmental or genetic (e.g. cervical cancer) are not like this at all.

    (2) The problem raised by Ron Unz in “Gay Gene” vs. “Gay Germ”, written in April
    "Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage."

    (3) As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.

    (4) The list of reputable scientists who hold this theory has only one name, Gregory Cochran, and he is a physicist who has no laboratory experience in pathology or epidemiology. I have not heard from a single expert in the field who shares this view.

    (5) There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization -- any rationalization such as that it is good for bonding is no good because the man is wasting an excellent opportunity at present with no promise of anything in the future and actual sex would be just as good or better for bonding). Porn use is a behavior that is still more maladaptive.

    The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward. Eventually the dog becomes physically oriented to bell-ringing such that he has uncontrolled symptoms of physical arousal (salivation) in relation to bell ringing even when there is no reward (food) present.

    The conditioning explanation has much greater explanatory power because it addresses not only homosexuality but 100 other sexual behaviors, many of which are maladaptive and others (e.g. whips and chains, schoolgirl uniforms) of which have no analogue to the circumstances under which people developed.

    The gay germ theory explains none of the rest. Is there another separate germ for each of the myriad other sexual behaviors out there? They need to be explained too, and some of them are quite maladaptive as well.

    @Jayman –

    (A)

    I wrote “As yet, the no pathogen or trace of a pathogen has been discovered that causes homosexuality anywhere in the world. Considering that the population in question has tens of millions of members and that rare infectious diseases many orders of magnitude less common have been found, this is a huge hurdle.”

    And you replied: Not if no one is looking for it. You’d be surprised how easy it is to not find things.

    I now reply: I am a bit older than you so I have more memory of the massive hunt to identify get to the bottom of AIDS which consumed a decade of the top minds in epidemiology and virology and infectious diseases and pathology. The investment of time and money was enormous and this was the biggest problem in medicine for many years running. The primary test subjects were gay men since these men were overwhelmingly the ones who got AIDS in America. Pathologists had to sort through a whole variety of common and rare diseases that these gay men were facing, because the immunosuppressive nature of AIDS. Scientists had no idea what they were looking for and looked high and low for unusual pathogens seen in the bodies of gay men and not in others. And they were looking with a very open mind because they didn’t know at all what the cause would turn out to be.

    (B)

    I quoted Unz: “Cochran and others ridicule the gene model as absurd, arguing that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population, and this is not unreasonable. But similar criticism could applied to their own model, since genetic susceptibility to the germ would obviously be subject to equally powerful selective disadvantage.”

    And you replied: “Unz is quite often spectacularly wrong about things, as the Hispanic IQ fiasco should have demonstrated. Look, pathogens are always going to have the evolutionary advantage over their hosts, because microorganisms evolve so much faster.

    I now reply: Ad hominem re Unz is not an argument. In any case, Unz is (unfortunately) righter than most journalists on the Hispanic case since he at least admits that the present IQ gap is real (he imagines it will soon close for dubious reasons but at least his assessment of the present is better than most).

    But to continue on this line, what evolutionary advantage could a germ possibly derive from changing the sexual orientation of its host?

    (C)

    I wrote: There is a long list of sexual behaviors and fetishes that are maladaptive. Heterosexual anal and oral sex for instance are big turn-ons for many people even though they would be quite maladaptive (after all the man wasting his precious load in a place that has 0% chance of fertilization.

    And you replied: Are you serious? Do you know what it would take to make those things “maladaptive”? They would need to preclude procreative sex, which they clearly do not. Humans enjoy all manner of sexual behaviors other than regular intercourse. Obviously that’s a silly proposition.

    I now reply: Of course I am serious. This is a real objection. Heterosexual anal sex and oral sex *do* preclude vaginal sex, at the time that they occur. Every load deposited in the anus or rectum is a load not deposited where acts procreatively. When I ‘blow my wad’ that is it. I physically cannot follow it up with another instance. I am done for the entire encounter. If a person has anal or oral sex 50% of the time, that means they biologically have sex 50% less often than they would if they had vaginal sex exclusively. That this is a reproductive hit is obvious.

    (D)

    I wrote: The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward.

    You replied: Evolution would not allow it, because individuals who could be swayed to having no interest in the opposite sex would be clearly selected out. This is why the people worried about porn are on really shaky ground.

    I now reply: Conditioning in general (gaining a positive feeling about some environment when rewards are associated with it) is a huge evolutionary plus generally in terms of learning, generally.

    As for the issues with porn, the big porn consuming nations of Korea and Japan have among the lowest fertility rates in the world. Correlation is not causation, but the jury’s definitely still out on the porn thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    what evolutionary advantage could a germ possibly derive from changing the sexual orientation of its host?
     
    Changing sexual orientation is probably not the main effect (i.e., what aids the pathogen's reproduction), it's probably a side effect.

    And you replied: Are you serious? Do you know what it would take to make those things “maladaptive”? They would need to preclude procreative sex, which they clearly do not. Humans enjoy all manner of sexual behaviors other than regular intercourse. Obviously that’s a silly proposition.

    I now reply: Of course I am serious. This is a real objection. Heterosexual anal sex and oral sex *do* preclude vaginal sex, at the time that they occur. Every load deposited in the anus or rectum is a load not deposited where acts procreatively.
     

    You're touching on a bigger issue, one that should illustrate the problem with what you're describing. You're talking about the difference between procreational and recreational sex. Biologists define "recreational" sex as sex when conception is not possible, i.e., when the female is not in heat. Many other species engage in recreational sex (bonobos, dolphins) in addition to humans. What those animals do is similar to human sex that is not vaginal intercourse. Obviously, those things are not selectively disadvantageous, otherwise they wouldn't evolve.

    When I ‘blow my wad’ that is it. I physically cannot follow it up with another instance. I am done for the entire encounter. If a person has anal or oral sex 50% of the time, that means they biologically have sex 50% less often than they would if they had vaginal sex exclusively. That this is a reproductive hit is obvious.
     
    You act as if sperm is an expensive resource, and when it's lost, it's gone. This is clearly not true. Many, if not most, men are capable of ejaculating several times a day, often in succession. Even if a couple derive 50% of the male orgasms from non-vaginal sex, that wouldn't mean 50% fewer pregnancies. Indeed, the fitness loss would be negligible. The bonding aspect of the sex clearly demonstrates the advantage.

    And then, what about male masturbation to orgasm? Men clearly do this even when they have a female partner available.

    That was a pretty silly claim. Please don't bring it up again.


    I wrote: The best explanation that I can think of is that human sexuality is subject to conditioning (think Pavlov and his dog). The environment surrounding a reward is very important and automatic biological arousal can be attached to the environmental conditions that let to a reward.

    You replied: Evolution would not allow it, because individuals who could be swayed to having no interest in the opposite sex would be clearly selected out. This is why the people worried about porn are on really shaky ground.

    I now reply: Conditioning in general (gaining a positive feeling about some environment when rewards are associated with it) is a huge evolutionary plus generally in terms of learning, generally.
     

    But it would be a big evolutionary minus if that derailed something as vital as sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Just as you can't be conditioned to dislike food or drink, a man can't be "conditioned" to lose sexual attraction to women.

    As for the issues with porn, the big porn consuming nations of Korea and Japan have among the lowest fertility rates in the world. Correlation is not causation, but the jury’s definitely still out on the porn thing.

     

    Fair enough. We will see.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @erica
    'I’ve heard of it. A mutated gene that alters sexual orientation in humans could theoretically exist. Such a gene could never rise to a prevalence of 3% of all males, however."

    Sorry, didn't make myself clear. I don't believe at all that there exists a mutated gene in humans, or at least not one that exists in enough people to account for the prevalence in which we find males who aren't turned on by women.

    All I wished to offer is that I'm glad the subject is being studied at all. It's clear, as gc and now you point out, that no one is specifically looking for a pathogen to explain the anomaly of male homosexuality. However, even though no one is, it may be fairly likely, with these studies going on, that the neurochemical processes of sexual attraction/orientation will be unraveled, first in rodents, maybe in sheep if Roselli goes in a different direction based on the work on rodents, and then, yes, in humans.

    Once you know how heterosexuality works, you can see where the sexual attraction goes awry and then look to cause. Yes, it seems the long way around the questions, but whatever gets us there, fine.
    It seems really silly that in the year 2013 we don't know the chemosensory reason for a human male's sexual attraction to a human female. It's akin to not knowing the earth isn't flat, isn't it?

    Indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Readers here will recall my recital of Greg Cochran's hypothesis that obligate male homosexuality is caused by a pathogenic agent, likely a virus (please see 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Homosexuality (the “gay germ” hypothesis)). This is by far the most likely explanation for male homosexuality (see...
  • @philosophe22
    So does your theory, of course. It seems that some hypotheses are more welcome here than others. ;-) I like your zealotry, but keep an open mind.

    Cochran’s hypothesis remains unconfirmed, I will grant you.
    There are key differences however:

    1. The problem which Cochran’s hypothesis seeks to explain is a known phenomenon which is as yet unexplained. The “brain on porn” theory is positing something brand new which itself is not verified.
    2. Viable alternative explanations for the phenomenon (male homosexuality) are lacking.
    3. Known examples (in humans) of the mechanism Cochran proposes exist, both pathogen causing fitness-reducing traits and of pathogenic effects on behavior and sexuality. By contrast, the known examples of the mechanism in the “conditioning” model are in animals or only questionably existing in humans (e.g., in the drug addiction).

    In short, the “brain on porn” bit is working itself out of a hole to start with. This doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily wrong (it might not be), but it has a ways to go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Interestingly, none of the commenters to my previous post (Gay Germ Fallout?), with the exception of Luke Lea, seems to be talking about the main point of the post: the consequences should people discover that there is a gay germ. The discussion is focusing on whether or not the pathogen exists, which it almost certainly...
  • @erica
    Did you see this?

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/22/1220712110.abstract


    It made it into the popular press: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

    First, I offer it as some evidence that the question of how sexual orientation works being studied. We have the GWAS research; we have the sheep guy, Roselli (still looking for organizational effects on the brain by hormones in utero); we have Dulac, who has done remarkable work on the innate behaviors of rodents, including mating and gender discrimination in mating, and we have this Peking team (China, of course!):

    "We demonstrate that a genetic manipulation reverses sexual preference without involving sex hormones. Our results indicate that serotonin controls sexual preference."

    Interesting sentence--"without involving sex hormones."

    I realize that serotonin may be responsible for a whole kit and caboodle of behaviors, but I am glad to know that the sexual orientation angle is being pursued.

    It hasn't escaped my attention that so many gay males suffer mood disorders and that mood disorders seem related to serotonin.

    ‘I’ve heard of it. A mutated gene that alters sexual orientation in humans could theoretically exist. Such a gene could never rise to a prevalence of 3% of all males, however.”

    Sorry, didn’t make myself clear. I don’t believe at all that there exists a mutated gene in humans, or at least not one that exists in enough people to account for the prevalence in which we find males who aren’t turned on by women.

    All I wished to offer is that I’m glad the subject is being studied at all. It’s clear, as gc and now you point out, that no one is specifically looking for a pathogen to explain the anomaly of male homosexuality. However, even though no one is, it may be fairly likely, with these studies going on, that the neurochemical processes of sexual attraction/orientation will be unraveled, first in rodents, maybe in sheep if Roselli goes in a different direction based on the work on rodents, and then, yes, in humans.

    Once you know how heterosexuality works, you can see where the sexual attraction goes awry and then look to cause. Yes, it seems the long way around the questions, but whatever gets us there, fine.
    It seems really silly that in the year 2013 we don’t know the chemosensory reason for a human male’s sexual attraction to a human female. It’s akin to not knowing the earth isn’t flat, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Readers here will recall my recital of Greg Cochran's hypothesis that obligate male homosexuality is caused by a pathogenic agent, likely a virus (please see 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Homosexuality (the “gay germ” hypothesis)). This is by far the most likely explanation for male homosexuality (see...
  • @JayMan

    the differences between adolescent and human brains is no longer theoretical.
     
    True, but this doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means.

    Never before has the human adolescent brain been pounded with hypersexual synthetic stimuli, available 24/7 for free. None of us can be confident of its impact, and waiting around for science that can’t be done on humans before considering the implications of all the research on brain plasticity from other animals is a bit like an ostrich, no?
     
    Nope, it's proper scientific procedure, as always.

    Look, if you can't demonstrate what you're claiming conclusively in humans, then at the end of the day, what do you have? Supposition, that will always remain so until you have evidence. We need to be especially wary of neuroscience claims, as this recent article explains so well.

    I'm keeping an open mind, and I will say that I don't share the concern that you seem to have. But in the mean time, this remains unsubstantiated.

    So does your theory, of course. It seems that some hypotheses are more welcome here than others. ;-) I like your zealotry, but keep an open mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @philosophe22:

    Cochran's hypothesis remains unconfirmed, I will grant you.
    There are key differences however:

    1. The problem which Cochran's hypothesis seeks to explain is a known phenomenon which is as yet unexplained. The "brain on porn" theory is positing something brand new which itself is not verified.
    2. Viable alternative explanations for the phenomenon (male homosexuality) are lacking.
    3. Known examples (in humans) of the mechanism Cochran proposes exist, both pathogen causing fitness-reducing traits and of pathogenic effects on behavior and sexuality. By contrast, the known examples of the mechanism in the "conditioning" model are in animals or only questionably existing in humans (e.g., in the drug addiction).

    In short, the "brain on porn" bit is working itself out of a hole to start with. This doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong (it might not be), but it has a ways to go.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Interestingly, none of the commenters to my previous post (Gay Germ Fallout?), with the exception of Luke Lea, seems to be talking about the main point of the post: the consequences should people discover that there is a gay germ. The discussion is focusing on whether or not the pathogen exists, which it almost certainly...
  • @erica
    Did you see this?

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/22/1220712110.abstract


    It made it into the popular press: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

    First, I offer it as some evidence that the question of how sexual orientation works being studied. We have the GWAS research; we have the sheep guy, Roselli (still looking for organizational effects on the brain by hormones in utero); we have Dulac, who has done remarkable work on the innate behaviors of rodents, including mating and gender discrimination in mating, and we have this Peking team (China, of course!):

    "We demonstrate that a genetic manipulation reverses sexual preference without involving sex hormones. Our results indicate that serotonin controls sexual preference."

    Interesting sentence--"without involving sex hormones."

    I realize that serotonin may be responsible for a whole kit and caboodle of behaviors, but I am glad to know that the sexual orientation angle is being pursued.

    It hasn't escaped my attention that so many gay males suffer mood disorders and that mood disorders seem related to serotonin.

    I’ve heard of it. A mutated gene that alters sexual orientation in humans could theoretically exist. Such a gene could never rise to a prevalence of 3% of all males, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Did you see this?

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/22/1220712110.abstract

    It made it into the popular press: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

    First, I offer it as some evidence that the question of how sexual orientation works being studied. We have the GWAS research; we have the sheep guy, Roselli (still looking for organizational effects on the brain by hormones in utero); we have Dulac, who has done remarkable work on the innate behaviors of rodents, including mating and gender discrimination in mating, and we have this Peking team (China, of course!):

    “We demonstrate that a genetic manipulation reverses sexual preference without involving sex hormones. Our results indicate that serotonin controls sexual preference.”

    Interesting sentence–”without involving sex hormones.”

    I realize that serotonin may be responsible for a whole kit and caboodle of behaviors, but I am glad to know that the sexual orientation angle is being pursued.

    It hasn’t escaped my attention that so many gay males suffer mood disorders and that mood disorders seem related to serotonin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    I've heard of it. A mutated gene that alters sexual orientation in humans could theoretically exist. Such a gene could never rise to a prevalence of 3% of all males, however.
    , @erica
    'I’ve heard of it. A mutated gene that alters sexual orientation in humans could theoretically exist. Such a gene could never rise to a prevalence of 3% of all males, however."

    Sorry, didn't make myself clear. I don't believe at all that there exists a mutated gene in humans, or at least not one that exists in enough people to account for the prevalence in which we find males who aren't turned on by women.

    All I wished to offer is that I'm glad the subject is being studied at all. It's clear, as gc and now you point out, that no one is specifically looking for a pathogen to explain the anomaly of male homosexuality. However, even though no one is, it may be fairly likely, with these studies going on, that the neurochemical processes of sexual attraction/orientation will be unraveled, first in rodents, maybe in sheep if Roselli goes in a different direction based on the work on rodents, and then, yes, in humans.

    Once you know how heterosexuality works, you can see where the sexual attraction goes awry and then look to cause. Yes, it seems the long way around the questions, but whatever gets us there, fine.
    It seems really silly that in the year 2013 we don't know the chemosensory reason for a human male's sexual attraction to a human female. It's akin to not knowing the earth isn't flat, isn't it?

    , @Gottlieb
    Many heterosexual men also suffer from mood disorder.
    I do not intend to further extend this conversation, because what he had to say, I said. It is simply too complex to summarize it all one or two fundamental causes. I have no problem accepting this theory as part of the puzzle, but it seems that you guys do not want to take into account a whole host of features that are involved.

    There are many questions that arise when we only see this other theory of the mutant gene. After all, is that all gay men have this gene, the effect will be the same?
    If this is true, then the heritability of homosexual behavior will not be only 10-30%, but much larger.
    Like I said, if homosexual behavior is a puzzle of different traits, including the main sexual attraction to the same sex, then maybe the heritability of this type of behavior should be added to the other traits that are related to it as openess, for example.
    So if this personality trait is around 60% of heredity, then the heritability of deviant sexual behavior, will be higher than what was found.
    It's like in the case of the human races, the white race is not white just because of skin color. Millions of Asians are white skin.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Readers here will recall my recital of Greg Cochran's hypothesis that obligate male homosexuality is caused by a pathogenic agent, likely a virus (please see 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Homosexuality (the “gay germ” hypothesis)). This is by far the most likely explanation for male homosexuality (see...
  • @philosophe22
    Skepticism is healthy, the differences between adolescent and human brains is no longer theoretical. The adolescent brain is far more sensitive to dopamine than the adult brain (and has higher levels of dopamine and DeltaFosB- transcription factor that is behind both sexual conditioning and addiction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854191/?tool=pubmed). It evolved to learn, remember, and seek thrills with significantly greater response than the adult brain. Needless to say, learning about sex is its top priority - in all adolescent mammals. This is not theoretical. Check the research. Never before has the human adolescent brain been pounded with hypersexual synthetic stimuli, available 24/7 for free. None of us can be confident of its impact, and waiting around for science that can't be done on humans before considering the implications of all the research on brain plasticity from other animals is a bit like an ostrich, no?

    the differences between adolescent and human brains is no longer theoretical.

    True, but this doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means.

    Never before has the human adolescent brain been pounded with hypersexual synthetic stimuli, available 24/7 for free. None of us can be confident of its impact, and waiting around for science that can’t be done on humans before considering the implications of all the research on brain plasticity from other animals is a bit like an ostrich, no?

    Nope, it’s proper scientific procedure, as always.

    Look, if you can’t demonstrate what you’re claiming conclusively in humans, then at the end of the day, what do you have? Supposition, that will always remain so until you have evidence. We need to be especially wary of neuroscience claims, as this recent article explains so well.

    I’m keeping an open mind, and I will say that I don’t share the concern that you seem to have. But in the mean time, this remains unsubstantiated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @philosophe22
    So does your theory, of course. It seems that some hypotheses are more welcome here than others. ;-) I like your zealotry, but keep an open mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Novelty, surprise, anxiety (“Am I turning gay because I’m watching tranny porn?”), arousal, and seeking (for the perfect shot to finish to, for example) all raise dopamine. In other words, unlike our ancestors, we can elevate dopamine with porn and keep it up for hours.
     
    Interesting, but not necessarily meaningful.

    Isn’t it important to note that young porn users are reporting morphing sexual tastes in widespread “anecdotes?”
    We know these porn users were not gay to begin with because their tastes return to earlier tastes when they stop using porn for weeks.
     
    We don't know anything of the sort. We only know what they tell the researchers, which is highly suspect, to say the least.

    Moreover, plasticity is much higher in adolescents
     
    "Plasticity" is another psychological buzzword that has more reality in psychology circles than it does in the real world, at least as far as support for it goes.

    and research to test sexual conditioning of adolescents would be completely unethical. So all we have is research on other mammals
     
    Just because our only research options are bad doesn't mean that that evidence gains any more weight. See Gary Taubes on obesity research.

    In any case, if evolution “permits” virgin rodents to be altered so easily, it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.
     
    I'm not putting my eggs in that research basket either – it's very easy to get the results you want with animal research (not saying they cooked their data, but...).

    it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.
     
    1. It's unlikely
    2. It hasn't yet been proved, at this time.

    Look as far as sexual "conditioning" goes, we have to declare it is a big maybe at this point. A tenuous maybe. I'm open to seeing more evidence, as always.

    Skepticism is healthy, the differences between adolescent and human brains is no longer theoretical. The adolescent brain is far more sensitive to dopamine than the adult brain (and has higher levels of dopamine and DeltaFosB- transcription factor that is behind both sexual conditioning and addiction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854191/?tool=pubmed). It evolved to learn, remember, and seek thrills with significantly greater response than the adult brain. Needless to say, learning about sex is its top priority – in all adolescent mammals. This is not theoretical. Check the research. Never before has the human adolescent brain been pounded with hypersexual synthetic stimuli, available 24/7 for free. None of us can be confident of its impact, and waiting around for science that can’t be done on humans before considering the implications of all the research on brain plasticity from other animals is a bit like an ostrich, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    the differences between adolescent and human brains is no longer theoretical.
     
    True, but this doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means.

    Never before has the human adolescent brain been pounded with hypersexual synthetic stimuli, available 24/7 for free. None of us can be confident of its impact, and waiting around for science that can’t be done on humans before considering the implications of all the research on brain plasticity from other animals is a bit like an ostrich, no?
     
    Nope, it's proper scientific procedure, as always.

    Look, if you can't demonstrate what you're claiming conclusively in humans, then at the end of the day, what do you have? Supposition, that will always remain so until you have evidence. We need to be especially wary of neuroscience claims, as this recent article explains so well.

    I'm keeping an open mind, and I will say that I don't share the concern that you seem to have. But in the mean time, this remains unsubstantiated.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @philosophe22
    JayMan: You're right that research is needed, but the mind altering drugs were not just random mind-altreing drugs They mimic sexual arousal (which, even in humans is tied to D2 receptors). Novelty, surprise, anxiety ("Am I turning gay because I'm watching tranny porn?"), arousal, and seeking (for the perfect shot to finish to, for example) all raise dopamine. In other words, unlike our ancestors, we can elevate dopamine with porn and keep it up for hours. Isn't it important to note that young porn users are reporting morphing sexual tastes in widespread "anecdotes?"
    We know these porn users were not gay to begin with because their tastes return to earlier tastes when they stop using porn for weeks.
    So far researchers are not even asking the right questions, with the possible exception of Jim Pfaus (http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/Pfaus_Sexual_Reward_2012.pdf). Moreover, plasticity is much higher in adolescents - and research to test sexual conditioning of adolescents would be completely unethical. So all we have is research on other mammals...and, apparently, closed minds.
    In any case, if evolution "permits" virgin rodents to be altered so easily, it's tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn't permit it.

    Novelty, surprise, anxiety (“Am I turning gay because I’m watching tranny porn?”), arousal, and seeking (for the perfect shot to finish to, for example) all raise dopamine. In other words, unlike our ancestors, we can elevate dopamine with porn and keep it up for hours.

    Interesting, but not necessarily meaningful.

    Isn’t it important to note that young porn users are reporting morphing sexual tastes in widespread “anecdotes?”
    We know these porn users were not gay to begin with because their tastes return to earlier tastes when they stop using porn for weeks.

    We don’t know anything of the sort. We only know what they tell the researchers, which is highly suspect, to say the least.

    Moreover, plasticity is much higher in adolescents

    “Plasticity” is another psychological buzzword that has more reality in psychology circles than it does in the real world, at least as far as support for it goes.

    and research to test sexual conditioning of adolescents would be completely unethical. So all we have is research on other mammals

    Just because our only research options are bad doesn’t mean that that evidence gains any more weight. See Gary Taubes on obesity research.

    In any case, if evolution “permits” virgin rodents to be altered so easily, it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.

    I’m not putting my eggs in that research basket either – it’s very easy to get the results you want with animal research (not saying they cooked their data, but…).

    it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.

    1. It’s unlikely
    2. It hasn’t yet been proved, at this time.

    Look as far as sexual “conditioning” goes, we have to declare it is a big maybe at this point. A tenuous maybe. I’m open to seeing more evidence, as always.

    Read More
    • Replies: @philosophe22
    Skepticism is healthy, the differences between adolescent and human brains is no longer theoretical. The adolescent brain is far more sensitive to dopamine than the adult brain (and has higher levels of dopamine and DeltaFosB- transcription factor that is behind both sexual conditioning and addiction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854191/?tool=pubmed). It evolved to learn, remember, and seek thrills with significantly greater response than the adult brain. Needless to say, learning about sex is its top priority - in all adolescent mammals. This is not theoretical. Check the research. Never before has the human adolescent brain been pounded with hypersexual synthetic stimuli, available 24/7 for free. None of us can be confident of its impact, and waiting around for science that can't be done on humans before considering the implications of all the research on brain plasticity from other animals is a bit like an ostrich, no?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

    This germ theory will make part of this all studies about sexual orientation (not counting the other theories still little studied)

    Still about the ”greek prostitute”.
    The account of Hbd chicks gave me the idea that the woman with syphilis, drugged or doped with some strong medication. For many gay men, we can see that, homosexuality is not only” sex with a person of the same sex.” A whole set of behavioral traits, preferably androgynous.
    We must do as Temple Grandin. For you to try to understand the behavior of a cow, you need to think like a cow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Don’t you find it interesting that scientists were able to condition male rats to prefer same sex partners in just 14 days? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22564860)
     
    They were also full of mind-altering drugs. I'm not sure injecting the rats with brain chemicals qualifies are pure "conditioning".

    Fundamentally, these are rats, not humans.


    Given that sexual conditioning arises in the area of the brain that “learns” from “rewards,” given that Internet porn offers unlimited “rewards” (spurts of dopamine with every novel erotic visual), and given that this mechanism (the reward circuitry) has been strongly conserved over mammalian species,
     
    It's a wonderful hypothesis, but I'm not sure that's how it even works in humans. We may see things happening in the brain, but it's a far cry from saying that we know exactly what's going on, especially since we have a hard time observing brain activity in the general population in normal (real world) settings.

    how can you be so confident that these are “just” rodent experiments?
     
    I'm unconvinced. More research is needed, and should be conducted.

    Let's just say I'd be much more convinced if they had experimental evidence of such conditioning in humans (which would be unethical experiments to carry out).


    BTW, the phenomenon of escalating to porn that doesn’t match one’s underlying orientation is surprisingly common. Consider this post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson
     
    And they're also full of "manwho" stories – these are essentially glorified anecdotes. How do we know these men weren't gay to start with?

    As Razib Khan notes, the overwhelming bulk of stories of problems with porn come from people who have problems with it. That doesn't tell us whether the porn caused the problems or if they were troubled to begin with.

    JayMan: You’re right that research is needed, but the mind altering drugs were not just random mind-altreing drugs They mimic sexual arousal (which, even in humans is tied to D2 receptors). Novelty, surprise, anxiety (“Am I turning gay because I’m watching tranny porn?”), arousal, and seeking (for the perfect shot to finish to, for example) all raise dopamine. In other words, unlike our ancestors, we can elevate dopamine with porn and keep it up for hours. Isn’t it important to note that young porn users are reporting morphing sexual tastes in widespread “anecdotes?”
    We know these porn users were not gay to begin with because their tastes return to earlier tastes when they stop using porn for weeks.
    So far researchers are not even asking the right questions, with the possible exception of Jim Pfaus (http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/Pfaus_Sexual_Reward_2012.pdf). Moreover, plasticity is much higher in adolescents – and research to test sexual conditioning of adolescents would be completely unethical. So all we have is research on other mammals…and, apparently, closed minds.
    In any case, if evolution “permits” virgin rodents to be altered so easily, it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Novelty, surprise, anxiety (“Am I turning gay because I’m watching tranny porn?”), arousal, and seeking (for the perfect shot to finish to, for example) all raise dopamine. In other words, unlike our ancestors, we can elevate dopamine with porn and keep it up for hours.
     
    Interesting, but not necessarily meaningful.

    Isn’t it important to note that young porn users are reporting morphing sexual tastes in widespread “anecdotes?”
    We know these porn users were not gay to begin with because their tastes return to earlier tastes when they stop using porn for weeks.
     
    We don't know anything of the sort. We only know what they tell the researchers, which is highly suspect, to say the least.

    Moreover, plasticity is much higher in adolescents
     
    "Plasticity" is another psychological buzzword that has more reality in psychology circles than it does in the real world, at least as far as support for it goes.

    and research to test sexual conditioning of adolescents would be completely unethical. So all we have is research on other mammals
     
    Just because our only research options are bad doesn't mean that that evidence gains any more weight. See Gary Taubes on obesity research.

    In any case, if evolution “permits” virgin rodents to be altered so easily, it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.
     
    I'm not putting my eggs in that research basket either – it's very easy to get the results you want with animal research (not saying they cooked their data, but...).

    it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.
     
    1. It's unlikely
    2. It hasn't yet been proved, at this time.

    Look as far as sexual "conditioning" goes, we have to declare it is a big maybe at this point. A tenuous maybe. I'm open to seeing more evidence, as always.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    Philosopher22,
    but if many people are ''influenced'' by porn, so many people have predisposition to this behaviour.
    The theory of bissexuality is much more interesting now.

    Philosophe22,
    probably also there these possibility to genetic ‘vulnerable’ but only for the people easily supple.
    I think that there are some traits can be awakened during the process of conditioning or many people repress their instinct to fit to social norm and the ”conditioning influences” this types.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @philosophe22
    Don't you find it interesting that scientists were able to condition male rats to prefer same sex partners in just 14 days? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22564860) Given that sexual conditioning arises in the area of the brain that "learns" from "rewards," given that Internet porn offers unlimited "rewards" (spurts of dopamine with every novel erotic visual), and given that this mechanism (the reward circuitry) has been strongly conserved over mammalian species, how can you be so confident that these are "just" rodent experiments? I think it's great to develop new theories, outside the box, but there's no reason that more than one mechanism can't be at work here.
    BTW, the phenomenon of escalating to porn that doesn't match one's underlying orientation is surprisingly common. Consider this post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson

    Don’t you find it interesting that scientists were able to condition male rats to prefer same sex partners in just 14 days? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22564860)

    They were also full of mind-altering drugs. I’m not sure injecting the rats with brain chemicals qualifies are pure “conditioning”.

    Fundamentally, these are rats, not humans.

    Given that sexual conditioning arises in the area of the brain that “learns” from “rewards,” given that Internet porn offers unlimited “rewards” (spurts of dopamine with every novel erotic visual), and given that this mechanism (the reward circuitry) has been strongly conserved over mammalian species,

    It’s a wonderful hypothesis, but I’m not sure that’s how it even works in humans. We may see things happening in the brain, but it’s a far cry from saying that we know exactly what’s going on, especially since we have a hard time observing brain activity in the general population in normal (real world) settings.

    how can you be so confident that these are “just” rodent experiments?

    I’m unconvinced. More research is needed, and should be conducted.

    Let’s just say I’d be much more convinced if they had experimental evidence of such conditioning in humans (which would be unethical experiments to carry out).

    BTW, the phenomenon of escalating to porn that doesn’t match one’s underlying orientation is surprisingly common. Consider this post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson

    And they’re also full of “manwho” stories – these are essentially glorified anecdotes. How do we know these men weren’t gay to start with?

    As Razib Khan notes, the overwhelming bulk of stories of problems with porn come from people who have problems with it. That doesn’t tell us whether the porn caused the problems or if they were troubled to begin with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @philosophe22
    JayMan: You're right that research is needed, but the mind altering drugs were not just random mind-altreing drugs They mimic sexual arousal (which, even in humans is tied to D2 receptors). Novelty, surprise, anxiety ("Am I turning gay because I'm watching tranny porn?"), arousal, and seeking (for the perfect shot to finish to, for example) all raise dopamine. In other words, unlike our ancestors, we can elevate dopamine with porn and keep it up for hours. Isn't it important to note that young porn users are reporting morphing sexual tastes in widespread "anecdotes?"
    We know these porn users were not gay to begin with because their tastes return to earlier tastes when they stop using porn for weeks.
    So far researchers are not even asking the right questions, with the possible exception of Jim Pfaus (http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/Pfaus_Sexual_Reward_2012.pdf). Moreover, plasticity is much higher in adolescents - and research to test sexual conditioning of adolescents would be completely unethical. So all we have is research on other mammals...and, apparently, closed minds.
    In any case, if evolution "permits" virgin rodents to be altered so easily, it's tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn't permit it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • * not “support,” but “reports”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    Many people people do this but many others, even though the arrangement pornography, do not. These people have no curiosity to see or find it demeaning.
    I think this is related but bisexuality. If you get excited watching scenes non-heterosexual or homosexual then it may indicate something about you. Not a neurotypical straight classic.

    That’s possible, but doesn’t explain the widespread support of people escalating to all kinds of weird porn that is weird for other reasons (not because of gender fluidity). Sample stories here: http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.TOLERANCE.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Many people people do this but many others, even though the arrangement pornography, do not. These people have no curiosity to see or find it demeaning.
    I think this is related but bisexuality. If you get excited watching scenes non-heterosexual or homosexual then it may indicate something about you. Not a neurotypical straight classic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @philosophe22
    That's possible, but doesn't explain the widespread support of people escalating to all kinds of weird porn that is weird for other reasons (not because of gender fluidity). Sample stories here: http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.TOLERANCE.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    Philosopher22,
    but if many people are ''influenced'' by porn, so many people have predisposition to this behaviour.
    The theory of bissexuality is much more interesting now.

    Hmmm…not sure I see that. My guess is that many people are predisposed to find sexual cues arousing, and that some, especially if they engage in chronic overconsumption, will seek for more and more extreme material (because they are gradually numbing their response to pleasure). Eventually, they will end up where they didn’t expect to end up…with erotica that doesn’t match where they started out. Am I right that you’re still assuming this is a consequence of widespread bisexuality? I don’t think that has anything to do with it. People escalate to all kinds of porn, including minor porn even if they were not born pedophiles. If you can’t get an erection without seeking more shocking material (which appears to be becoming more common), then you’ll watch anything – for fear of “losing it if you don’t use it.” This is a consequence of not understanding how conditioning and addiction can alter the sensitivity of some brains to pleasure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Philosopher22,
    but if many people are ”influenced” by porn, so many people have predisposition to this behaviour.
    The theory of bissexuality is much more interesting now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @philosophe22
    Hmmm...not sure I see that. My guess is that many people are predisposed to find sexual cues arousing, and that some, especially if they engage in chronic overconsumption, will seek for more and more extreme material (because they are gradually numbing their response to pleasure). Eventually, they will end up where they didn't expect to end up...with erotica that doesn't match where they started out. Am I right that you're still assuming this is a consequence of widespread bisexuality? I don't think that has anything to do with it. People escalate to all kinds of porn, including minor porn even if they were not born pedophiles. If you can't get an erection without seeking more shocking material (which appears to be becoming more common), then you'll watch anything - for fear of "losing it if you don't use it." This is a consequence of not understanding how conditioning and addiction can alter the sensitivity of some brains to pleasure.
    , @Gottlieb
    Philosophe22,
    probably also there these possibility to genetic 'vulnerable' but only for the people easily supple.
    I think that there are some traits can be awakened during the process of conditioning or many people repress their instinct to fit to social norm and the ''conditioning influences'' this types.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    Jay man,
    ''conditioning'' is a genetic expression remember, i believe that. The genes in a margin of a pool and the genes in a bottom. The genetic select this non-aparent genes how the ambience is favorable, or not, and the personality traits present important contribution to this. For example, paranoid people tend to distrut of all.

    I’m not sure if I understand Gottleib, but I think its likely that genetic vulnerability to conditioning is indeed a factor. This trait would allow mammals to adapt to local/changed conditions that affect mating options…but too much plasticity would be a drawback if, as is the case for today’s humans, a supernormal version of a natural reward shows up in the form of endless, novel, erotica.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jay man,
    ”conditioning” is a genetic expression remember, i believe that. The genes in a margin of a pool and the genes in a bottom. The genetic select this non-aparent genes how the ambience is favorable, or not, and the personality traits present important contribution to this. For example, paranoid people tend to distrut of all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @philosophe22
    I'm not sure if I understand Gottleib, but I think its likely that genetic vulnerability to conditioning is indeed a factor. This trait would allow mammals to adapt to local/changed conditions that affect mating options...but too much plasticity would be a drawback if, as is the case for today's humans, a supernormal version of a natural reward shows up in the form of endless, novel, erotica.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.