The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Cochran on Gay Genes
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

At West Hunter, Greg Cochran sums up the recent gay genes study:

Gay genes
Posted on September 23, 2019 by gcochran9

… The fraction of the variance influenced by these few SNPs is low, less than 1%. The contribution of all common SNPs is larger, estimated to be between 8% and 25%. Still small compared to traits like height and IQ, but then we knew that the heritability of homosexuality is not terribly high, from twin studies and such – political views are more heritable.

So gene influence homosexuality, but then they influence everything. Does it look as if the key causal link ( assuming that there is one) is genetic? No, but then we knew that already, from high discordance for homosexuality in MZ twins.

Most interesting to me were the genetic correlations between same-sex behavior and various other traits.

The genes correlated with male homosexuality are also correlated (at a statistically significant level) with risk-taking, cannabis use, schizophrenia, ADHD, major depressive disorder, loneliness, and number of sex partners. For female homosexuals, risk-taking, smoking, cannabis use, subjective well-being (-), schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, ADHD, major depressive disorder, loneliness, openness to experience, and number of sex partners.

Generally, the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things. As far as I can see, they look like noise, rather than any kind of genetic strategy. Mostly, they accord with what we already knew about male and female homosexuals: both are significantly more likely to have psychiatric disorders, far more likely to use drugs. The mental-illness association maybe looks stronger in lesbians. The moderately-shared genetic architecture seems compatible with a noise model.

So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.

 
Hide 241 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.

    Maybe they were instrumental in our learning how to cook meat properly, or having a clean cave.
    Maybe they invented dessert. Maybe they assisted, de facto, in civilizing savage tribes.
    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of “Queer Eye for the Cave Guy.”

    • LOL: Bruno, Cortes
    • Replies: @bored identity
    @Coffee Jack

    Three-Letter Man Gene a'int a real thing...

    Napoleon Sodomite Syndrome is elementary mental.


    Example:

    "Y'all were laughing, but Martin Prince knew even then that this simple maneuver will secure him path to Justice Kavanaugh's seat in 2049" :

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEyQbFsX4AEAAqq.jpg

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Chrisnonymous

    , @bored identity
    @Coffee Jack

    Three-Letter Man Gene a'int a real thing...

    Napoleon Sodomite Syndrome is elementary mental.


    Example:

    "Y'all were laughing, but Martin Prince knew even then that this simple maneuver will secure him path to Justice Kavanaugh's seat in 2049" :

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEyQbFsX4AEAAqq.jpg

    Replies: @El Dato

    , @Apu Apu
    @Coffee Jack


    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of “Queer Eye for the Cave Guy.”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySNhO30Vycg
    , @anon
    @Coffee Jack

    https://youtu.be/diSQ6tdeEcc

    , @J.Ross
    @Coffee Jack

    Homosexuality, with its disabled disgust threshold, its emphasis on wandering and exotic self-actualization, and its universal traumatic origin, is clearly a defense mechanism for surviving intolerable circumstances. Its probable prehistoric origin would be that one out of twenty guys actually getting wife time, and barbarities during conquests.

    , @Anonymous, @J
    @Coffee Jack


    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     
    Meaning: It is a disease.

    Incurable, till medicine advances to the point of curing genetic diseases.
  2. I’ve always been curious about the social class breakdown of homosexuality. It seems to be more self-evident in high societies of high political intrigue. The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.

    Think about Down Syndrome. The pressure for it within itself isn’t there (they’re sterile) but the cognitive gene pressures lead towards falling off down certain IQ gene cliffs.

    • Replies: @Apu Apu
    @Kronos


    The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL38UKvHhuQ
    , @ApacheTrout
    @Kronos

    Downs Syndrome is well established genetic disorder - trisomy 21.

    Replies: @Kronos

    , @Old Palo Altan
    @Kronos

    What you depict is peacockery, not homosexuality. Before the detestable Revolution and the plague of egalitarianism, men were always more magnificently dressed than women. It is the height of anachronism to see this as effeminacy or anything approaching it.
    Louis XIV, here so splendidly arrayed, produced six legitimate and at least fifteen illegitimate children.
    He would have laughed at your suggestion ... and then had you beheaded for lesè-majesté.

    Replies: @Kronos

    , @Alden
    @Kronos

    The man in the picture was sexually active with women from age 14 on despite the best efforts of his regent/ mother and numerous advisors . He had 10 children with his wife and 10,12 who knows how many with other women.

    If you wanted to display a homosexual King of France, find pictures of his father, Louis 13.

    Replies: @Kronos

    , @Anonymous
    @Kronos

    High heels and ladylike legs were a sign that you rode rather than walked. They were marks of high social status.

    The modern equivalent of this would be (e.g.) sporting a tan in midwinter, as only the wealthy can afford to take long holidays in warm places.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    , @Bruno
    @Kronos

    Louis XIV was the straightest and hornless guy ever. He is supposed to have said around 70 yo about his Willy, until yesterday I thought it was a bone.

    Completely out of context to suppose he was an effeminate ....

    Replies: @Kronos

  3. … not that there is anything wrong with it.

  4. So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don’t.

    And you’re not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @obwandiyag

    Interesting = "I don't like it".

    Now listen here, Einstein.

    How do you get to deduce:

    "I don't like the genetic explanation"

    from the single statement

    "So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose."

    People not fixated on their hair want to know.

    , @Kronos
    @obwandiyag

    You can say homosexuality is a queer phenomena. It’s a evolutionary puzzle-box that’s baffled psychologists and biologists for centuries.

    , @Redneck farmer
    @obwandiyag

    Is math hard for you?

    , @Maciano
    @obwandiyag

    Greg's argument is (and always has been) that both genetic and cultural explanations of male homosexuality are unsatisfactory.

    The reason is quite clear: homosexuality is at odds with Darwinism. 1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children. So, how come? This simply can’t survive for many generations without some other factor creating homosexuals. So: pure genetics is out.

    But that other factor doesn’t seem to exist. Neurotic mothers, (sexual) abuse, gender fluidity etc., all fall short as decent explanations.

    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.

    Replies: @El Dato, @jon, @Reg Cæsar, @dr kill

    , @MEH 0910
    @obwandiyag


    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don’t.

    And you’re not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.
     
    Steve has been consistent on that:

    https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1022279311628283904
    , @JMcG
    @obwandiyag

    Can someone give this guy some crayons?

    Replies: @fish

    , @Unladen Swallow
    @obwandiyag

    Uh, he doesn't think genes are the cause of homosexuality, what about that don't you understand? Genes have influence elsewhere in homosexuals.

    , @MBlanc46
    @obwandiyag

    I won’t waste my hourly Troll on him.

  5. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    I expected that male homosexuals would but that female homosexuals would not show consistent genetic markers. Or maybe homosexuality is just one manifestation of the problems these genetic markers cause in both: do we see them in people who do the stuff homosexuals tend to do excessively, but are not themselves homosexual, as well?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    "female homosexuals would not show consistent genetic markers"

    In most cases female homosexuality is a pretty fluid thing. I knew one who ended up married to a man and having three children, they're still together.

    At the moment there's probably more of it about because it is, if not socially accepted, very much accepted in the social media world that young women inhabit.

    Replies: @peterike, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    , @SimpleSong
    @Anonymous

    Female homosexuality correlates with certain genes that have also been linked to having an ugly face.

    Replies: @donvonburg, @anon

  6. It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It’s true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don’t reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.

    Homosexual Reparations is going to be a heavy lift, but I don’t doubt their commitment.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     

    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control.
     
    I've heard crazier theories. Question is, how do we export it to Africa and Asia, where population control is most desperately needed? Despite decades of Hollywood 'entertainment" exports, they haven't caught on; the few who do catch on seem to be the first to come to America.

    If there's one thing America doesn't need more of,

    Replies: @anon, @Mis(ter)Anthrope

    , @Redneck farmer
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    "You stole Style from us, Bitch!"

    , @Gordo
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It’s true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don’t reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.
     
    But it reduces that adult's fitness. So gay uncle theory?

    Replies: @BB753, @TWS

    , @jb
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control.
     
    Populations that engage in population control get replaced by populations that don't (something that Sub-Saharan Africa is teaching us right now), so population control is never a winning Darwinian strategy and is not something that will evolve in any species. (Lots of species go through regular boom and bust cycles -- none that I am aware of responsibly limit their numbers to match the carrying capacity of their environment).
    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    I think the sibling thing makes sense in reverse. Your first born needs to have higher reproductive capacity. If you die after 1, your firstborn will keep on keepin' on, but if your first is gay and you die, game over.

    Therefore, I think the issue is not that younger siblings are gay but that older siblings are especially not gay.

    Also,


    the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things.
     
    Are they? Don't gays have higher incomes and more education than straights?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @pyrrhus

    , @prime noticer
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    "Productive adults who don’t reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point."

    other way around. with very low resource production, in a condition of carrying capacity of 2, which was 99% of human existence, more than 100 thousand years, humans that existed and consumed resources but didn't make more humans, were a net drain long term. and that's assuming the male homos were manly men who did all the things men had to do - but most of them probably weren't. can you see the endless millions of faggy men today, going out and killing dangerous animals with their bare hands? or doing anything that was net positive? so let's say they can't do anything that only men can do, but they can do stuff women do. well, they are useless as stand ins for women - they can't make more humans. you might as well have actual women who can. so for most of human history, their labor hours were negative.

    this is why most humans reflexively recoil at homos or are even hostile towards them. homos are resource sinks.

    homo women can get pregnant, and, one assumes, were usually forced to get pregnant, for a hundred thousand years. so we don't have as much built in instinctive recoil to them.

    today, with massive resource overproduction in the west, the historical issue of homos being a net resource drain is less of a problem, but there are new problems. homos spread viruses and bacteria at a super high rate, which the normal humans have to spend time trying to clean up, wasting time energy and resources trying to keep the homos alive, who then go out and spread the diseases again. and the homos go after the normal humans kids, which normal humans have to try to defend against.

  7. off topic

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/22/a-looming-immigration-policy-is-spooking-bay-area-families/

    from the link:
    “Yuri, who came to the United States from Michoacán, Mexico, was enrolled in CalFresh, California’s food stamp program, for her 7 children, who range in age from just over a month to 15 and who all were born in this country. But with the new rule, Yuri, wondered, would staying on food stamps imperil her asylum application or get her deported?”

    7 children?

    • Replies: @bomag
    @gman


    7 children?
     
    Yeah, our otherwise incurious news orgs. are suddenly able to find the largest family around, and are now all in favor of family values.

    Locally, they found an illegal with five kids, and the Nice White Ladies were doing their thing on the fed courthouse lawn.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    , @Alden
    @gman

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    The anti birth control men are very careful to limit their own families to the one or two children they can support.

    Yet they rant against birth control and blame the pill, not the older methods for all the ills of society.

    Hypocrites. Or more likely sad old bachelors who never did the deed that results in conception.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Bill

  8. “So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.”

    yes, because it’s a hormone malfunction in the womb.

    varicoceles also reduce fitness, yet 15% of men have them to some degree, and we’ve been carrying them for thousands of years.

    greg’s long time argument that the fitness hit from homosexuality means that it should have ceased to exist thousands of years ago, and thus it must be due to outside germs, doesn’t make much sense. humans have a lot of things that hit their fitness, yet they struggle thru them to reproduction anyway.

    one thing that does fit greg’s argument is herpes, all the different kinds of it. we’ll be healthier when we can finally get rid of all the herpes that’s living inside all of us. it’s super resistant to all our medical technology so far.

    • Replies: @gabriel alberton
    @prime noticer


    varicoceles also reduce fitness, yet 15% of men have them to some degree, and we’ve been carrying them for thousands of years.

    greg’s long time argument that the fitness hit from homosexuality means that it should have ceased to exist thousands of years ago, and thus it must be due to outside germs, doesn’t make much sense. humans have a lot of things that hit their fitness, yet they struggle thru them to reproduction anyway.
     
    Regarding this, it must be kept in mind that it's 15% of men today, unless some kind of longitudinal study was done. The human population rose significantly in just a few generations due to almost sudden changes in the environment. Wouldn't it be possible that maladaptive traits that were rarer in the past got to be more common due to this quick, huge increase in numbers? And no, there's no reason to believe varicoceles was in fact rarer in the distant past, but I don't think we know anything about whether it was as common as it is today or not, so be careful when saying ''we've been carrying them for thousands of years''.

    And I don't think Cochran argued that the fact homosexuality brings a fitness hit means it should have ceased to exist long ago. What I recall him saying is that, at a few percent of the population, it's way too common so to be predominantly genetic in origin, and it'd be expected to be a tiny fraction of that if it was.

    While we're on the topic of genitalia, sausages, varicose eggs and all that, I'll say there are things that are odd to me regarding evolution, like the female spotted hyena having a pseudopenis, which is part of a masculizing package that certainly enables the females to be dominant over the male hyenas. However, the female pseudopenis, in addition to being an horrible abomination, is said to make the fundamental part of giving birth more difficult than it'd otherwise be, which, for someone naive like I am, seems like a hard enough fitness hit so to not compensate for having the females be strong enough to not be forced to give in to the males.

    The fact that spotted hyenas exist and have existed for quite a long time, however, and with the females all having a pseudopenis, shows that it was worth it, evolutionarily speaking, despite everything.

    Replies: @prime noticer

  9. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It's true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don't reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.

    Homosexual Reparations is going to be a heavy lift, but I don't doubt their commitment.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Redneck farmer, @Gordo, @jb, @Chrisnonymous, @prime noticer

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.

    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control.

    I’ve heard crazier theories. Question is, how do we export it to Africa and Asia, where population control is most desperately needed? Despite decades of Hollywood ‘entertainment” exports, they haven’t caught on; the few who do catch on seem to be the first to come to America.

    If there’s one thing America doesn’t need more of,

    • Replies: @anon
    @Mr McKenna

    In order for a trait to "evolve as population control" it would have to be passed down.

    , @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    @Mr McKenna

    Negroes seem to be very comfortable sticking it in other men. As a criminal defense lawyer, I talk to a lot of men who have been to prison. They tell me gay sex is completely acceptable among black inmates. (Although for some strange reason they don't consider themselves gay if they are sticking it another man. Only the receiver is gay, even if it is not consensual.

    Whites and Hispanics look down on their co-ethnics who engage in the gay sex in prison.

  10. My two cents based upon American Jurisprudence: homosexuals cannot procreate; and therefore they cannot create new taxpayers, or otherwise contribute to the common weal. Parasitic clans of sodomizers are, as a general proposition, the primary cause of absurdity.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @petit bourgeois

    They are the pinnacle of gentrification P.B.. They’re are the opposite of the black man, who only leaves destruction and white flight in his wake. The gay man is a soothing balm on the hemorrhoidic anus which are American cities.

    Sailer also wrote a superb article in Taki Magazine a few years back in regards to rejuvenating city centers. That the key is to unleash the power of gays. They invest their own money into home improvements and make bars, coffee shops, and art galleries full.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @Alden

  11. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It's true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don't reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.

    Homosexual Reparations is going to be a heavy lift, but I don't doubt their commitment.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Redneck farmer, @Gordo, @jb, @Chrisnonymous, @prime noticer

    “You stole Style from us, Bitch!”

  12. So, we’ll be seeing Cochran in the American Pravda section in the near future?

  13. It seems to run in some families.

    I know of a couple of families where brothers are gay.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    @Jon Halpenny

    Not terribly surprising, they were molested by the same relative.

    Replies: @anon

  14. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It's true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don't reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.

    Homosexual Reparations is going to be a heavy lift, but I don't doubt their commitment.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Redneck farmer, @Gordo, @jb, @Chrisnonymous, @prime noticer

    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It’s true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don’t reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.

    But it reduces that adult’s fitness. So gay uncle theory?

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Gordo

    Your "gay Uncle" is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness.
    Of all the gay theories out there, it's perhaps the most asinine.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JMcG, @prime noticer

    , @TWS
    @Gordo

    No doesn't come close to offering the fitness reward.

  15. Sadly, the Vancouver city council rejected my proposal for a “Race for the Cure to Homosexuality” 10k run.

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    @BenKenobi

    Cocks run in gay jeans?

  16. “Sexuality”, like ” race”, is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it’s best. Both “race” and ” sexuality” are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of “homosexual”, or “heterosexual”, or ” bisexual”. The ” homosexual” is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule – and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”, with it’s emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it’s strong rejection of “sodomy”. The Industrial Revolution came along, and the ” heterosexual” family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how ” sexuality” was invented.

    “Sexuality” is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn’t answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don’t seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these “defectives” would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    “Something does not compute.”

    No theory can be ” stretched” to explain more things than Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin’s theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    • LOL: TWS
    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    @Nick Diaz

    So all religions are "rotten atavistic pustules" and, at the same time, Darwin's theory of evolution is a "one-size-fits-all explanation for anything to do with living creatures, especially humans"? You need to get a sense of proportion. Anything can be taken to an absurd extreme.


    First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don’t seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these “defectives” would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:
    “Something does not compute.”

     

    Not at all. I think there are multiple reasons that healthy, educated heterosexual couples with no outward appearances of defects choose not to have children. It could be because of their own childhood experience -- too cruel to bring a child into the world who would likely have the same experience (because of their inherited personality traits) despite the parents' best efforts and too painful for the parents to re-live it through their children. It also could be because of an underlying depression about the state of our society and what it's become. What thinking person would want to bring an innocent child into this world? With others, I think it is a kind of selfishness. They can't be bothered with children, just as many people can't be bothered with pets, and both cost a lot of money if you want to do it right.

    No where is it written that only the most intelligent humans survive and that evolution is a straight path forward, with no random sideways motion/genetic dead-ends (gays, elective childlessness) or even reversal (genetic defects). On a recent trip to Central America, I encountered a local who makes his living taking tourists by donkey to their campsites along the beach. He casually informed me that he and his wife have ten children and that she's pregant with their 11th. Unfortunately for the human species, "survival of the fittest" doesn't necessarily mean survival of the best and the brightest.

    , @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Nick Diaz

    If sexuality is an "invented concept" then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn't know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I'd ever seen.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Alden, @Mr. Blank, @Nick Diaz, @Ron Mexico, @JEG

    , @Andrey illyich
    @Nick Diaz

    Eurocentric claptrap...if homosexuality was invented in Victorian England(!!!?), how can you explain its disdain in cultures very little influenced by Europe...or in ancient cultures centuries before the 18th century

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    , @eugyppius
    @Nick Diaz


    People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races.

     

    One hears this a lot these days. It is tiresome. People in the ancient world did not have the global experience of nineteenth-century colianialism. A more granular understanding of human descent groups and populations therefore prevailed. Ancient authors however absolutely recognized and discussed different nations, clans and families and generalized about the behaviors and characteristics of these different groups. Words like génos in Greek and gens in Latin map very readily upon a very great part of the semantic range captured by our "race."

    Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of “homosexual”, or “heterosexual”, or ” bisexual”.

     

    Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is the modern packaging assumed by underlying sexual behaviors and proclivities that are attested in ancient sources. These were guided in different directions by ancient cultural expectations and social requirements. What we hear about them is also necessarily restricted by the selective and incomplete nature of extant sources. There were however certainly people in the ancient world who enjoyed or preferred sexual companions of the same sex, men even in cultures that placed a heavy accent on masculinity (much of the Roman empire) who preferred passive sexual roles (we can gather this much because such activity was disparaged).

    Christianity [...] it’s emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction [...] it’s strong rejection of “sodomy”.

     

    1) Christians were not the first to deplore sodomy.
    2) Were Christianity somehow responsible for homosexuality, there would seem to be no difficulty locating homosexuality in the ancient world, Christianity being a dominant cultural force from the 4th c. onwards.

    The Industrial Revolution came along, and the ” heterosexual” family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men.

     

    It is hard to know what to say to somebody who seems to think that marriage between men and women, the social expectation that they would mate and produce offspring, and the social, cultural and legal recognition of their legitimate children had to wait for Christianity + Industrial Revolution (I guess the Chinese had no "sexuality" before their 20th-century industrialization?) to receive "emphasis" (or even "more emphasis"). These are the cornerstones of law, culture and literature literally across the ancient world and our sources overflow with these things.

    “Sexuality” is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

     

    No.
    , @El Dato
    @Nick Diaz


    It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin’s theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete.
     
    On the contrary. While certainly not "deeply flawed" (as it is as simple & basic as boiling mashed potatoes) there is ongoing work on refinement, in particular ... what's the search space?

    Mathematical Simplicity May Drive Evolution’s Speed
    , @AnotherDad
    @Nick Diaz


    “Sexuality”, like ” race”, is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it’s best. Both “race” and ” sexuality” are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality.
     
    Nick, i used to think you weren't a troll, just some semi-bright dude seriously butt hurt about his Latino identity. (Lower average IQ and educational performance than NW European whites; and general mediocrity of Latin American nations.) Lots of people get all super-sensitive, defensive about the issues with their particular group. Objectivity is hard.

    But this stuff is just lunacy. So stupid it doesn't even merit serious comment. I'd suspect "troll" except for the length of this incoherent babbling.

    Replies: @Nick Diaz, @J.Ross

    , @TWS
    @Nick Diaz

    You are a hoot. I always hear you, 'speaking' in Dr. Nick Diaz' voice.

    , @Lot
    @Nick Diaz

    “People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality.”

    Cicero making fun of Antony:

    “You assumed the manly gown, which you soon made a womanly one; at first a public prostitute, with a regular price for your wickedness, and that not a low one. But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron’s robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock. No boy bought for the gratification of passion was ever so wholly in the power of his master as you were in Curio’s. How often has his father turned you out of his house? How often has he placed guards to prevent you from entering? while you, with night for your accomplice, lust for your encourager, and wages for your compeller, were let down through the roof.”

    , @Ghost of Bull Moose
    @Nick Diaz


    First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people.
     
    They tend to be white.

    Replies: @Nick Diaz

    , @HA
    @Nick Diaz

    It is pseudo-science at it’s best. Both “race” and ” sexuality” are 19th century concepts...Christinaity:.. is at the root of the evolution of the concept of “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”

    That might be a plausible notion if Christianity was likewise a 19th century concept. Otherwise, unless you can explain why it took Christians 19 whole centuries to come up with these concepts, it isn't.

    It is true, however, that Christianity does not traditionally care about dividing people into homosexuals and heterosexuals, not to mention the 31 other flavors that have since come to the fore, with new ones being cooked up every few months or so:


    Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals...were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think.

    Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity’s marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations.
     

    , @Eduardo Cortez
    @Nick Diaz

    1. To begin in ancient times there were already some archaic notions about "race", from Egyptians to Greeks.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/28/htm

    2. Certainly, Christianity always opposed this, since it states that sexuality is reduced to genitality, the oldest known of this term dates from Ancient Rome.

    3. Do people who abandon reproduction always tend to be the healthiest and best educated people?
    This is false, I have seen studies that say otherwise, so I need you to link a paper to this statement.

  17. Cochran is pandering to his audience, but offers nothing of substance. Tradcon rightwingers on homosexuality are really indistinguishable from progressives on HBD. Let’s ignore the evidence before our own eyes!

    Globohomo is now a word and for good reasons. Globoschizophrenic, Globodepressive, Globoloner? LOL. There’s obviously something that allows male homosexuals cut through society to their benefit so successfully that it easily compensates for some small-effect-size detrimental correlated traits.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @U. Ranus


    There’s obviously something that allows male homosexuals cut through society to their benefit so successfully that it easily compensates for some small-effect-size detrimental correlated traits.
     
    Detrimental traits can have a positive side, esp in certain areas.

    Sociopathy makes people bolder. Risk-taking means adventurousness. Obsessive people are more driven. Many successful people have negative traits that they use to their advantage.

    Replies: @Errac

    , @Anonymous
    @U. Ranus

    So what you are saying is that homo sex is an aspect of a larger tendency (gene-loaded or not) which prospers in this globocapitalist paradigm. That is essentially the old churchy argument.

    Sad to say, figuring this out seems about as important as determining why some prefer Mary Ann to Ginger, or vice versa. Healthy red-blooded straight men will hump a plastic mannequin that (sort of) looks like a woman, with no Darwinian profit issuing from that kind of behavior. Requiring male ponces to sire children will not fix our homosociety, in fact it militates against the objective. We are raising Gay Armies

    , @pyrrhus
    @U. Ranus

    On average, homosexuals live shorter lives and are less successful...you think otherwise because of sample bias.....And from an evolutionary standpoint, if you don't have kids who survive, you don't matter, so if it were genetic, male gays would have been wiped out millennia ago...

  18. @Coffee Jack

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     
    Maybe they were instrumental in our learning how to cook meat properly, or having a clean cave.
    Maybe they invented dessert. Maybe they assisted, de facto, in civilizing savage tribes.
    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of "Queer Eye for the Cave Guy."

    Replies: @bored identity, @bored identity, @Apu Apu, @anon, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @J

    Three-Letter Man Gene a’int a real thing…

    Napoleon Sodomite Syndrome is elementary mental.

    Example:

    “Y’all were laughing, but Martin Prince knew even then that this simple maneuver will secure him path to Justice Kavanaugh’s seat in 2049” :

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @bored identity

    https://forum.krstarica.com/attachments/climate-jpg.596024/

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @bored identity

    I hope he got a BJ out of that.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @bored identity, @Duke84

  19. @Coffee Jack

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     
    Maybe they were instrumental in our learning how to cook meat properly, or having a clean cave.
    Maybe they invented dessert. Maybe they assisted, de facto, in civilizing savage tribes.
    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of "Queer Eye for the Cave Guy."

    Replies: @bored identity, @bored identity, @Apu Apu, @anon, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @J

    Three-Letter Man Gene a’int a real thing…

    Napoleon Sodomite Syndrome is elementary mental.

    Example:

    “Y’all were laughing, but Martin Prince knew even then that this simple maneuver will secure him path to Justice Kavanaugh’s seat in 2049” :

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @bored identity

    How do the reporters know it's a "Young Boy"?

    This modern sex straightjacketing is emotionally exhausting.

    The best part is Greta doing her "Soon!" Memepersonation.

    https://i.imgur.com/3kRqfsS.jpg

    "Let the Baron talk for now..."

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Bies Podkrakowski

  20. The Queer Eye For the Straight guy, british edition just came out about having HIV…he talked a lot about all the crazy drugs and grindr-ing he did….Drug use and you have to be mentally ill to be a prostitute on GRINDR

  21. The graphic shows a + correlation with # of children – surprising

    • Replies: @gabriel alberton
    @Ziel

    Yes, and more so in homosexual males, which other studies have shown are more inclined towards exclusive homosexuality than homosexual females, so that's strange, to say the least.

    I presume this counts adopted children? The (relatively few) homosexual couples around, both male and female, do seem to be more inclined to adopt large numbers of kids than (the much more numerous) heterosexual couples are inclined to have lots of their own kids, but I have no actual data to back this up.

    , @anon
    @Ziel

    I believe that that correlation table is comparing the genotypes of non-heterosexuals in this study to SNPs found to be significant to some trait in other GWAS studies.

    So, if some previous GWAS found SNPs at locations X,Y,and Z significant to say, anxiety, the authors of this study then looked at the subjects in this study to see if non-hetero were disproportionately prone to those alleles.

    That would also explain why the correlation table contains age of menarche and age of menapause for males.

    This study elsewhere contained a chart showing the familiar decreased fertility for those having same-sex sexual behavior.

    (Steve, note I included a Sci-Hub link... not sure your or Unz's policy on that).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Aft
    @Ziel

    Curiously and deceptively unmentioned by Cochran:

    Literally the trait that defines Darwinian fitness (offspring) was found to be POSITIVELY correlated with homosexuality at the genetic level. Meaning the old thesis that the relatives (specifically it seems to be the male relatives) of homosexuals have more children holds true. That's a pretty damn good explanation for the genes staying in the population, especially back when gay men would just wife up and have kids and play on their own time.

    Seems like a pretty coherent genetic strategy: more drugs, more risk-taking, more sex partners, more children etc. The rockstar strategy for having lots of kids. Tough on the body, good for fecundity.

    Just because Greg doesn't like those things don't mean they are "bad things"; Darwinian selection doesn't work that way.

    Paper: https://geneticsexbehavior.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ganna190830.pdf

    --

    BTW Steve this is wrong: "not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose." The paper presents strong evidence these genes stayed in the population because they help male relatives with a moderate dose of them have more children. Very common genetic phenomenon (heterozygosity or a moderate level of the trait is good; homozygosity or too much can hurt fitness).

    Replies: @e

  22. @Ziel
    The graphic shows a + correlation with # of children - surprising

    Replies: @gabriel alberton, @anon, @Aft

    Yes, and more so in homosexual males, which other studies have shown are more inclined towards exclusive homosexuality than homosexual females, so that’s strange, to say the least.

    I presume this counts adopted children? The (relatively few) homosexual couples around, both male and female, do seem to be more inclined to adopt large numbers of kids than (the much more numerous) heterosexual couples are inclined to have lots of their own kids, but I have no actual data to back this up.

  23. @obwandiyag
    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don't.

    And you're not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kronos, @Redneck farmer, @Maciano, @MEH 0910, @JMcG, @Unladen Swallow, @MBlanc46

    Interesting = “I don’t like it”.

    Now listen here, Einstein.

    How do you get to deduce:

    “I don’t like the genetic explanation”

    from the single statement

    “So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.”

    People not fixated on their hair want to know.

  24. @obwandiyag
    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don't.

    And you're not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kronos, @Redneck farmer, @Maciano, @MEH 0910, @JMcG, @Unladen Swallow, @MBlanc46

    You can say homosexuality is a queer phenomena. It’s a evolutionary puzzle-box that’s baffled psychologists and biologists for centuries.

  25. @bored identity
    @Coffee Jack

    Three-Letter Man Gene a'int a real thing...

    Napoleon Sodomite Syndrome is elementary mental.


    Example:

    "Y'all were laughing, but Martin Prince knew even then that this simple maneuver will secure him path to Justice Kavanaugh's seat in 2049" :

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEyQbFsX4AEAAqq.jpg

    Replies: @El Dato

    How do the reporters know it’s a “Young Boy”?

    This modern sex straightjacketing is emotionally exhausting.

    The best part is Greta doing her “Soon!” Memepersonation.

    “Let the Baron talk for now…”

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    @El Dato

    Does Ms. Thunberg have a certain Damien from "The Omen" ominous look to her?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=9CADF0800722B8AB4971CC598ED171425398A73F&thid=OIP.X3AVLyhXI1lHJXs9VPjLdgHaFj&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lf02DoQOJag%2FUqOg0yq1E5I%2FAAAAAAAAG5c%2FaET0EP1AAJw%2Fs1600%2Fthe-omen-damian.jpeg&exph=480&expw=640&q=damien+in+the+omen&selectedindex=25&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or are we talking of a more innocent Wednesday Addams look?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=wednesday+from+the+addams+family&id=EBC38D048E520CD586294528DCF1BF4DF7FDBE01&s=1&view=detailv2&rtpu=%2fsearch%3fq%3dwednesday+from+the+addams+family&form=IEQNAI&selectedindex=0&exph=0&expw=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or the defiant response to "what is your costume"

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=addams+family+what+is+your+costume+scene%3f&view=detail&mid=B2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CAB2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CA&FORM=VIRE

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Daniel H, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @William Badwhite

    , @Bies Podkrakowski
    @El Dato

    Alia Atreides, also know as The Abomination prepares her gom jabbar.

  26. @Kronos
    I’ve always been curious about the social class breakdown of homosexuality. It seems to be more self-evident in high societies of high political intrigue. The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.


    Think about Down Syndrome. The pressure for it within itself isn’t there (they’re sterile) but the cognitive gene pressures lead towards falling off down certain IQ gene cliffs.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

    Replies: @Apu Apu, @ApacheTrout, @Old Palo Altan, @Alden, @Anonymous, @Bruno

    The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.

  27. @petit bourgeois
    My two cents based upon American Jurisprudence: homosexuals cannot procreate; and therefore they cannot create new taxpayers, or otherwise contribute to the common weal. Parasitic clans of sodomizers are, as a general proposition, the primary cause of absurdity.

    Replies: @Kronos

    They are the pinnacle of gentrification P.B.. They’re are the opposite of the black man, who only leaves destruction and white flight in his wake. The gay man is a soothing balm on the hemorrhoidic anus which are American cities.

    Sailer also wrote a superb article in Taki Magazine a few years back in regards to rejuvenating city centers. That the key is to unleash the power of gays. They invest their own money into home improvements and make bars, coffee shops, and art galleries full.

    • Agree: Old Prude
    • Replies: @petit bourgeois
    @Kronos

    Where I live they have certainly transformed the downtown area into "sodapopa" type gentrification, so I do not doubt their ability to transform quincanera bridal shops into hipster bars and gourmand offerings.

    But when angry purple haired lesbians start dictating what our politics should be, I also understand how such a small percentage of our society tries to control the rest of us. I don't have any personal animus towards them, but they really need to go back in the closet and let the rest of us "breeders" live our lives the way that we want.

    Speaking of "sodapopa" type gentrification, the new season of South Park starts tomorrow night, and I can't wait to see how Parker and Stone deal with the current cancel culture.

    Replies: @Kronos, @MEH 0910

    , @Alden
    @Kronos

    It sure worked in the San Francisco Fillmore neighborhood. 15 years. 1975 to 1990 from one of the worst black ghettos in the country to one of the nicest neighborhoods in town.

    Fillmore 1870 to 1940 a great mostly White some Japanese neighborhood. 1940 to 1945 transition as the apes brought from the south to work in the WW2 shipyards began the destruction.

    1945 to 1975 notorious ghetto, best known for 12-16 year old retarded enslaved black teen prostitutes and their black pimps.

    1975 to 1990 transition back to White and Asian.

    1990 to present, great neighborhood again.
    Still too many blacks in the city though.

    Replies: @Kronos

  28. @Coffee Jack

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     
    Maybe they were instrumental in our learning how to cook meat properly, or having a clean cave.
    Maybe they invented dessert. Maybe they assisted, de facto, in civilizing savage tribes.
    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of "Queer Eye for the Cave Guy."

    Replies: @bored identity, @bored identity, @Apu Apu, @anon, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @J

    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of “Queer Eye for the Cave Guy.”

  29. @Jon Halpenny
    It seems to run in some families.

    I know of a couple of families where brothers are gay.

    Replies: @anonymous coward

    Not terribly surprising, they were molested by the same relative.

    • Replies: @anon
    @anonymous coward

    That, and families where the wife wears the pants.
    Psychopathy is ,ore likely to be inherited from the mother than the father.

  30. @obwandiyag
    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don't.

    And you're not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kronos, @Redneck farmer, @Maciano, @MEH 0910, @JMcG, @Unladen Swallow, @MBlanc46

    Is math hard for you?

  31. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @U. Ranus
    Cochran is pandering to his audience, but offers nothing of substance. Tradcon rightwingers on homosexuality are really indistinguishable from progressives on HBD. Let's ignore the evidence before our own eyes!

    Globohomo is now a word and for good reasons. Globoschizophrenic, Globodepressive, Globoloner? LOL. There's obviously something that allows male homosexuals cut through society to their benefit so successfully that it easily compensates for some small-effect-size detrimental correlated traits.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @pyrrhus

    There’s obviously something that allows male homosexuals cut through society to their benefit so successfully that it easily compensates for some small-effect-size detrimental correlated traits.

    Detrimental traits can have a positive side, esp in certain areas.

    Sociopathy makes people bolder. Risk-taking means adventurousness. Obsessive people are more driven. Many successful people have negative traits that they use to their advantage.

    • Replies: @Errac
    @Anonymous


    Obsessive people are more driven. Many successful people have negative traits that they use to their advantage.
     
    I've lately been maintaining that most successful folks in the entertainment industry, especially actors and comedians, are simply people who found a way to monetize their pathology.

    Any readers in the mental health care field to take a crack at Bill Mahr? William Shatner? Patton Oswalt? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? William Macy?

    Who among those entertainers don't qualify for professional supervision?
  32. @obwandiyag
    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don't.

    And you're not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kronos, @Redneck farmer, @Maciano, @MEH 0910, @JMcG, @Unladen Swallow, @MBlanc46

    Greg’s argument is (and always has been) that both genetic and cultural explanations of male homosexuality are unsatisfactory.

    The reason is quite clear: homosexuality is at odds with Darwinism. 1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children. So, how come? This simply can’t survive for many generations without some other factor creating homosexuals. So: pure genetics is out.

    But that other factor doesn’t seem to exist. Neurotic mothers, (sexual) abuse, gender fluidity etc., all fall short as decent explanations.

    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Maciano


    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.
     
    That's because not everything is down to hardcore "Darwinism" and strict causality.

    You can activate genes and gene packages at random too.

    Replies: @Maciano

    , @jon
    @Maciano


    1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children.
     
    The 'few children' is pretty recent though, right? 100 years ago you couldn't really just live life as a gay guy - your options were be a hermit, be a priest (if you were Catholic) or be a married gay guy with a family. Most chose the latter.

    Replies: @Old Prude

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Maciano


    1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children.
     
    Why do you assume this? In most societies, everyone is expected to "be fruitful and multiply". In such an environment, queers have an incentive to outbreed their neighbors: pregnancy is the best excuse for getting out of the hated sex act.

    I know a family where an eventual lesbian was 14% of her generation but produced 19% of the next. This figure dipped a bit as one of hers was among those who died young, but that's still higher at 16.7%.


    I'm not supporting the genetic explanation, just pointing out that it is not as impossible as people take it to be.

    Replies: @jon, @Anonymous

    , @dr kill
    @Maciano

    I don't identify a problem with homosexuality and Natural Selection. Genes insist on reproducing, and they insist on trying infinite strategies, with only an occasional success. Genes don't think, they don't plan or predict the future. Genes don't know that Greg will find the traits associated with homosexuality troublesome. Genes are not capable of finding Greg or your ideas amusing, so I will do it for them.

  33. @obwandiyag
    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don't.

    And you're not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kronos, @Redneck farmer, @Maciano, @MEH 0910, @JMcG, @Unladen Swallow, @MBlanc46

    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don’t.

    And you’re not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Steve has been consistent on that:

  34. @Kronos
    I’ve always been curious about the social class breakdown of homosexuality. It seems to be more self-evident in high societies of high political intrigue. The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.


    Think about Down Syndrome. The pressure for it within itself isn’t there (they’re sterile) but the cognitive gene pressures lead towards falling off down certain IQ gene cliffs.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

    Replies: @Apu Apu, @ApacheTrout, @Old Palo Altan, @Alden, @Anonymous, @Bruno

    Downs Syndrome is well established genetic disorder – trisomy 21.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @ApacheTrout

    Yes, a monogenetic disorder. But with polygenetic disorders (autism) it’s just a lot harder. You might have a different combo of genes in each person that may create something akin to a standardized disorder.

  35. I was born to be a pedo and vote Democrat.
    Orange Man Bad! Butt Stuff Good!

  36. @Maciano
    @obwandiyag

    Greg's argument is (and always has been) that both genetic and cultural explanations of male homosexuality are unsatisfactory.

    The reason is quite clear: homosexuality is at odds with Darwinism. 1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children. So, how come? This simply can’t survive for many generations without some other factor creating homosexuals. So: pure genetics is out.

    But that other factor doesn’t seem to exist. Neurotic mothers, (sexual) abuse, gender fluidity etc., all fall short as decent explanations.

    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.

    Replies: @El Dato, @jon, @Reg Cæsar, @dr kill

    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.

    That’s because not everything is down to hardcore “Darwinism” and strict causality.

    You can activate genes and gene packages at random too.

    • Replies: @Maciano
    @El Dato

    You know, refuting an argument can only be done by giving a better argument.

    There's no other explanation given by you, not even a hint, so your comment can be ignored.

  37. Meanwhile, in the world of filler journalism and unimportant people:

    Chef melts under heat, will 86 future deals with family-separating US immigration agencies

    Embattled [software shop] Chef has U-turned and vowed to not work with two US immigration agencies beyond its ongoing contracts, following immense community and employee pressure.

    Chief exec Barry Crist on Monday told his staff that management has agreed not to renew its software supply deals with both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) when they expire later this year.

    “After deep introspection [huh?] and dialog within Chef, we will not renew our current contracts with ICE and CBP when they expire over the next year. Chef will fulfill our full obligations under the current contracts,” said Crist.

    “We have also decided that we will donate an amount equivalent to our 2019 revenues from these two contracts directed to charities that help vulnerable people impacted by the policy of family separation and detention.”

    Does this mean AOC will get something for her coffers?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @El Dato

    That's a confusing goddamn name for a software company

  38. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    So all religions are “rotten atavistic pustules” and, at the same time, Darwin’s theory of evolution is a “one-size-fits-all explanation for anything to do with living creatures, especially humans”? You need to get a sense of proportion. Anything can be taken to an absurd extreme.

    First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don’t seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these “defectives” would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:
    “Something does not compute.”

    Not at all. I think there are multiple reasons that healthy, educated heterosexual couples with no outward appearances of defects choose not to have children. It could be because of their own childhood experience — too cruel to bring a child into the world who would likely have the same experience (because of their inherited personality traits) despite the parents’ best efforts and too painful for the parents to re-live it through their children. It also could be because of an underlying depression about the state of our society and what it’s become. What thinking person would want to bring an innocent child into this world? With others, I think it is a kind of selfishness. They can’t be bothered with children, just as many people can’t be bothered with pets, and both cost a lot of money if you want to do it right.

    No where is it written that only the most intelligent humans survive and that evolution is a straight path forward, with no random sideways motion/genetic dead-ends (gays, elective childlessness) or even reversal (genetic defects). On a recent trip to Central America, I encountered a local who makes his living taking tourists by donkey to their campsites along the beach. He casually informed me that he and his wife have ten children and that she’s pregant with their 11th. Unfortunately for the human species, “survival of the fittest” doesn’t necessarily mean survival of the best and the brightest.

  39. @obwandiyag
    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don't.

    And you're not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kronos, @Redneck farmer, @Maciano, @MEH 0910, @JMcG, @Unladen Swallow, @MBlanc46

    Can someone give this guy some crayons?

    • Replies: @fish
    @JMcG


    Can someone give this guy some crayons?
     
    He'll just hurt himself…….
  40. What about correlation with being

    Fabulous

    ???

  41. @Maciano
    @obwandiyag

    Greg's argument is (and always has been) that both genetic and cultural explanations of male homosexuality are unsatisfactory.

    The reason is quite clear: homosexuality is at odds with Darwinism. 1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children. So, how come? This simply can’t survive for many generations without some other factor creating homosexuals. So: pure genetics is out.

    But that other factor doesn’t seem to exist. Neurotic mothers, (sexual) abuse, gender fluidity etc., all fall short as decent explanations.

    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.

    Replies: @El Dato, @jon, @Reg Cæsar, @dr kill

    1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children.

    The ‘few children’ is pretty recent though, right? 100 years ago you couldn’t really just live life as a gay guy – your options were be a hermit, be a priest (if you were Catholic) or be a married gay guy with a family. Most chose the latter.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @jon

    At a recent memorial service for a gay friend who passed away I met three gay men who had all been married and fathered children.

  42. OT: Is Ken Burns skewing his storyline to emphasize the unity and underplay the disagreements in ‘country’ music? Sex, drugs, drink, religion, politics, war, family– I wish he’d analyse how these themes cross every musical genre.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @robot

    Half the songs in country music are about being a faithful work-a-daddy and the other half are about being a woman-chasing hell-raiser.

    Replies: @Daniel Williams, @Apu Apu

    , @Bugg
    @robot

    Burns had a whole jag about Ray Charles doing an album of country tunes as some wonderful crossover. It sold a bundle and he won some Grammies. Reality is for better or worse Charles,a great artist, and his money guys figured out a way to sell a shitload of records to middle America taking a bunch of country songs and doing his own arrangements. It was about money, race had nothing to do with it,and there's nothing wrong with any of that. Would rather listen to Ray Charles sing the alphabet song than Bruce Springsteen, Woody Guthrie or Pete Seeger sing anything.

    Pat Boone did something like that with heavy metal records in the 1990s, and for a time he got a career jolt.He had been so inspired by his next door neighbor and pal, Ozzy Osbourne. But it was not some great seminal moment. Was a lot of fun; Malcolm Gladwell even spends a whole podcast discussing it and why Boone should be in the rock n roll Hall of Fame in part because of it. Being a white guy though, and metal being a very white genre, don't expect Ken Burns to tell us how this was a watershed moment in American society.

    Replies: @Old Prude

    , @Carol
    @robot

    He skipped over Spade Cooley didn't he?

    Whitewash.

  43. Without moralizing: as yet, we don’t know anything truly scientific about genetic roots of homosexuality.

  44. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    If sexuality is an “invented concept” then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn’t know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I’d ever seen.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    There is no point in explaining anything to Nick Diaz. He's a bloviating retard. His posts could be replaced with "wah, wah, wah, wah,......" or a random pattern of 1's and 0's and it would make no difference.

    Replies: @Nick Diaz, @Nick Diaz

    , @Alden
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    My brothers used to pore over the women’s underwear sections of the Sears and Spiegel catalogs. I never had any desire to look at the men’s under wear ADs.

    , @Mr. Blank
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    My wife likes to tell the story about how when she was a teen, she spent a long time thinking she was a lesbian. It wasn’t that she liked girls — it was just that she could never figure out what other girls saw in boys. She thought boys were stupid and icky. Ergo, she just assumed she was playing for the other team.

    Then, she said, one day this new boy showed up at school. As she puts it, “the second he walked in the room, I knew for a fact I wasn’t a lesbian.”

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Nick Diaz
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    "If sexuality is an “invented concept” then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn’t know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I’d ever seen"

    Because you are biologically attracted to women? I never denied that sexual attraction is primarilly biological in nature. You didn't understand my argument at all. My point is that "sexuality" is a *social categorization* . It didn't exist before the 19th century. Show me the ancients talking about homsoexuals or heterosexuals. You can't.

    , @Ron Mexico
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    Oh man, Janet Lupo! How about Marilyn Lange? Didn't the Beastie Boys complain about mom finding their best porno mag!

    , @JEG
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    I think that you are using a very good approach to pinpoint sexual orientation provided you look at junior high kids. Boys that feel the way you did are straight and girls that feel the same way are gay.

  45. @robot
    OT: Is Ken Burns skewing his storyline to emphasize the unity and underplay the disagreements in 'country' music? Sex, drugs, drink, religion, politics, war, family-- I wish he'd analyse how these themes cross every musical genre.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Bugg, @Carol

    Half the songs in country music are about being a faithful work-a-daddy and the other half are about being a woman-chasing hell-raiser.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
    @Steve Sailer

    There’re great ones about how booze turns the former into the latter.

    A personal fave: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z16jVKrk2s

    , @Apu Apu
    @Steve Sailer


    Half the songs in country music are about being a faithful work-a-daddy and the other half are about being a woman-chasing hell-raiser.
     
    While some well known country songs are about warning city slicker's that it's time to git, while they can still git.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFutge4xn3w

  46. She is fit for a purpose.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-doesnt-evolution-get-rid-of-ugly/

    In a groundbreaking study, biologists at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland have figured out why, at least in one species: genes that are good for males are bad for females and, perhaps, vice versa.

    The scientists studied red deer, 3,559 of them from eight generations, living on Scotland’s Isle of Rum. They carefully noted each animal’s fitness, who mated with whom, how many offspring survived, which offspring mated and with what results. Bottom line: “male red deer with relatively high fitness fathered, on average, daughters with relatively low fitness,” Edinburgh’s Katharina Foerster and her colleagues conclude in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature. “Male red deer with a relatively high lifetime [fitness, which includes their reproductive success, the only thing evolution cares about] sired, on average, daughters with a relatively low [fitness].” The reverse also holds. Males that were relatively less successful in their reproductive success and fitness had daughters that were extra successful.

    Cochran says “Generally, the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things. As far as I can see, they look like noise, rather than any kind of genetic strategy”. Why isn’t IQ negatively affected then?

    • Replies: @Bruno
    @Sean

    Are schizophrenia and autism associated with a lower average IQ ? I can understand that depression lowers IQ, but are dépressive people, when they are treated, less intelligent than the average ?

    Because your assumption is that all mental illnesses are associated with a lower intelligence and gays have a normal intelligence, then homosexuality can’t be a mental illness.

    Are the 2 premises true ?

    Replies: @Sean

  47. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It's true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don't reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.

    Homosexual Reparations is going to be a heavy lift, but I don't doubt their commitment.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Redneck farmer, @Gordo, @jb, @Chrisnonymous, @prime noticer

    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control.

    Populations that engage in population control get replaced by populations that don’t (something that Sub-Saharan Africa is teaching us right now), so population control is never a winning Darwinian strategy and is not something that will evolve in any species. (Lots of species go through regular boom and bust cycles — none that I am aware of responsibly limit their numbers to match the carrying capacity of their environment).

  48. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    Eurocentric claptrap…if homosexuality was invented in Victorian England(!!!?), how can you explain its disdain in cultures very little influenced by Europe…or in ancient cultures centuries before the 18th century

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Andrey illyich

    https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/09/IMG_0409.jpg

  49. I don’t know why the left is is eager to accept that there is a gene for homosexual behavior.

    Because once they accept that, then it follows that the uber-violent behavior of blacks is genetic, and so is the behavior of God’s Chosen.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @peterike
    @Genrick Yagoda


    I don’t know why the left is is eager to accept that there is a gene for homosexual behavior. Because once they accept that, then it follows that the uber-violent behavior of blacks is genetic, and so is the behavior of God’s Chosen.
     
    You generously overestimate the Left's need for logic or consistency in their views.
    , @Unladen Swallow
    @Genrick Yagoda

    The left's various beliefs about people have developed piecemeal, the genetic basis of homosexuality is literally the exception to the rule, no where else do they invoke genetics as explanatory.

    They would also have to acknowledge that blacks are more likely to be criminal and violent, which a great many of them deny, which they can because they live in high income bubbles they contain very few blacks and the few they interact with tend to be light skinned elites. As far as Jewish behavior goes, that's just an anti-Semitic slur.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @anonymous
    @Genrick Yagoda

    you are what Pope spoke of when he said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Replies: @Anonymous

  50. @prime noticer
    "So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose."

    yes, because it's a hormone malfunction in the womb.

    varicoceles also reduce fitness, yet 15% of men have them to some degree, and we've been carrying them for thousands of years.

    greg's long time argument that the fitness hit from homosexuality means that it should have ceased to exist thousands of years ago, and thus it must be due to outside germs, doesn't make much sense. humans have a lot of things that hit their fitness, yet they struggle thru them to reproduction anyway.

    one thing that does fit greg's argument is herpes, all the different kinds of it. we'll be healthier when we can finally get rid of all the herpes that's living inside all of us. it's super resistant to all our medical technology so far.

    Replies: @gabriel alberton

    varicoceles also reduce fitness, yet 15% of men have them to some degree, and we’ve been carrying them for thousands of years.

    greg’s long time argument that the fitness hit from homosexuality means that it should have ceased to exist thousands of years ago, and thus it must be due to outside germs, doesn’t make much sense. humans have a lot of things that hit their fitness, yet they struggle thru them to reproduction anyway.

    Regarding this, it must be kept in mind that it’s 15% of men today, unless some kind of longitudinal study was done. The human population rose significantly in just a few generations due to almost sudden changes in the environment. Wouldn’t it be possible that maladaptive traits that were rarer in the past got to be more common due to this quick, huge increase in numbers? And no, there’s no reason to believe varicoceles was in fact rarer in the distant past, but I don’t think we know anything about whether it was as common as it is today or not, so be careful when saying ”we’ve been carrying them for thousands of years”.

    And I don’t think Cochran argued that the fact homosexuality brings a fitness hit means it should have ceased to exist long ago. What I recall him saying is that, at a few percent of the population, it’s way too common so to be predominantly genetic in origin, and it’d be expected to be a tiny fraction of that if it was.

    While we’re on the topic of genitalia, sausages, varicose eggs and all that, I’ll say there are things that are odd to me regarding evolution, like the female spotted hyena having a pseudopenis, which is part of a masculizing package that certainly enables the females to be dominant over the male hyenas. However, the female pseudopenis, in addition to being an horrible abomination, is said to make the fundamental part of giving birth more difficult than it’d otherwise be, which, for someone naive like I am, seems like a hard enough fitness hit so to not compensate for having the females be strong enough to not be forced to give in to the males.

    The fact that spotted hyenas exist and have existed for quite a long time, however, and with the females all having a pseudopenis, shows that it was worth it, evolutionarily speaking, despite everything.

    • Replies: @prime noticer
    @gabriel alberton

    "And I don’t think Cochran argued that the fact homosexuality brings a fitness hit means it should have ceased to exist long ago. What I recall him saying is that, at a few percent of the population, it’s way too common so to be predominantly genetic in origin, and it’d be expected to be a tiny fraction of that if it was."

    his argument is that at 4% prevalence in the population, and considering the fitness hit, it can't be genetic, so it must be an outside life form. a bacteria, virus, or something else, getting in, and messing things up.

    not a bad argument at all, since this is how other stuff we couldn't understand for a long time, was eventually figured out. it's the lead. it's the mercury. it's the plastic. things in the environment that weren't in the body before, and now they are. remove the foreign substance, and the problem is gone. a very simple relationship that's hard to see at first, but once you do, it's instantly obvious.

    but here it's not an outside agent. it's a hormone malfunction, that would be happening even if there were no germs. making more humans is complicated and it can go wrong in a hundred ways. this is one of them. birth defects are a normal part of the process of making billions of humans. this is one of them.

  51. If traits genetically correlated with x or y are bad, as Greg Cochran sums up these findings, then it seems to be ok that x or y don’t reproduce (= are lesbians or homosexuals).

    Is it as simple as that?

  52. @Kronos
    I’ve always been curious about the social class breakdown of homosexuality. It seems to be more self-evident in high societies of high political intrigue. The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.


    Think about Down Syndrome. The pressure for it within itself isn’t there (they’re sterile) but the cognitive gene pressures lead towards falling off down certain IQ gene cliffs.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

    Replies: @Apu Apu, @ApacheTrout, @Old Palo Altan, @Alden, @Anonymous, @Bruno

    What you depict is peacockery, not homosexuality. Before the detestable Revolution and the plague of egalitarianism, men were always more magnificently dressed than women. It is the height of anachronism to see this as effeminacy or anything approaching it.
    Louis XIV, here so splendidly arrayed, produced six legitimate and at least fifteen illegitimate children.
    He would have laughed at your suggestion … and then had you beheaded for lesè-majesté.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Old Palo Altan

    Louis the 14th (very probably) wasn’t gay or even bisexual. But his brother was gay. In my example he won the female cognitive seer genes but it didn’t make him gay. The man was a superb political animal. He understood how to work over both sexes. His brother though, may have received the full (like sickle cell) gene payout and made him gay.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_I,_Duke_of_Orléans

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Philippe_de_France_wearing_coronation_clothes_for_his_brother%2C_Ecole_fran%C3%A7aise.jpg/190px-Philippe_de_France_wearing_coronation_clothes_for_his_brother%2C_Ecole_fran%C3%A7aise.jpg

  53. @Gordo
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It’s true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don’t reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.
     
    But it reduces that adult's fitness. So gay uncle theory?

    Replies: @BB753, @TWS

    Your “gay Uncle” is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness.
    Of all the gay theories out there, it’s perhaps the most asinine.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, JMcG
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @BB753


    Your “gay Uncle” is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness.
     
    In Rhode Island, he can legally marry one of them, as long as he's Jewish:

    http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE15/15-1/15-1-4.HTM
    , @JMcG
    @BB753

    Anyone with any experience should realize that the paradigm of the gentle, benevolent homosexual is entirely out of line with reality. Gay men combine all the worst qualities of both sexes, very often to ruinous excess.

    , @prime noticer
    @BB753

    "Your “gay Uncle” is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness."

    yeah, this one makes the least sense. homo men don't do that. they don't help. they go out and be raging homos. that's what they actually do.

    socially homo men are better seen as cancer. they mutate and spread but do nothing helpful at all.

    it's actually the complete opposite - normals want to keep their kids away from homos, who are sexual predators. LOL at the idea of them HELPING your children.

    if Gay Uncle was accurate, Boy Scouts never would have banned them in the first place.

  54. @El Dato
    @Maciano


    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.
     
    That's because not everything is down to hardcore "Darwinism" and strict causality.

    You can activate genes and gene packages at random too.

    Replies: @Maciano

    You know, refuting an argument can only be done by giving a better argument.

    There’s no other explanation given by you, not even a hint, so your comment can be ignored.

  55. I am a strong believer that homosexuality is not a result of free will/lifestyle choice.

    • Agree: Bruno
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Realist


    I am a strong believer that homosexuality is not a result of free will/lifestyle choice.
     
    Female homosexuality seems to be largely a result of free will/lifestyle choice.

    Of course it is possible that homosexuality is a result of a combination of genetic, pre-natal and cultural influences. It doesn't have to be either/or.
    , @JR Ewing
    @Realist

    Sure, we all have urges that we can’t eliminate or explain.

    But sticking one’s sexual member into another’s rectum is 100% free will. As is all of the other “lifestyle” actions these people engage in.

    Replies: @Realist

    , @TWS
    @Realist

    And reality cares about your beliefs, why exactly?

  56. Risk taking may be a negative trait in an individual but it arguably increases the fitness of the tribe by driving innovation. Schizophrenia is also correlated with creativity. It is not hard to imagine that a lot of „prophets“ who helped lay the groundwork for most of the world‘s major religions (and thereby organizing principles for large scale civilizations) were bipolar types with homosexual tendencies.

    • Replies: @TWS
    @Peter Akuleyev

    There is absolutely no such thing as group fitness.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

  57. @Anonymous
    I expected that male homosexuals would but that female homosexuals would not show consistent genetic markers. Or maybe homosexuality is just one manifestation of the problems these genetic markers cause in both: do we see them in people who do the stuff homosexuals tend to do excessively, but are not themselves homosexual, as well?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @SimpleSong

    “female homosexuals would not show consistent genetic markers”

    In most cases female homosexuality is a pretty fluid thing. I knew one who ended up married to a man and having three children, they’re still together.

    At the moment there’s probably more of it about because it is, if not socially accepted, very much accepted in the social media world that young women inhabit.

    • Replies: @peterike
    @YetAnotherAnon


    In most cases female homosexuality is a pretty fluid thing... At the moment there’s probably more of it about because it is, if not socially accepted, very much accepted in the social media world that young women inhabit.
     
    It's more than "very much accepted." It's praised and given overt, tangible privilege (there's that word) over heterosexuality. Most especially in the hot-house atmosphere of the contemporary university. Yet the snowflakes still think it's "brave" to come-out, when the result is 100% upside. It's far braver to stay straight.
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @YetAnotherAnon

    I think that lesbianism is more likely to be a matter of free will combined with a tolerant culture.

    Some lesbians are high testosterone females, some are feminist man-haters, some are rape/molestation victims of men, some are in jail and some are unable to snag a man into marriage. At one time, most would have either married men or remained single and celibate. Lesbianism was off the table.

  58. @Coffee Jack

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     
    Maybe they were instrumental in our learning how to cook meat properly, or having a clean cave.
    Maybe they invented dessert. Maybe they assisted, de facto, in civilizing savage tribes.
    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of "Queer Eye for the Cave Guy."

    Replies: @bored identity, @bored identity, @Apu Apu, @anon, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @J

  59. “So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.”

    Or, perhaps more evidence that the obsession with Darwinian fairytales coarsens the mind, rendering one unable to imagine the usefulness of anything but animal rutting?

    Extra points for you Trad Christians: what was the “fitness purpose” of the Crucifixion?

  60. @bored identity
    @Coffee Jack

    Three-Letter Man Gene a'int a real thing...

    Napoleon Sodomite Syndrome is elementary mental.


    Example:

    "Y'all were laughing, but Martin Prince knew even then that this simple maneuver will secure him path to Justice Kavanaugh's seat in 2049" :

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEyQbFsX4AEAAqq.jpg

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Chrisnonymous

  61. I feel that some popular assumptions about evolution are quite simplistic. Some issues I’d like to point out:

    1) Evolution has not ended. It will only asymptotically approach a stable state if the external and social environment remains constant for dozens of generations. But this is rarely the case, especially in recent centuries, what with the industrial revolution, large-scale migrations, massive population growth, greatly increased availability of calories etc. This is why we have mass obesity for example as the previously beneficial tendency to store calories is now counterproductive given the sudden switch from scarcity to abundance.

    2) Evolution can make mistakes. It is a miracle that 3 billion base pairs can be replicated in trillions of cells with sufficient accuracy to allow a living creature to form and function in most cases. Naturally there will be random errors and unfortunate combinations of incompatible alleles. Cystic fibrosis or down syndrome are examples of this. Especially with polygenic conditions, it is almost certain that some fraction of a large enough population will draw the short straw and inherit alleles which in combination manifest too much or too little of that condition.

    3) Genetic issues need not be fixed by genetic means. Humans did not evolve fur or blubber to deal with arctic conditions. Similarly in my opinion the existence of homosexuality has mostly been paired across history and space with social norms which seek to suppress this tendency as in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. This is analogous to the almost global prohibition of incest; the harm from homozygous recessive disease arising from incest was suppressed not by a genetic mechanism but by developing social norms.

    • Replies: @Valentino
    @Tark Marg


    Genetic issues need not be fixed by genetic means. Humans did not evolve fur or blubber to deal with arctic conditions. Similarly in my opinion the existence of homosexuality has mostly been paired across history and space with social norms which seek to suppress this tendency as in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. This is analogous to the almost global prohibition of incest; the harm from homozygous recessive disease arising from incest was suppressed not by a genetic mechanism but by developing social norms.
     
    You mean essentially only Abrahamic religions.
  62. @Gordo
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It’s true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don’t reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.
     
    But it reduces that adult's fitness. So gay uncle theory?

    Replies: @BB753, @TWS

    No doesn’t come close to offering the fitness reward.

  63. @robot
    OT: Is Ken Burns skewing his storyline to emphasize the unity and underplay the disagreements in 'country' music? Sex, drugs, drink, religion, politics, war, family-- I wish he'd analyse how these themes cross every musical genre.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Bugg, @Carol

    Burns had a whole jag about Ray Charles doing an album of country tunes as some wonderful crossover. It sold a bundle and he won some Grammies. Reality is for better or worse Charles,a great artist, and his money guys figured out a way to sell a shitload of records to middle America taking a bunch of country songs and doing his own arrangements. It was about money, race had nothing to do with it,and there’s nothing wrong with any of that. Would rather listen to Ray Charles sing the alphabet song than Bruce Springsteen, Woody Guthrie or Pete Seeger sing anything.

    Pat Boone did something like that with heavy metal records in the 1990s, and for a time he got a career jolt.He had been so inspired by his next door neighbor and pal, Ozzy Osbourne. But it was not some great seminal moment. Was a lot of fun; Malcolm Gladwell even spends a whole podcast discussing it and why Boone should be in the rock n roll Hall of Fame in part because of it. Being a white guy though, and metal being a very white genre, don’t expect Ken Burns to tell us how this was a watershed moment in American society.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @Bugg

    Good comment. Who expected anything different from a Burns production? It’s a polished turd.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  64. @gman
    off topic

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/22/a-looming-immigration-policy-is-spooking-bay-area-families/

    from the link:
    "Yuri, who came to the United States from Michoacán, Mexico, was enrolled in CalFresh, California’s food stamp program, for her 7 children, who range in age from just over a month to 15 and who all were born in this country. But with the new rule, Yuri, wondered, would staying on food stamps imperil her asylum application or get her deported?"

    7 children?

    Replies: @bomag, @Alden

    7 children?

    Yeah, our otherwise incurious news orgs. are suddenly able to find the largest family around, and are now all in favor of family values.

    Locally, they found an illegal with five kids, and the Nice White Ladies were doing their thing on the fed courthouse lawn.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @bomag

    Sure, why should your personal money situation be an impediment to having children? I happened to catch part of a "Murray Show" where a black man was having a dispute over the fatherhood of a child. He had already had at least six children, IIRC.

    He WAS the Father.

    He worked at Burger King.

    Now you know why Black population increased 4X from the beginning 70s to now.

    Your tax money at work.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @SimpleSong

  65. @Peter Akuleyev
    Risk taking may be a negative trait in an individual but it arguably increases the fitness of the tribe by driving innovation. Schizophrenia is also correlated with creativity. It is not hard to imagine that a lot of „prophets“ who helped lay the groundwork for most of the world‘s major religions (and thereby organizing principles for large scale civilizations) were bipolar types with homosexual tendencies.

    Replies: @TWS

    There is absolutely no such thing as group fitness.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @TWS

    Of course there is. Especially in humans who are very social animals and can’t survive alone.

  66. @Realist
    I am a strong believer that homosexuality is not a result of free will/lifestyle choice.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @JR Ewing, @TWS

    I am a strong believer that homosexuality is not a result of free will/lifestyle choice.

    Female homosexuality seems to be largely a result of free will/lifestyle choice.

    Of course it is possible that homosexuality is a result of a combination of genetic, pre-natal and cultural influences. It doesn’t have to be either/or.

  67. @bored identity
    @Coffee Jack

    Three-Letter Man Gene a'int a real thing...

    Napoleon Sodomite Syndrome is elementary mental.


    Example:

    "Y'all were laughing, but Martin Prince knew even then that this simple maneuver will secure him path to Justice Kavanaugh's seat in 2049" :

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEyQbFsX4AEAAqq.jpg

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Chrisnonymous

    I hope he got a BJ out of that.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @Chrisnonymous

    Not funny, sir...( snicker)

    , @bored identity
    @Chrisnonymous

    BJs produce too much steam into the atmosphere.

    Martin will maintain his Carbon Schmuckprint on the lowest possible level for many, many decades to come.

    , @Duke84
    @Chrisnonymous

    Looks like he would prefer a donut.

  68. @Maciano
    @obwandiyag

    Greg's argument is (and always has been) that both genetic and cultural explanations of male homosexuality are unsatisfactory.

    The reason is quite clear: homosexuality is at odds with Darwinism. 1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children. So, how come? This simply can’t survive for many generations without some other factor creating homosexuals. So: pure genetics is out.

    But that other factor doesn’t seem to exist. Neurotic mothers, (sexual) abuse, gender fluidity etc., all fall short as decent explanations.

    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.

    Replies: @El Dato, @jon, @Reg Cæsar, @dr kill

    1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children.

    Why do you assume this? In most societies, everyone is expected to “be fruitful and multiply”. In such an environment, queers have an incentive to outbreed their neighbors: pregnancy is the best excuse for getting out of the hated sex act.

    I know a family where an eventual lesbian was 14% of her generation but produced 19% of the next. This figure dipped a bit as one of hers was among those who died young, but that’s still higher at 16.7%.

    I’m not supporting the genetic explanation, just pointing out that it is not as impossible as people take it to be.

    • Replies: @jon
    @Reg Cæsar


    Why do you assume this? In most societies, everyone is expected to “be fruitful and multiply”. In such an environment, queers have an incentive to outbreed their neighbors: pregnancy is the best excuse for getting out of the hated sex act.
     
    Whenever this topic comes up, I always mention this (including upthread). No one ever seems to address the fact that, at least until relatively recently (and only really in the West) it was not acceptable for gay people to avoid getting married and having kids. The ancient Greeks were all sodomizing each other with reckless abandon, but they also all got married and fathered kids, so the Greeks didn't disappear.

    Replies: @HEL

    , @Anonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    My dad knew a woman (thin and attractive even after kids) that had five kids by 30. At 40, her husband of twenty years traded her in on a new younger model. After a big freakfest, a divorce, and much shit slinging, she decided she was a lesbian and moved in (along with her brood) with a butch lickalotapus dinosaur (imagine a 300 lb, 6' Ann B.Davis who could lift a head off an 8V71 Detroit without undue effort-she was, literally, a diesel dyke!) who also had three kids before deciding she too was a lesbian.

    They still live together although the butch is getting to be afflicted by senility at 80+ now.

    All eight kids are completely screwed up, several have done time, they all have illegitimate kids, two of the girls are major coalburners, one of the boys is down for life without in Missouri.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  69. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It's true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don't reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.

    Homosexual Reparations is going to be a heavy lift, but I don't doubt their commitment.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Redneck farmer, @Gordo, @jb, @Chrisnonymous, @prime noticer

    I think the sibling thing makes sense in reverse. Your first born needs to have higher reproductive capacity. If you die after 1, your firstborn will keep on keepin’ on, but if your first is gay and you die, game over.

    Therefore, I think the issue is not that younger siblings are gay but that older siblings are especially not gay.

    Also,

    the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things.

    Are they? Don’t gays have higher incomes and more education than straights?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Chrisnonymous



    the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things.

     

    Are they? Don’t gays have higher incomes and more education than straights?
     
    Considering the questionable sources of much income and the state of education today, these phenomena are hardly contradictory!
    , @pyrrhus
    @Chrisnonymous

    No, they don't.....

  70. @BB753
    @Gordo

    Your "gay Uncle" is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness.
    Of all the gay theories out there, it's perhaps the most asinine.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JMcG, @prime noticer

    Your “gay Uncle” is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness.

    In Rhode Island, he can legally marry one of them, as long as he’s Jewish:

    http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE15/15-1/15-1-4.HTM

    • Agree: BB753
  71. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races.

    One hears this a lot these days. It is tiresome. People in the ancient world did not have the global experience of nineteenth-century colianialism. A more granular understanding of human descent groups and populations therefore prevailed. Ancient authors however absolutely recognized and discussed different nations, clans and families and generalized about the behaviors and characteristics of these different groups. Words like génos in Greek and gens in Latin map very readily upon a very great part of the semantic range captured by our “race.”

    Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of “homosexual”, or “heterosexual”, or ” bisexual”.

    Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is the modern packaging assumed by underlying sexual behaviors and proclivities that are attested in ancient sources. These were guided in different directions by ancient cultural expectations and social requirements. What we hear about them is also necessarily restricted by the selective and incomplete nature of extant sources. There were however certainly people in the ancient world who enjoyed or preferred sexual companions of the same sex, men even in cultures that placed a heavy accent on masculinity (much of the Roman empire) who preferred passive sexual roles (we can gather this much because such activity was disparaged).

    Christianity […] it’s emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction […] it’s strong rejection of “sodomy”.

    1) Christians were not the first to deplore sodomy.
    2) Were Christianity somehow responsible for homosexuality, there would seem to be no difficulty locating homosexuality in the ancient world, Christianity being a dominant cultural force from the 4th c. onwards.

    The Industrial Revolution came along, and the ” heterosexual” family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men.

    It is hard to know what to say to somebody who seems to think that marriage between men and women, the social expectation that they would mate and produce offspring, and the social, cultural and legal recognition of their legitimate children had to wait for Christianity + Industrial Revolution (I guess the Chinese had no “sexuality” before their 20th-century industrialization?) to receive “emphasis” (or even “more emphasis”). These are the cornerstones of law, culture and literature literally across the ancient world and our sources overflow with these things.

    “Sexuality” is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    No.

  72. …correlated (at a statistically significant level) with risk-taking, cannabis use, schizophrenia, ADHD, major depressive disorder, loneliness, and number of sex partners.

    What? Not left-handedness?

    https://vdare.com/articles/are-southpaws-really-sinister-increased-incidence-suggests-we-re-headed-for-mouse-utopia-collapse

    …we knew that the heritability of homosexuality is not terribly high

    Has anybody ever seen Steve and Greg in the same room at the same time?

  73. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Nick Diaz

    If sexuality is an "invented concept" then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn't know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I'd ever seen.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Alden, @Mr. Blank, @Nick Diaz, @Ron Mexico, @JEG

    There is no point in explaining anything to Nick Diaz. He’s a bloviating retard. His posts could be replaced with “wah, wah, wah, wah,……” or a random pattern of 1’s and 0’s and it would make no difference.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    @Mr. Anon

    This coming from the dumb cow that can't even spell the word "ethnicity".

    Oh, you think I am that? Here is news for you: I couldn't care less about your opinion of me, because in order for me to care I would have to respect your intellect. Which I don't. Your posts are you ranting at people like a dumbass. You have never said anything intelligent or even remotely intelligible. You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5' weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.

    Yes, we have nothing in common, Ms.Anonyma. I am Latino, intelligent and well-educated, while you are a stereotype of the white conservative: uneducated, stupid, prejudiced, racist scum. I would love to meet in person and put my finger in your face.

    The only thing that we have in common, Ms.Anonyma, is that I am a dick and you suck. Other than that we have nothing in common. Hey, Ms.Anonyma: go f-k yourself.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    , @Nick Diaz
    @Mr. Anon

    This coming from the dummy that can’t even spell the word “ethnicity”.
    Oh, you think I am that? Here is news for you: I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me, because in order for me to care I would have to respect your intellect. Which I don’t. Your posts are you ranting at people like a dumbass. You have never said anything intelligent or even remotely intelligible. You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5′ weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.
    Yes, we have nothing in common, Ms.Anonyma. I am Latino, intelligent and well-educated, while you are a stereotype of the white conservative: uneducated, stupid, prejudiced, racist scum. I would love to meet in person and put my finger in your face.
    The only thing that we have in common, Ms.Anonyma, is that I am a dick and you suck. Other than that we have nothing in common. Hey, Ms.Anonyma: go "f" you.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @William Badwhite

  74. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin’s theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete.

    On the contrary. While certainly not “deeply flawed” (as it is as simple & basic as boiling mashed potatoes) there is ongoing work on refinement, in particular … what’s the search space?

    Mathematical Simplicity May Drive Evolution’s Speed

  75. @Kronos
    @petit bourgeois

    They are the pinnacle of gentrification P.B.. They’re are the opposite of the black man, who only leaves destruction and white flight in his wake. The gay man is a soothing balm on the hemorrhoidic anus which are American cities.

    Sailer also wrote a superb article in Taki Magazine a few years back in regards to rejuvenating city centers. That the key is to unleash the power of gays. They invest their own money into home improvements and make bars, coffee shops, and art galleries full.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @Alden

    Where I live they have certainly transformed the downtown area into “sodapopa” type gentrification, so I do not doubt their ability to transform quincanera bridal shops into hipster bars and gourmand offerings.

    But when angry purple haired lesbians start dictating what our politics should be, I also understand how such a small percentage of our society tries to control the rest of us. I don’t have any personal animus towards them, but they really need to go back in the closet and let the rest of us “breeders” live our lives the way that we want.

    Speaking of “sodapopa” type gentrification, the new season of South Park starts tomorrow night, and I can’t wait to see how Parker and Stone deal with the current cancel culture.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @petit bourgeois

    Oh, that was a great one!

    https://youtu.be/miXMWJyOdgw

    , @MEH 0910
    @petit bourgeois

    https://twitter.com/SouthPark/status/1176559326422544384

    ICE Comes for the Broflovskis - South Park
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiP8VA0Ijfo


    Published on Sep 23, 2019
    An anonymous tip leads ICE to stage a raid on the Broflovski house, separating Kyle and Ike from their parents.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  76. I have an idea, you guys tell me if it’s stupid or not.

    What if there were a gene variant that increases fitness if expressed in men and decreased fitness if expressed in women? Or vice versa.

    As a silly example- gene x gives both men and women bigger breasts. That might hurt men’s reproductive fitness and help women.

    What if the ‘gay gene’ worked something like this?m: If your daughter get the gene variant she behaves in a more traditionally feminine manner and somehow ends up having more kids. If your son gets it he is more effeminate with some increased chance of being gay. Over the long term, it could balance out so that the frequency of the gene variant stays stable over time.

    Thoughts?

    • Replies: @donvonburg
    @Alastair Trumpington

    In the natural state man has been beset by homosexuality since, roughly, forever. Even if you don't believe the Bible being the true Word of God, you have to admit the Book of Genesis is at least four thousand years old. To describe Sodom and Gomorrah the writer had to have some contact with an advanced level of, ahem, "gay culture". The ancient Greeks certainly had different and conflicting ideas on the practice and propriety of it, but it was well described, at least several hundred years before Christ.

    But homosexuals have always been a tiny minority and though they often had a disproportionate influence they were never really in control of things-except in a tiny number of places where things didn't turn out well in short order. Healthy societies may leave homosexuals alone but they don't let them run things and keep them out of positions of real power and influence.

    I predict Apple Computer will be a massively reduced company or not exist at all in a decade or so based on nothing more than Tim Cook being 1) incapable of having created what he runs and 2) yes, gay. There are many other reasons, too, but I suspect 1 and 2 are sufficient. Time will tell if I am right or wrong. But I'm not buying Apple stock.

    I might hire a known homosexual for a job in which homosexuals typically do well but I would not hire one for any position of serious responsibility or in which he or she might have to interact with what I consider vulnerable members of the community. That's probably actually illegal, or would open me to civil sanction were it publicized. So be it.

    It does seem that female homosexuality does differ in the respect that it's much more situational than the male version. I have female family members that had dalliances with "being lesbians" then "straightened out". They have stayed straightened out. They are grandmothers now and their grandkids have no idea and I hope it stays that way.

    Men who are gay stay gay. My church has had a gay-man-to-straight ministry for some time and my private thought is that it wastes everyone's time and annoys the gay, so to speak. Worse, some of these guys have "gone straight" and married , fathered kids, then "fallen off the p***ywagon" (sorry, I know it's a sin, but I couldn't resist that mixed metaphor!!) and went back to rump rangering leaving a devastated wife and kids in a bad situation to say the least. I don't have the answer, there probably isn't one. Maybe the Catholics were half right-make them priests, but in an order with little public contact instead of diocese priests around all that pubescent chicken.

    Replies: @Aft

  77. @Steve Sailer
    @robot

    Half the songs in country music are about being a faithful work-a-daddy and the other half are about being a woman-chasing hell-raiser.

    Replies: @Daniel Williams, @Apu Apu

    There’re great ones about how booze turns the former into the latter.

    A personal fave:

  78. @JMcG
    @obwandiyag

    Can someone give this guy some crayons?

    Replies: @fish

    Can someone give this guy some crayons?

    He’ll just hurt himself…….

  79. @Realist
    I am a strong believer that homosexuality is not a result of free will/lifestyle choice.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @JR Ewing, @TWS

    Sure, we all have urges that we can’t eliminate or explain.

    But sticking one’s sexual member into another’s rectum is 100% free will. As is all of the other “lifestyle” actions these people engage in.

    • Agree: TTSSYF, Dissident
    • Replies: @Realist
    @JR Ewing


    But sticking one’s sexual member into another’s rectum is 100% free will. As is all of the other “lifestyle” actions these people engage in.
     
    Yes, as is sticking one’s sexual member into another’s vagina...your point? Why does the consensual sex act of homosexuals cause you such consternation? Homosexuality is repugnant to me, but the fact that some have homosexual relations is none of my business.

    Replies: @JMcG

  80. There is a certain amount of evidence supporting the idea that societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs.

    One example: not too many years ago some folks doing a monkey study realized they could treat monkeys for depression. So they did. And the monkey society got wiped out. Why? Because the depressed monkeys would wander out to the outskirts of the living area. When a dangerous predator came by, the depressed monkeys were the first to be aware of the danger. They alerted their comrades, and saved the monkeys.

    Consider that primitive human villages had about 200 people. Since women live longer than men, this would be over 100 women and under 100 men. The exact ratio would depend on whether the village recently fought a battle which wiped out many of the men.

    A small number of men had to be oddballs. The village medicine man/ priest. The wise old village chief. The loner who is really good at tracking animals. The extrovert who could bind them men together in a hunting or war party. The great teacher who can teach the boys how to become men. And so on.

    It is quite possible that the village functions better with at least one or two gays, and at least A few guys who swing both ways.

    Just an interesting hypothesis to consider.

    Which brings up the question: is modern society better off with its oddballs? The Turings or Stallmans of this world.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Paleo Liberal

    The old societies had use for their trannies too (shaman, crazy bridge toll-taker, etc.). It never occurred to them to install trannies as their jet fighter pilots and daycare matrons

    , @Chris Renner
    @Paleo Liberal


    societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs
     
    As an oddball I'd tend to agree with this.

    That said, oddballs present 2 significant challenges to the society. First, they need to remain a small enough percentage that they don't destroy the group's internal cohesion. Second, their odd habits need to be channeled in a direction that isn't self-destructive.

    Our modern society fails at both, particularly in the case of gay men (by failing to insist on any kind of self-restraint) and weird kids (by telling them that surgical and hormonal mutilation is preferable to behaving in a way that's not typical of their sex).

    Replies: @SimpleSong

    , @kaganovitch
    @Paleo Liberal

    One example: not too many years ago some folks doing a monkey study realized they could treat monkeys for depression. So they did. And the monkey society got wiped out. Why? Because the depressed monkeys would wander out to the outskirts of the living area. When a dangerous predator came by, the depressed monkeys were the first to be aware of the danger. They alerted their comrades, and saved the monkeys.

    I know nothing about this but I would bet this "study" is complete B.S.

    , @Bill
    @Paleo Liberal

    Did women live longer than men in "primitive human villages?" Childbirth is pretty dangerous.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    , @Elli
    @Paleo Liberal

    In earlier times, female life expectancy was not longer. As many or more women died young from child-bearing as men did from fighting.

  81. @BB753
    @Gordo

    Your "gay Uncle" is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness.
    Of all the gay theories out there, it's perhaps the most asinine.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JMcG, @prime noticer

    Anyone with any experience should realize that the paradigm of the gentle, benevolent homosexual is entirely out of line with reality. Gay men combine all the worst qualities of both sexes, very often to ruinous excess.

  82. @Genrick Yagoda
    I don't know why the left is is eager to accept that there is a gene for homosexual behavior.

    Because once they accept that, then it follows that the uber-violent behavior of blacks is genetic, and so is the behavior of God's Chosen.

    Replies: @peterike, @Unladen Swallow, @anonymous

    I don’t know why the left is is eager to accept that there is a gene for homosexual behavior. Because once they accept that, then it follows that the uber-violent behavior of blacks is genetic, and so is the behavior of God’s Chosen.

    You generously overestimate the Left’s need for logic or consistency in their views.

  83. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    "female homosexuals would not show consistent genetic markers"

    In most cases female homosexuality is a pretty fluid thing. I knew one who ended up married to a man and having three children, they're still together.

    At the moment there's probably more of it about because it is, if not socially accepted, very much accepted in the social media world that young women inhabit.

    Replies: @peterike, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    In most cases female homosexuality is a pretty fluid thing… At the moment there’s probably more of it about because it is, if not socially accepted, very much accepted in the social media world that young women inhabit.

    It’s more than “very much accepted.” It’s praised and given overt, tangible privilege (there’s that word) over heterosexuality. Most especially in the hot-house atmosphere of the contemporary university. Yet the snowflakes still think it’s “brave” to come-out, when the result is 100% upside. It’s far braver to stay straight.

  84. @El Dato
    @bored identity

    How do the reporters know it's a "Young Boy"?

    This modern sex straightjacketing is emotionally exhausting.

    The best part is Greta doing her "Soon!" Memepersonation.

    https://i.imgur.com/3kRqfsS.jpg

    "Let the Baron talk for now..."

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Bies Podkrakowski

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Inquiring Mind

    Now you know why the easygoing Danes don't like Swedes.

    Replies: @Lot

    , @Daniel H
    @Inquiring Mind

    Looking at her I can't believe that she is 16 years. She looks to be about 11 or 12. She displays no sexual maturation characteristics (no breasts). This is probably a good thing. I have read that as recently as 150 years ago girls matured at 16-18, rather than 12-13. It is probably better for girls' psychological and physical development to mature slower.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Inquiring Mind

    That Greta Thunberg is creepy-looking. Makes me think that she is a future mass killer.

    Admittedly autistic with obsessive-compulsive disorder. On top of that, possibly fetal alcohol syndrome or mosaic downs syndrome. Extremely short.

    She's a puppet. Every teenage activist is being manipulated by an adult.

    , @William Badwhite
    @Inquiring Mind

    Can someone please help this chap with how to post pictures rather than links to pics? I'd tell him but I don't know either.

    Replies: @adreadline, @J.Ross

  85. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @U. Ranus
    Cochran is pandering to his audience, but offers nothing of substance. Tradcon rightwingers on homosexuality are really indistinguishable from progressives on HBD. Let's ignore the evidence before our own eyes!

    Globohomo is now a word and for good reasons. Globoschizophrenic, Globodepressive, Globoloner? LOL. There's obviously something that allows male homosexuals cut through society to their benefit so successfully that it easily compensates for some small-effect-size detrimental correlated traits.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @pyrrhus

    So what you are saying is that homo sex is an aspect of a larger tendency (gene-loaded or not) which prospers in this globocapitalist paradigm. That is essentially the old churchy argument.

    Sad to say, figuring this out seems about as important as determining why some prefer Mary Ann to Ginger, or vice versa. Healthy red-blooded straight men will hump a plastic mannequin that (sort of) looks like a woman, with no Darwinian profit issuing from that kind of behavior. Requiring male ponces to sire children will not fix our homosociety, in fact it militates against the objective. We are raising Gay Armies

  86. @Maciano
    @obwandiyag

    Greg's argument is (and always has been) that both genetic and cultural explanations of male homosexuality are unsatisfactory.

    The reason is quite clear: homosexuality is at odds with Darwinism. 1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children. So, how come? This simply can’t survive for many generations without some other factor creating homosexuals. So: pure genetics is out.

    But that other factor doesn’t seem to exist. Neurotic mothers, (sexual) abuse, gender fluidity etc., all fall short as decent explanations.

    You’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing problem to solve from a Darwinistic framework.

    Replies: @El Dato, @jon, @Reg Cæsar, @dr kill

    I don’t identify a problem with homosexuality and Natural Selection. Genes insist on reproducing, and they insist on trying infinite strategies, with only an occasional success. Genes don’t think, they don’t plan or predict the future. Genes don’t know that Greg will find the traits associated with homosexuality troublesome. Genes are not capable of finding Greg or your ideas amusing, so I will do it for them.

  87. It is baffling that people do not know that gay men usually do actually breed. When they have kids they have them young. They are far more sexually active at a young age than heterosexual males. For anyone capable of statistical math having one child early equals having a standard number of children later in life.

    Cochran’s explanation doesn’t pass the laugh test. The guy is clearly on the spectrum he “knows” the absolute answer to everything.

    • Agree: jon
    • Replies: @gcochran
    @Mike1

    "For anyone capable of statistical math having one child early equals having a standard number of children later in life."

    Nope.

    Replies: @Mike1

  88. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a certain amount of evidence supporting the idea that societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs.

    One example: not too many years ago some folks doing a monkey study realized they could treat monkeys for depression. So they did. And the monkey society got wiped out. Why? Because the depressed monkeys would wander out to the outskirts of the living area. When a dangerous predator came by, the depressed monkeys were the first to be aware of the danger. They alerted their comrades, and saved the monkeys.

    Consider that primitive human villages had about 200 people. Since women live longer than men, this would be over 100 women and under 100 men. The exact ratio would depend on whether the village recently fought a battle which wiped out many of the men.

    A small number of men had to be oddballs. The village medicine man/ priest. The wise old village chief. The loner who is really good at tracking animals. The extrovert who could bind them men together in a hunting or war party. The great teacher who can teach the boys how to become men. And so on.

    It is quite possible that the village functions better with at least one or two gays, and at least A few guys who swing both ways.

    Just an interesting hypothesis to consider.

    Which brings up the question: is modern society better off with its oddballs? The Turings or Stallmans of this world.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris Renner, @kaganovitch, @Bill, @Elli

    The old societies had use for their trannies too (shaman, crazy bridge toll-taker, etc.). It never occurred to them to install trannies as their jet fighter pilots and daycare matrons

  89. @El Dato
    @bored identity

    How do the reporters know it's a "Young Boy"?

    This modern sex straightjacketing is emotionally exhausting.

    The best part is Greta doing her "Soon!" Memepersonation.

    https://i.imgur.com/3kRqfsS.jpg

    "Let the Baron talk for now..."

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Bies Podkrakowski

    Alia Atreides, also know as The Abomination prepares her gom jabbar.

  90. @El Dato
    Meanwhile, in the world of filler journalism and unimportant people:

    Chef melts under heat, will 86 future deals with family-separating US immigration agencies


    Embattled [software shop] Chef has U-turned and vowed to not work with two US immigration agencies beyond its ongoing contracts, following immense community and employee pressure.

    Chief exec Barry Crist on Monday told his staff that management has agreed not to renew its software supply deals with both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) when they expire later this year.

    "After deep introspection [huh?] and dialog within Chef, we will not renew our current contracts with ICE and CBP when they expire over the next year. Chef will fulfill our full obligations under the current contracts," said Crist.

    "We have also decided that we will donate an amount equivalent to our 2019 revenues from these two contracts directed to charities that help vulnerable people impacted by the policy of family separation and detention."
     

    Does this mean AOC will get something for her coffers?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    That’s a confusing goddamn name for a software company

  91. @Mr McKenna
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     

    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control.
     
    I've heard crazier theories. Question is, how do we export it to Africa and Asia, where population control is most desperately needed? Despite decades of Hollywood 'entertainment" exports, they haven't caught on; the few who do catch on seem to be the first to come to America.

    If there's one thing America doesn't need more of,

    Replies: @anon, @Mis(ter)Anthrope

    In order for a trait to “evolve as population control” it would have to be passed down.

  92. @Andrey illyich
    @Nick Diaz

    Eurocentric claptrap...if homosexuality was invented in Victorian England(!!!?), how can you explain its disdain in cultures very little influenced by Europe...or in ancient cultures centuries before the 18th century

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  93. @BenKenobi
    Sadly, the Vancouver city council rejected my proposal for a "Race for the Cure to Homosexuality" 10k run.

    Replies: @Ozymandias

    Cocks run in gay jeans?

  94. @Kronos
    I’ve always been curious about the social class breakdown of homosexuality. It seems to be more self-evident in high societies of high political intrigue. The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.


    Think about Down Syndrome. The pressure for it within itself isn’t there (they’re sterile) but the cognitive gene pressures lead towards falling off down certain IQ gene cliffs.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

    Replies: @Apu Apu, @ApacheTrout, @Old Palo Altan, @Alden, @Anonymous, @Bruno

    The man in the picture was sexually active with women from age 14 on despite the best efforts of his regent/ mother and numerous advisors . He had 10 children with his wife and 10,12 who knows how many with other women.

    If you wanted to display a homosexual King of France, find pictures of his father, Louis 13.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Alden

    Which supports my point. Both the Sun King’s Father and Brother possessed strong homosexual tendencies. Something that suggests that genetics are afoot. That some male political leaders possessed superb interpersonal social skills that surpassed the average woman.

    The best modern political incarnation of that trait is Bill Clinton. That man could win over women in the millions with the “I feel your pain” speeches and hugging Presidential debate observers. George HW Bush and Perot were superb analytical skills but lacked Bill’s finesse in a crowd. Jeff Epstein was right to be awed by D.C.’s most skillful political animal.

    I’d strongly argue Billie boy understood women quite well. (That proved his partial undoing.) that his kind possess cognitive genes that help provide a extrovert feel for predicting the thoughts of women. Something that if genetically overloaded might turn someone gay.


    https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/10/02/20121002-210809-pic-941487354_c0-51-2000-1217_s885x516.jpg?707d9da97e64104b97cfb3eb3ea5bd859d4c216a

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  95. @TWS
    @Peter Akuleyev

    There is absolutely no such thing as group fitness.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    Of course there is. Especially in humans who are very social animals and can’t survive alone.

  96. @jon
    @Maciano


    1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children.
     
    The 'few children' is pretty recent though, right? 100 years ago you couldn't really just live life as a gay guy - your options were be a hermit, be a priest (if you were Catholic) or be a married gay guy with a family. Most chose the latter.

    Replies: @Old Prude

    At a recent memorial service for a gay friend who passed away I met three gay men who had all been married and fathered children.

  97. @Inquiring Mind
    @El Dato

    Does Ms. Thunberg have a certain Damien from "The Omen" ominous look to her?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=9CADF0800722B8AB4971CC598ED171425398A73F&thid=OIP.X3AVLyhXI1lHJXs9VPjLdgHaFj&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lf02DoQOJag%2FUqOg0yq1E5I%2FAAAAAAAAG5c%2FaET0EP1AAJw%2Fs1600%2Fthe-omen-damian.jpeg&exph=480&expw=640&q=damien+in+the+omen&selectedindex=25&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or are we talking of a more innocent Wednesday Addams look?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=wednesday+from+the+addams+family&id=EBC38D048E520CD586294528DCF1BF4DF7FDBE01&s=1&view=detailv2&rtpu=%2fsearch%3fq%3dwednesday+from+the+addams+family&form=IEQNAI&selectedindex=0&exph=0&expw=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or the defiant response to "what is your costume"

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=addams+family+what+is+your+costume+scene%3f&view=detail&mid=B2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CAB2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CA&FORM=VIRE

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Daniel H, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @William Badwhite

    Now you know why the easygoing Danes don’t like Swedes.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Reg Cæsar

    “Now you know why the easygoing Danes don’t like Swedes.”

    I thought it was because they were drunks.

    https://i.imgur.com/kolAO_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

  98. @gman
    off topic

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/22/a-looming-immigration-policy-is-spooking-bay-area-families/

    from the link:
    "Yuri, who came to the United States from Michoacán, Mexico, was enrolled in CalFresh, California’s food stamp program, for her 7 children, who range in age from just over a month to 15 and who all were born in this country. But with the new rule, Yuri, wondered, would staying on food stamps imperil her asylum application or get her deported?"

    7 children?

    Replies: @bomag, @Alden

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    The anti birth control men are very careful to limit their own families to the one or two children they can support.

    Yet they rant against birth control and blame the pill, not the older methods for all the ills of society.

    Hypocrites. Or more likely sad old bachelors who never did the deed that results in conception.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Alden

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes

    Hundreds? Really?

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Alden

    That woman's seven children are supported by the taxpayer. I've got no problem with people having lots of kids if they can support them, it's actually eugenic (if you can earn enough to support 7 kids, you're probably pretty bright and your kids will be too).

    Welfare is highly dysgenic, in that you are subsidising people to have babies who couldn't otherwise afford to have them (OK, some people will have too many kids come what may, they always did even before welfare, and they serve as a negative example to others).

    The only good reform of the cowardly former UK Prime Minister David Cameron was to limit welfare benefits to the first two children only.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Alden


    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.
     
    Birth control is inherently dysgenic. You have to know how to use it, and keep to it.

    Stopping to put on a condom presumes one can stop in the first place.

    Replies: @Sean

    , @AnotherDad
    @Alden


    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.
     
    I think pretty much everyone here does realize that.

    Obviously i can't speak for everyone, but i think there are a fair number of people here who have opinions one this within a standard deviation or so of my own.

    -- The Pill was more a radical change in birth control, that--however convenient--seems to have substantially disrupted sexual/marriage/fertility norms in the West.

    Slut culture is incredibly bad for maintaining a high-functioning civilization. Sub-replacement fertility, of particularly of the college level IQ women who carefully use birth control isn't good.


    -- Birth control is fine, but once you have very effective birth control--especially with prosperity, disease control and other medical advances--then to maintain a healthy and competent population you *must* have eugenics. I.e. you must do something to counter the reality that the the least competent people may continue to squirt out kids. (Welfare is the flip side of this. Public provision for those who really can't take care of themselves is fine--Christian charity. But for the same reason, it must be accompanied by eugenic policy.)

    Eugenics was "on the table" for these reasons by Protestant Progressives 100 years ago. But after the Jewish ascendancy and the rise of the minoritarian ideology, eugenics was somehow "discredited" by the Nazis and pretty soon even talking about the 3rd world population explosion--common as spit when i was a teenager ("Limits to Growth" etc.)--was out.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Bill
    @Alden

    Unz.com: anti-birth-control hotbed

  99. @Bugg
    @robot

    Burns had a whole jag about Ray Charles doing an album of country tunes as some wonderful crossover. It sold a bundle and he won some Grammies. Reality is for better or worse Charles,a great artist, and his money guys figured out a way to sell a shitload of records to middle America taking a bunch of country songs and doing his own arrangements. It was about money, race had nothing to do with it,and there's nothing wrong with any of that. Would rather listen to Ray Charles sing the alphabet song than Bruce Springsteen, Woody Guthrie or Pete Seeger sing anything.

    Pat Boone did something like that with heavy metal records in the 1990s, and for a time he got a career jolt.He had been so inspired by his next door neighbor and pal, Ozzy Osbourne. But it was not some great seminal moment. Was a lot of fun; Malcolm Gladwell even spends a whole podcast discussing it and why Boone should be in the rock n roll Hall of Fame in part because of it. Being a white guy though, and metal being a very white genre, don't expect Ken Burns to tell us how this was a watershed moment in American society.

    Replies: @Old Prude

    Good comment. Who expected anything different from a Burns production? It’s a polished turd.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Old Prude


    Who expected anything different from a Burns production? It’s a polished turd.
     
    True, but even some of my nazi friends are lapping it up. Burns is so soothing.

    Burns hit it big with the Civil War and it's been down hill for me ever since, but he does know how to pander to the NPR good whites.
  100. @Chrisnonymous
    @bored identity

    I hope he got a BJ out of that.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @bored identity, @Duke84

    Not funny, sir…( snicker)

  101. @Kronos
    @petit bourgeois

    They are the pinnacle of gentrification P.B.. They’re are the opposite of the black man, who only leaves destruction and white flight in his wake. The gay man is a soothing balm on the hemorrhoidic anus which are American cities.

    Sailer also wrote a superb article in Taki Magazine a few years back in regards to rejuvenating city centers. That the key is to unleash the power of gays. They invest their own money into home improvements and make bars, coffee shops, and art galleries full.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @Alden

    It sure worked in the San Francisco Fillmore neighborhood. 15 years. 1975 to 1990 from one of the worst black ghettos in the country to one of the nicest neighborhoods in town.

    Fillmore 1870 to 1940 a great mostly White some Japanese neighborhood. 1940 to 1945 transition as the apes brought from the south to work in the WW2 shipyards began the destruction.

    1945 to 1975 notorious ghetto, best known for 12-16 year old retarded enslaved black teen prostitutes and their black pimps.

    1975 to 1990 transition back to White and Asian.

    1990 to present, great neighborhood again.
    Still too many blacks in the city though.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Alden

    Don’t worry, I hear they’re working on it.

    https://youtu.be/C0FnJDhY9-0

    San Fran is like only 5% black now right?

  102. @bomag
    @gman


    7 children?
     
    Yeah, our otherwise incurious news orgs. are suddenly able to find the largest family around, and are now all in favor of family values.

    Locally, they found an illegal with five kids, and the Nice White Ladies were doing their thing on the fed courthouse lawn.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Sure, why should your personal money situation be an impediment to having children? I happened to catch part of a “Murray Show” where a black man was having a dispute over the fatherhood of a child. He had already had at least six children, IIRC.

    He WAS the Father.

    He worked at Burger King.

    Now you know why Black population increased 4X from the beginning 70s to now.

    Your tax money at work.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Joe Stalin

    At a former place of employment, a 35-year-old Black fellow who worked in Office Services had five children by three different women.

    , @SimpleSong
    @Joe Stalin

    Reproduction in American Blacks is seriously, seriously dysgenic. The worst of the worst have the most kids. The talented tenth doesn't have any. In whites it actually seems pretty eugenic to me--the people who have it all together seem to have relatively big families. Asians, neutral, hispanics, dysgenic. Just my impression though; no data on this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Oddsbodkins

  103. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Nick Diaz

    If sexuality is an "invented concept" then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn't know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I'd ever seen.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Alden, @Mr. Blank, @Nick Diaz, @Ron Mexico, @JEG

    My brothers used to pore over the women’s underwear sections of the Sears and Spiegel catalogs. I never had any desire to look at the men’s under wear ADs.

  104. @petit bourgeois
    @Kronos

    Where I live they have certainly transformed the downtown area into "sodapopa" type gentrification, so I do not doubt their ability to transform quincanera bridal shops into hipster bars and gourmand offerings.

    But when angry purple haired lesbians start dictating what our politics should be, I also understand how such a small percentage of our society tries to control the rest of us. I don't have any personal animus towards them, but they really need to go back in the closet and let the rest of us "breeders" live our lives the way that we want.

    Speaking of "sodapopa" type gentrification, the new season of South Park starts tomorrow night, and I can't wait to see how Parker and Stone deal with the current cancel culture.

    Replies: @Kronos, @MEH 0910

    Oh, that was a great one!

  105. It seems that less testosterone improves social skills, and perhaps political effectiveness and power. This might be useful in a ruler’s court, a Royal bon vivant’s salon or a large bureaucracy. Eunuchs in China ascended to administrative power inside the imperial courts. It is clear that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has become a haven for gays and pedophiles.

    Not sure if large administrative organizations benefit from an efficiency standpoint in having lots of gay men with great communication skills, or the environment is simply attractive and/or nurturing for gays. It may also be that they serve as a bridge between influential women and male rulers and somehow this improves organizational effectiveness.

    See:
    http://chinaknowledge.de/History/Terms/eunuchs.html

    And if you can find it, Chapter 4 of this book;

    https://www.powells.com/book/rome-and-china-9780195336900

    There was certainly some sexual chicanery going on in the Roman world in Baia, the equivalent in Las Vegas of the Roman Empire:

    In Baiae, “unmarried women are common property, old men behave like young boys, and lots of young boys act like young girls,” wrote the ancient Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro

    At a minimum, having homosexuals mixed into the group complicates political relationships. There was a point when my son as a teenager asked me why people were so obsessed about which people were sleeping with each other as it seemed silly to him. I informed that you can never be assured of having an arms length transaction if a pair of the participants are screwing each other.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Muse


    https://www.livescience.com/22179-evolutionary-battle-sexes-height.html

    In modern western societies, studies have found that women who are on the short side tend to have more children. In contrast, average-height men do the best, reproductively speaking, outpacing short and tall men in number of children fathered [...]

    "We should not simply assume that when a trait is beneficial for one sex, that selection or evolution will necessarily favor this trait," study researcher Gert Stulp, a scientist at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, [...] In the same way, traits that harm one sex but not the other may not be "weeded out" by natural selection, Stulp said [...] The results revealed that in short families, where both brother and sister were likely to be below-average height, sisters had more children than brothers. In average-height families, however, brothers had more children than their sisters.. [...] "Because selection in this generation is then likely to be stronger on average-height men, the next generation will again be slightly taller," Stulp said. "This is, of course, to the detriment of women, so that the selection pressure on female height will get stronger to push it back to shorter height again."

    This back-and-forth loop between slightly shorter and slightly taller generations will continue as long as evolutionary pressures for men and women remain different, Stulp said.
     
  106. @Coffee Jack

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     
    Maybe they were instrumental in our learning how to cook meat properly, or having a clean cave.
    Maybe they invented dessert. Maybe they assisted, de facto, in civilizing savage tribes.
    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of "Queer Eye for the Cave Guy."

    Replies: @bored identity, @bored identity, @Apu Apu, @anon, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @J

    Homosexuality, with its disabled disgust threshold, its emphasis on wandering and exotic self-actualization, and its universal traumatic origin, is clearly a defense mechanism for surviving intolerable circumstances. Its probable prehistoric origin would be that one out of twenty guys actually getting wife time, and barbarities during conquests.

  107. @gabriel alberton
    @prime noticer


    varicoceles also reduce fitness, yet 15% of men have them to some degree, and we’ve been carrying them for thousands of years.

    greg’s long time argument that the fitness hit from homosexuality means that it should have ceased to exist thousands of years ago, and thus it must be due to outside germs, doesn’t make much sense. humans have a lot of things that hit their fitness, yet they struggle thru them to reproduction anyway.
     
    Regarding this, it must be kept in mind that it's 15% of men today, unless some kind of longitudinal study was done. The human population rose significantly in just a few generations due to almost sudden changes in the environment. Wouldn't it be possible that maladaptive traits that were rarer in the past got to be more common due to this quick, huge increase in numbers? And no, there's no reason to believe varicoceles was in fact rarer in the distant past, but I don't think we know anything about whether it was as common as it is today or not, so be careful when saying ''we've been carrying them for thousands of years''.

    And I don't think Cochran argued that the fact homosexuality brings a fitness hit means it should have ceased to exist long ago. What I recall him saying is that, at a few percent of the population, it's way too common so to be predominantly genetic in origin, and it'd be expected to be a tiny fraction of that if it was.

    While we're on the topic of genitalia, sausages, varicose eggs and all that, I'll say there are things that are odd to me regarding evolution, like the female spotted hyena having a pseudopenis, which is part of a masculizing package that certainly enables the females to be dominant over the male hyenas. However, the female pseudopenis, in addition to being an horrible abomination, is said to make the fundamental part of giving birth more difficult than it'd otherwise be, which, for someone naive like I am, seems like a hard enough fitness hit so to not compensate for having the females be strong enough to not be forced to give in to the males.

    The fact that spotted hyenas exist and have existed for quite a long time, however, and with the females all having a pseudopenis, shows that it was worth it, evolutionarily speaking, despite everything.

    Replies: @prime noticer

    “And I don’t think Cochran argued that the fact homosexuality brings a fitness hit means it should have ceased to exist long ago. What I recall him saying is that, at a few percent of the population, it’s way too common so to be predominantly genetic in origin, and it’d be expected to be a tiny fraction of that if it was.”

    his argument is that at 4% prevalence in the population, and considering the fitness hit, it can’t be genetic, so it must be an outside life form. a bacteria, virus, or something else, getting in, and messing things up.

    not a bad argument at all, since this is how other stuff we couldn’t understand for a long time, was eventually figured out. it’s the lead. it’s the mercury. it’s the plastic. things in the environment that weren’t in the body before, and now they are. remove the foreign substance, and the problem is gone. a very simple relationship that’s hard to see at first, but once you do, it’s instantly obvious.

    but here it’s not an outside agent. it’s a hormone malfunction, that would be happening even if there were no germs. making more humans is complicated and it can go wrong in a hundred ways. this is one of them. birth defects are a normal part of the process of making billions of humans. this is one of them.

  108. @ApacheTrout
    @Kronos

    Downs Syndrome is well established genetic disorder - trisomy 21.

    Replies: @Kronos

    Yes, a monogenetic disorder. But with polygenetic disorders (autism) it’s just a lot harder. You might have a different combo of genes in each person that may create something akin to a standardized disorder.

  109. @Old Palo Altan
    @Kronos

    What you depict is peacockery, not homosexuality. Before the detestable Revolution and the plague of egalitarianism, men were always more magnificently dressed than women. It is the height of anachronism to see this as effeminacy or anything approaching it.
    Louis XIV, here so splendidly arrayed, produced six legitimate and at least fifteen illegitimate children.
    He would have laughed at your suggestion ... and then had you beheaded for lesè-majesté.

    Replies: @Kronos

    Louis the 14th (very probably) wasn’t gay or even bisexual. But his brother was gay. In my example he won the female cognitive seer genes but it didn’t make him gay. The man was a superb political animal. He understood how to work over both sexes. His brother though, may have received the full (like sickle cell) gene payout and made him gay.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_I,_Duke_of_Orléans

  110. @Alden
    @Kronos

    It sure worked in the San Francisco Fillmore neighborhood. 15 years. 1975 to 1990 from one of the worst black ghettos in the country to one of the nicest neighborhoods in town.

    Fillmore 1870 to 1940 a great mostly White some Japanese neighborhood. 1940 to 1945 transition as the apes brought from the south to work in the WW2 shipyards began the destruction.

    1945 to 1975 notorious ghetto, best known for 12-16 year old retarded enslaved black teen prostitutes and their black pimps.

    1975 to 1990 transition back to White and Asian.

    1990 to present, great neighborhood again.
    Still too many blacks in the city though.

    Replies: @Kronos

    Don’t worry, I hear they’re working on it.

    San Fran is like only 5% black now right?

  111. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control. It's true that younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual. Productive adults who don't reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.

    Homosexual Reparations is going to be a heavy lift, but I don't doubt their commitment.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Redneck farmer, @Gordo, @jb, @Chrisnonymous, @prime noticer

    “Productive adults who don’t reproduce are a benefit to other humans, up to a point.”

    other way around. with very low resource production, in a condition of carrying capacity of 2, which was 99% of human existence, more than 100 thousand years, humans that existed and consumed resources but didn’t make more humans, were a net drain long term. and that’s assuming the male homos were manly men who did all the things men had to do – but most of them probably weren’t. can you see the endless millions of faggy men today, going out and killing dangerous animals with their bare hands? or doing anything that was net positive? so let’s say they can’t do anything that only men can do, but they can do stuff women do. well, they are useless as stand ins for women – they can’t make more humans. you might as well have actual women who can. so for most of human history, their labor hours were negative.

    this is why most humans reflexively recoil at homos or are even hostile towards them. homos are resource sinks.

    homo women can get pregnant, and, one assumes, were usually forced to get pregnant, for a hundred thousand years. so we don’t have as much built in instinctive recoil to them.

    today, with massive resource overproduction in the west, the historical issue of homos being a net resource drain is less of a problem, but there are new problems. homos spread viruses and bacteria at a super high rate, which the normal humans have to spend time trying to clean up, wasting time energy and resources trying to keep the homos alive, who then go out and spread the diseases again. and the homos go after the normal humans kids, which normal humans have to try to defend against.

  112. @Inquiring Mind
    @El Dato

    Does Ms. Thunberg have a certain Damien from "The Omen" ominous look to her?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=9CADF0800722B8AB4971CC598ED171425398A73F&thid=OIP.X3AVLyhXI1lHJXs9VPjLdgHaFj&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lf02DoQOJag%2FUqOg0yq1E5I%2FAAAAAAAAG5c%2FaET0EP1AAJw%2Fs1600%2Fthe-omen-damian.jpeg&exph=480&expw=640&q=damien+in+the+omen&selectedindex=25&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or are we talking of a more innocent Wednesday Addams look?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=wednesday+from+the+addams+family&id=EBC38D048E520CD586294528DCF1BF4DF7FDBE01&s=1&view=detailv2&rtpu=%2fsearch%3fq%3dwednesday+from+the+addams+family&form=IEQNAI&selectedindex=0&exph=0&expw=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or the defiant response to "what is your costume"

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=addams+family+what+is+your+costume+scene%3f&view=detail&mid=B2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CAB2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CA&FORM=VIRE

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Daniel H, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @William Badwhite

    Looking at her I can’t believe that she is 16 years. She looks to be about 11 or 12. She displays no sexual maturation characteristics (no breasts). This is probably a good thing. I have read that as recently as 150 years ago girls matured at 16-18, rather than 12-13. It is probably better for girls’ psychological and physical development to mature slower.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Daniel H


    Looking at her I can’t believe that she is 16 years. She looks to be about 11 or 12. She displays no sexual maturation characteristics (no breasts). This is probably a good thing.

     

    It's not a good thing. I've read that her normal growth and development were delayed/retarded because she starved herself almost to death when she was younger. She's still a vegan, and given the stridency and fanaticism she displays, who knows what she actually eats these days?

    She's obviously got serious mental problems, and is being cruelly exploited.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jim Don Bob

  113. @Genrick Yagoda
    I don't know why the left is is eager to accept that there is a gene for homosexual behavior.

    Because once they accept that, then it follows that the uber-violent behavior of blacks is genetic, and so is the behavior of God's Chosen.

    Replies: @peterike, @Unladen Swallow, @anonymous

    The left’s various beliefs about people have developed piecemeal, the genetic basis of homosexuality is literally the exception to the rule, no where else do they invoke genetics as explanatory.

    They would also have to acknowledge that blacks are more likely to be criminal and violent, which a great many of them deny, which they can because they live in high income bubbles they contain very few blacks and the few they interact with tend to be light skinned elites. As far as Jewish behavior goes, that’s just an anti-Semitic slur.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Unladen Swallow

    Everything they do is ad hoc (eg, USA as a proposition nation is just to invalidate Anglo-Saxon specialness, no need to ask what the proposition is) and they would drop the genetic explanation of homosexuality (which is just there to invalidate the child abuse explanation) the minute an externality arose.

  114. @BB753
    @Gordo

    Your "gay Uncle" is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness.
    Of all the gay theories out there, it's perhaps the most asinine.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JMcG, @prime noticer

    “Your “gay Uncle” is more likely to be a pedophile molesting his nephews than a benevolent figure promoting their fitness.”

    yeah, this one makes the least sense. homo men don’t do that. they don’t help. they go out and be raging homos. that’s what they actually do.

    socially homo men are better seen as cancer. they mutate and spread but do nothing helpful at all.

    it’s actually the complete opposite – normals want to keep their kids away from homos, who are sexual predators. LOL at the idea of them HELPING your children.

    if Gay Uncle was accurate, Boy Scouts never would have banned them in the first place.

  115. I’m really glad someone did this study, but I would not say that the results are at all surprising.

    Most human psychiatric disorders are the result of 1.) a constellation of genes causes a predisposition to an abnormality, then, 2.) some environmental insult comes along during development and causes the disorder in the vulnerable.

    Take schizophrenia, which is much much less politicized than homosexuality and thus has been studied with a bit more objectivity through the years. The rate of schizophrenia in the general population is something like 1%. If you have a schizophrenic grandparent but not schizophrenic parents the risk is something like 2% (I don’t remember the exact numbers); if you have 1 schizophrenic parent something higher still, but still relatively unlikely, < 5% I believe. So clearly there is a genetic component, but that is not the whole story.

    If you graph schizophrenia rates by birthday you find something interesting: it is not evenly distributed. There is a peak that corresponds to babies who were in a particular stage in neural development (in utero) during the dead of winter. This is usually the peak of cold and flu season; which might suggest that either some infectious agent, or the maternal immune response to an infectious agent, contributed to the development of schizophrenia. Or alternatively there is the least amount of sunlight, so possibly it is related to vitamin D. Regardless, it appears the disease is a developmental failure that occurs due to a combination of genetic predispositions and environmental factors.

    Homosexuality has a similar statistical fluke–rates of homosexuality increase with the number of older male siblings from the birth mother. The risks are still relatively low–only a few percentage points–but they clearly increase with number of male babies who occupied the uterus before you. Older females don't matter, and older half siblings from different mothers don't matter, and older siblings matter even if you don't grow up with them. This suggests that perhaps there is some sort of maternal immune response against something in the male baby–each male baby sensitizes the mother and she then makes antibodies against something that is important for the baby to develop the correct sexual orientation. We know this happens with other things–babies can become anemic if they had an older sibling with a different blood type than the mother and she gets antibodies against that blood type–so it is not at all far fetched.

    There are probably other mechanisms besides this through which the correct neurodevelopment can be screwed up, in fact, there would have to be, since firstborn males can certainly be homosexuals. The truth is there are probably a whole bunch of genes and a whole bunch of environmental things that can derail development. Think about how complicated something like heterosexuality is–a complex set of behaviors and desires that are hardwired in–it’s not surprising that it can be screwed up pretty easily by a variety of factors.

  116. @JR Ewing
    @Realist

    Sure, we all have urges that we can’t eliminate or explain.

    But sticking one’s sexual member into another’s rectum is 100% free will. As is all of the other “lifestyle” actions these people engage in.

    Replies: @Realist

    But sticking one’s sexual member into another’s rectum is 100% free will. As is all of the other “lifestyle” actions these people engage in.

    Yes, as is sticking one’s sexual member into another’s vagina…your point? Why does the consensual sex act of homosexuals cause you such consternation? Homosexuality is repugnant to me, but the fact that some have homosexual relations is none of my business.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Realist

    It’s being made your business.

    Replies: @Realist

  117. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    “Sexuality”, like ” race”, is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it’s best. Both “race” and ” sexuality” are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality.

    Nick, i used to think you weren’t a troll, just some semi-bright dude seriously butt hurt about his Latino identity. (Lower average IQ and educational performance than NW European whites; and general mediocrity of Latin American nations.) Lots of people get all super-sensitive, defensive about the issues with their particular group. Objectivity is hard.

    But this stuff is just lunacy. So stupid it doesn’t even merit serious comment. I’d suspect “troll” except for the length of this incoherent babbling.

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    @AnotherDad

    "Nick, i used to think you weren’t a troll, just some semi-bright dude seriously butt hurt about his Latino identity. (Lower average IQ and educational performance than NW European whites; and general mediocrity of Latin American nations.) Lots of people get all super-sensitive, defensive about the issues with their particular group. Objectivity is hard."

    Your condescension here is really out-of-place. I couldn't care less that Latinos in the U.S achieve less due to systemic racism. What I care about is that I am superior to you. I earned my masters degree inbb chemical engineering before turningg 22, and I speak 4 languages. You keep bragging about the superiority of Anglos, and yet here you are complaining about all those "liberal elites". If you are so superior as you claim, then why aren't you a member of the elite? Why are the elites mostly liberal, and not like you?

    "But this stuff is just lunacy. So stupid it doesn’t even merit serious comment. I’d suspect “troll” except for the length of this incoherent babbling."

    The reason why iot sounds stupid to you is because you lack the intlligence to understand it; the reason why you won't reply is because you can't.

    Newsflash: I never denied that sexual attraction is mostly biological. My point is that "sexuality" is a social category that was invented in the 19th century for mostly social reasons. The ancients did not divide peoplee into heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual based on the gender of people they had sex with. They divided people's "sexuality" accordingg to sex ruiles, and not according to gender. That is, sexuality is a social construct, while sexual desire iss not. Big difference.

    Everything sounds like "incoherent babbling" when you don't understand it. Gow a brain, and then we'll talk.

    , @J.Ross
    @AnotherDad

    Nick was an obvious bird-dogger from day one.

  118. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a certain amount of evidence supporting the idea that societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs.

    One example: not too many years ago some folks doing a monkey study realized they could treat monkeys for depression. So they did. And the monkey society got wiped out. Why? Because the depressed monkeys would wander out to the outskirts of the living area. When a dangerous predator came by, the depressed monkeys were the first to be aware of the danger. They alerted their comrades, and saved the monkeys.

    Consider that primitive human villages had about 200 people. Since women live longer than men, this would be over 100 women and under 100 men. The exact ratio would depend on whether the village recently fought a battle which wiped out many of the men.

    A small number of men had to be oddballs. The village medicine man/ priest. The wise old village chief. The loner who is really good at tracking animals. The extrovert who could bind them men together in a hunting or war party. The great teacher who can teach the boys how to become men. And so on.

    It is quite possible that the village functions better with at least one or two gays, and at least A few guys who swing both ways.

    Just an interesting hypothesis to consider.

    Which brings up the question: is modern society better off with its oddballs? The Turings or Stallmans of this world.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris Renner, @kaganovitch, @Bill, @Elli

    societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs

    As an oddball I’d tend to agree with this.

    That said, oddballs present 2 significant challenges to the society. First, they need to remain a small enough percentage that they don’t destroy the group’s internal cohesion. Second, their odd habits need to be channeled in a direction that isn’t self-destructive.

    Our modern society fails at both, particularly in the case of gay men (by failing to insist on any kind of self-restraint) and weird kids (by telling them that surgical and hormonal mutilation is preferable to behaving in a way that’s not typical of their sex).

    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    @Chris Renner

    One thing's for sure, we've got some serious selective pressure contra- oddballs in this generation, what with the removing of the genitals and all. No more closet cases having 2.4 kids, y'know? Next generation gonna be some seriously straitlaced normies. Too bad because despite my posting history I like some weirdos and homos around. Heck I've been told I'm a bit of a weirdo myself. Next generation gonna be 1.) Mexicans 2.) Amish 3.) Nazis 4.) Moslems. 5.) Hasids 6.) Mormons. Maybe like 20 Methodists nationwide, they'll write articles for the Atlantic about how we need national unity.

    Replies: @anon, @Ron Mexico

  119. @Kronos
    I’ve always been curious about the social class breakdown of homosexuality. It seems to be more self-evident in high societies of high political intrigue. The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.


    Think about Down Syndrome. The pressure for it within itself isn’t there (they’re sterile) but the cognitive gene pressures lead towards falling off down certain IQ gene cliffs.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

    Replies: @Apu Apu, @ApacheTrout, @Old Palo Altan, @Alden, @Anonymous, @Bruno

    High heels and ladylike legs were a sign that you rode rather than walked. They were marks of high social status.

    The modern equivalent of this would be (e.g.) sporting a tan in midwinter, as only the wealthy can afford to take long holidays in warm places.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    "The modern equivalent of this would be (e.g.) sporting a tan in midwinter, as only the wealthy can afford to take long holidays in warm places."

    We've seen the wheel turn full circle on this.

    Victorian times - tan meant you worked in the fields, how lower class, ladies have white skin!

    1950s-60s - tan means you can afford to holiday abroad by jet - upper class, pasty pale skin - how lower class!

    2010s - tan means broiling yourself in Spain or Cyprus on cheap holiday or worse the tanning salon, how lower class, ladies have pale skin!

    Admittedly no male's going to kick a fit girl with a tan out of bed, no matter what class she be.

  120. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    "female homosexuals would not show consistent genetic markers"

    In most cases female homosexuality is a pretty fluid thing. I knew one who ended up married to a man and having three children, they're still together.

    At the moment there's probably more of it about because it is, if not socially accepted, very much accepted in the social media world that young women inhabit.

    Replies: @peterike, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    I think that lesbianism is more likely to be a matter of free will combined with a tolerant culture.

    Some lesbians are high testosterone females, some are feminist man-haters, some are rape/molestation victims of men, some are in jail and some are unable to snag a man into marriage. At one time, most would have either married men or remained single and celibate. Lesbianism was off the table.

  121. @Inquiring Mind
    @El Dato

    Does Ms. Thunberg have a certain Damien from "The Omen" ominous look to her?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=9CADF0800722B8AB4971CC598ED171425398A73F&thid=OIP.X3AVLyhXI1lHJXs9VPjLdgHaFj&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lf02DoQOJag%2FUqOg0yq1E5I%2FAAAAAAAAG5c%2FaET0EP1AAJw%2Fs1600%2Fthe-omen-damian.jpeg&exph=480&expw=640&q=damien+in+the+omen&selectedindex=25&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or are we talking of a more innocent Wednesday Addams look?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=wednesday+from+the+addams+family&id=EBC38D048E520CD586294528DCF1BF4DF7FDBE01&s=1&view=detailv2&rtpu=%2fsearch%3fq%3dwednesday+from+the+addams+family&form=IEQNAI&selectedindex=0&exph=0&expw=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or the defiant response to "what is your costume"

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=addams+family+what+is+your+costume+scene%3f&view=detail&mid=B2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CAB2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CA&FORM=VIRE

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Daniel H, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @William Badwhite

    That Greta Thunberg is creepy-looking. Makes me think that she is a future mass killer.

    Admittedly autistic with obsessive-compulsive disorder. On top of that, possibly fetal alcohol syndrome or mosaic downs syndrome. Extremely short.

    She’s a puppet. Every teenage activist is being manipulated by an adult.

  122. @anonymous coward
    @Jon Halpenny

    Not terribly surprising, they were molested by the same relative.

    Replies: @anon

    That, and families where the wife wears the pants.
    Psychopathy is ,ore likely to be inherited from the mother than the father.

  123. @Joe Stalin
    @bomag

    Sure, why should your personal money situation be an impediment to having children? I happened to catch part of a "Murray Show" where a black man was having a dispute over the fatherhood of a child. He had already had at least six children, IIRC.

    He WAS the Father.

    He worked at Burger King.

    Now you know why Black population increased 4X from the beginning 70s to now.

    Your tax money at work.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @SimpleSong

    At a former place of employment, a 35-year-old Black fellow who worked in Office Services had five children by three different women.

  124. @Alden
    @gman

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    The anti birth control men are very careful to limit their own families to the one or two children they can support.

    Yet they rant against birth control and blame the pill, not the older methods for all the ills of society.

    Hypocrites. Or more likely sad old bachelors who never did the deed that results in conception.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Bill

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes

    Hundreds? Really?

  125. How about … “things break”.

    Mutation and selection are a powerful force for “improving” relative to the selective environment. But that doesn’t mean crafting perfection.

    My take’s always been some sort of failure during fetal brain development, especially while the sexual divergence/attraction wiring is being done.

    It’s actually not super-odd that there could be specific failures like this because the development process must involve taking these generically human “blueprints” and building either a male or a female brain. Contrast with say “liver” or “vision”. (Not that there aren’t differences in male and female vision, but it doesn’t stand out if you aren’t sex typical.) Getting brain sexual dimorphism garbled up where some things are built properly male but some aren’t, doesn’t seem wildly implausible.

    And fetal development failure also plausibly squares with the observations of later male siblings averaging gayer.

    Of course, if we find the “gay germ” that is somehow driving this failure–great. Vaccinations and hopefully see the end of this pathology.

    • Agree: SimpleSong
  126. He’s glossing over the extremely high correlation with “number of sex partners”, perhaps assuming they are actually all same-sex partners when they are really not, especially among lesbians.

    If the rate of sexual encounters isn’t fitness-related, I don’t know what is.

    Obviously the trait is hideously maladaptive at the extremes, but most severe problems are just extreme versions of traits that are beneficial in moderation. And the parallel hypothesis (which has some supporting GWAS evidence but is still not published) is that the same genes responsible for buggery tend to maximize reproductive sex when isolated from whatever environmental triggers cause the former.

  127. @Coffee Jack

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     
    Maybe they were instrumental in our learning how to cook meat properly, or having a clean cave.
    Maybe they invented dessert. Maybe they assisted, de facto, in civilizing savage tribes.
    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of "Queer Eye for the Cave Guy."

    Replies: @bored identity, @bored identity, @Apu Apu, @anon, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @J

  128. A Stanford professor using face-analyzing algorithms can determine with great accuracy if a man is homosexual. Given five photos, he can predict 9 out of 10 times if a guy is gay. This seems to
    indicate that homosexuality may not be genetic-based — perhaps something goes wrong in utero.

  129. @Chris Renner
    @Paleo Liberal


    societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs
     
    As an oddball I'd tend to agree with this.

    That said, oddballs present 2 significant challenges to the society. First, they need to remain a small enough percentage that they don't destroy the group's internal cohesion. Second, their odd habits need to be channeled in a direction that isn't self-destructive.

    Our modern society fails at both, particularly in the case of gay men (by failing to insist on any kind of self-restraint) and weird kids (by telling them that surgical and hormonal mutilation is preferable to behaving in a way that's not typical of their sex).

    Replies: @SimpleSong

    One thing’s for sure, we’ve got some serious selective pressure contra- oddballs in this generation, what with the removing of the genitals and all. No more closet cases having 2.4 kids, y’know? Next generation gonna be some seriously straitlaced normies. Too bad because despite my posting history I like some weirdos and homos around. Heck I’ve been told I’m a bit of a weirdo myself. Next generation gonna be 1.) Mexicans 2.) Amish 3.) Nazis 4.) Moslems. 5.) Hasids 6.) Mormons. Maybe like 20 Methodists nationwide, they’ll write articles for the Atlantic about how we need national unity.

    • Replies: @anon
    @SimpleSong

    Maybe like 20 Methodists nationwide, they’ll write articles for the Atlantic about how we need national unity.

    Their bishop will be a Kenyan. No, not that Kenyan. A real one.
    lol.

    , @Ron Mexico
    @SimpleSong

    What about generations of Philander Rodmans? Antonio Rodgers-Cromarties? They will outbreed Methodists.

  130. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Nick Diaz

    If sexuality is an "invented concept" then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn't know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I'd ever seen.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Alden, @Mr. Blank, @Nick Diaz, @Ron Mexico, @JEG

    My wife likes to tell the story about how when she was a teen, she spent a long time thinking she was a lesbian. It wasn’t that she liked girls — it was just that she could never figure out what other girls saw in boys. She thought boys were stupid and icky. Ergo, she just assumed she was playing for the other team.

    Then, she said, one day this new boy showed up at school. As she puts it, “the second he walked in the room, I knew for a fact I wasn’t a lesbian.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Mr. Blank

    Yes, girls will sometimes claim to be lesbians to stop boys they don't like from pestering them. They drop the act immediately when a boy they do like appears.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  131. @Chrisnonymous
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    I think the sibling thing makes sense in reverse. Your first born needs to have higher reproductive capacity. If you die after 1, your firstborn will keep on keepin' on, but if your first is gay and you die, game over.

    Therefore, I think the issue is not that younger siblings are gay but that older siblings are especially not gay.

    Also,


    the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things.
     
    Are they? Don't gays have higher incomes and more education than straights?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @pyrrhus

    the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things.

    Are they? Don’t gays have higher incomes and more education than straights?

    Considering the questionable sources of much income and the state of education today, these phenomena are hardly contradictory!

  132. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    You are a hoot. I always hear you, ‘speaking’ in Dr. Nick Diaz’ voice.

  133. Sickle cell anemia is a side-effect of genes that help improve resistance to malaria.

    Just a because a gene is correlated with negative side effects doesn’t mean that it isn’t outweighed by positive impacts.

  134. @Realist
    I am a strong believer that homosexuality is not a result of free will/lifestyle choice.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @JR Ewing, @TWS

    And reality cares about your beliefs, why exactly?

    • Troll: Realist
  135. @Joe Stalin
    @bomag

    Sure, why should your personal money situation be an impediment to having children? I happened to catch part of a "Murray Show" where a black man was having a dispute over the fatherhood of a child. He had already had at least six children, IIRC.

    He WAS the Father.

    He worked at Burger King.

    Now you know why Black population increased 4X from the beginning 70s to now.

    Your tax money at work.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @SimpleSong

    Reproduction in American Blacks is seriously, seriously dysgenic. The worst of the worst have the most kids. The talented tenth doesn’t have any. In whites it actually seems pretty eugenic to me–the people who have it all together seem to have relatively big families. Asians, neutral, hispanics, dysgenic. Just my impression though; no data on this.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @SimpleSong


    Reproduction in American Blacks is seriously, seriously dysgenic. The worst of the worst have the most kids. The talented tenth doesn’t have any. In whites it actually seems pretty eugenic to me–the people who have it all together seem to have relatively big families. Asians, neutral, hispanics, dysgenic. Just my impression though; no data on this.
     
    More or less agree. Squared away blacks tend to outbreed or be childless. The worst have a lot of kids.
    , @Oddsbodkins
    @SimpleSong

    For whites it is a U, with both dysgenic and eugenic ends. I saw a graph of this somewhere, maybe here.

  136. @Anonymous
    I expected that male homosexuals would but that female homosexuals would not show consistent genetic markers. Or maybe homosexuality is just one manifestation of the problems these genetic markers cause in both: do we see them in people who do the stuff homosexuals tend to do excessively, but are not themselves homosexual, as well?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @SimpleSong

    Female homosexuality correlates with certain genes that have also been linked to having an ugly face.

    • Replies: @donvonburg
    @SimpleSong

    I wouldn't consider Joan Jett, Cara Delevingne, or even Jane Lynch ugly.

    I'm sure Joan went lesbian because she was abused and impregnated by a predatory male, had her baby done away with, and was so traumatized that lesbianism became her 'outlet'. She's closeted because her decent but naive parents would be traumatized if she acknowledged it. Her parents, were too decent-they raised her naively and she was not prepared for what she would run into in Los Angeles rock and roll culture in 1975. In those pre-AIDS days it was Sodom incarnate. The death toll from suicide, drug overdoses and car crashes alone was horrendous even before AIDS broke out.

    One of her guitar techs was trained by me and he got to know her pretty well. All the above is public knowledge, I'm not violating any confidences, but it does illustrate a facet of the phenomenon.

    Joan is an example of a woman who would have made a decent and happy wife and mother to probably decent kids but for circumstances. I'm sure her abuser is in hell now. But she has made her own choices and, as we all will, will answer for them also. I get the sense that she is not a profoundly happy person but gets through life relatively well considering the circumstances. I wish her well, but I'm not sure I'd let my teenage daughter hang out with her unchaperoned.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Duke84

    , @anon
    @SimpleSong

    Female homosexuality correlates with certain genes that have also been linked to having an ugly face.

    Not All Lesbians Look Like That.

    Some wear lipstick and are quite girly.

  137. A Stanford professor using face analyzing algorithms can determine with great accuracy if a man is homosexual. Given five photos, he can predict 9 out of 10 times if a guy is gay. This would seem to indicate that homosexuality may not be genetic-based — perhaps something goes wrong in utero.

  138. @Alastair Trumpington
    I have an idea, you guys tell me if it’s stupid or not.

    What if there were a gene variant that increases fitness if expressed in men and decreased fitness if expressed in women? Or vice versa.

    As a silly example- gene x gives both men and women bigger breasts. That might hurt men’s reproductive fitness and help women.

    What if the ‘gay gene’ worked something like this?m: If your daughter get the gene variant she behaves in a more traditionally feminine manner and somehow ends up having more kids. If your son gets it he is more effeminate with some increased chance of being gay. Over the long term, it could balance out so that the frequency of the gene variant stays stable over time.

    Thoughts?

    Replies: @donvonburg

    In the natural state man has been beset by homosexuality since, roughly, forever. Even if you don’t believe the Bible being the true Word of God, you have to admit the Book of Genesis is at least four thousand years old. To describe Sodom and Gomorrah the writer had to have some contact with an advanced level of, ahem, “gay culture”. The ancient Greeks certainly had different and conflicting ideas on the practice and propriety of it, but it was well described, at least several hundred years before Christ.

    But homosexuals have always been a tiny minority and though they often had a disproportionate influence they were never really in control of things-except in a tiny number of places where things didn’t turn out well in short order. Healthy societies may leave homosexuals alone but they don’t let them run things and keep them out of positions of real power and influence.

    I predict Apple Computer will be a massively reduced company or not exist at all in a decade or so based on nothing more than Tim Cook being 1) incapable of having created what he runs and 2) yes, gay. There are many other reasons, too, but I suspect 1 and 2 are sufficient. Time will tell if I am right or wrong. But I’m not buying Apple stock.

    I might hire a known homosexual for a job in which homosexuals typically do well but I would not hire one for any position of serious responsibility or in which he or she might have to interact with what I consider vulnerable members of the community. That’s probably actually illegal, or would open me to civil sanction were it publicized. So be it.

    It does seem that female homosexuality does differ in the respect that it’s much more situational than the male version. I have female family members that had dalliances with “being lesbians” then “straightened out”. They have stayed straightened out. They are grandmothers now and their grandkids have no idea and I hope it stays that way.

    Men who are gay stay gay. My church has had a gay-man-to-straight ministry for some time and my private thought is that it wastes everyone’s time and annoys the gay, so to speak. Worse, some of these guys have “gone straight” and married , fathered kids, then “fallen off the p***ywagon” (sorry, I know it’s a sin, but I couldn’t resist that mixed metaphor!!) and went back to rump rangering leaving a devastated wife and kids in a bad situation to say the least. I don’t have the answer, there probably isn’t one. Maybe the Catholics were half right-make them priests, but in an order with little public contact instead of diocese priests around all that pubescent chicken.

    • Replies: @Aft
    @donvonburg


    Worse, some of these guys have “gone straight” and married , fathered kids, then “fallen off the p***ywagon”
     
    From the perspective of trying to get people who share your genes (offspring, relatives, or even a church group more similar than the average citizen) to pass on their genes--the main evolutionary driver beyond most parental urges--that's called a success...
  139. 9

    Is there any variation in homosexual discordance between MZ twins sharing one amniotic sack versus MZ twins that developed in two separate sacks? Is epigenetics in play here?

    • Replies: @Aft
    @Element59

    Uterine environment matters (though not sure about the specific question asked):


    each older brother increased the probability of being gay by about 33% (1). This startling phenomenon was confirmed in multiple studies based on independent populations totaling over 10,000 subjects, and a meta-analysis indicated that between 15% and 29% of gay men owe their sexual orientation to this effect...

    ...the increased incidence of homosexuality in males with older brothers results from a progressive immunization of the mother against a male-specific cell-adhesion protein that plays a key role in cell–cell interactions, specifically in the process of synapse formation, during development
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/
  140. @AnotherDad
    @Nick Diaz


    “Sexuality”, like ” race”, is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it’s best. Both “race” and ” sexuality” are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality.
     
    Nick, i used to think you weren't a troll, just some semi-bright dude seriously butt hurt about his Latino identity. (Lower average IQ and educational performance than NW European whites; and general mediocrity of Latin American nations.) Lots of people get all super-sensitive, defensive about the issues with their particular group. Objectivity is hard.

    But this stuff is just lunacy. So stupid it doesn't even merit serious comment. I'd suspect "troll" except for the length of this incoherent babbling.

    Replies: @Nick Diaz, @J.Ross

    “Nick, i used to think you weren’t a troll, just some semi-bright dude seriously butt hurt about his Latino identity. (Lower average IQ and educational performance than NW European whites; and general mediocrity of Latin American nations.) Lots of people get all super-sensitive, defensive about the issues with their particular group. Objectivity is hard.”

    Your condescension here is really out-of-place. I couldn’t care less that Latinos in the U.S achieve less due to systemic racism. What I care about is that I am superior to you. I earned my masters degree inbb chemical engineering before turningg 22, and I speak 4 languages. You keep bragging about the superiority of Anglos, and yet here you are complaining about all those “liberal elites”. If you are so superior as you claim, then why aren’t you a member of the elite? Why are the elites mostly liberal, and not like you?

    “But this stuff is just lunacy. So stupid it doesn’t even merit serious comment. I’d suspect “troll” except for the length of this incoherent babbling.”

    The reason why iot sounds stupid to you is because you lack the intlligence to understand it; the reason why you won’t reply is because you can’t.

    Newsflash: I never denied that sexual attraction is mostly biological. My point is that “sexuality” is a social category that was invented in the 19th century for mostly social reasons. The ancients did not divide peoplee into heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual based on the gender of people they had sex with. They divided people’s “sexuality” accordingg to sex ruiles, and not according to gender. That is, sexuality is a social construct, while sexual desire iss not. Big difference.

    Everything sounds like “incoherent babbling” when you don’t understand it. Gow a brain, and then we’ll talk.

  141. @SimpleSong
    @Anonymous

    Female homosexuality correlates with certain genes that have also been linked to having an ugly face.

    Replies: @donvonburg, @anon

    I wouldn’t consider Joan Jett, Cara Delevingne, or even Jane Lynch ugly.

    I’m sure Joan went lesbian because she was abused and impregnated by a predatory male, had her baby done away with, and was so traumatized that lesbianism became her ‘outlet’. She’s closeted because her decent but naive parents would be traumatized if she acknowledged it. Her parents, were too decent-they raised her naively and she was not prepared for what she would run into in Los Angeles rock and roll culture in 1975. In those pre-AIDS days it was Sodom incarnate. The death toll from suicide, drug overdoses and car crashes alone was horrendous even before AIDS broke out.

    One of her guitar techs was trained by me and he got to know her pretty well. All the above is public knowledge, I’m not violating any confidences, but it does illustrate a facet of the phenomenon.

    Joan is an example of a woman who would have made a decent and happy wife and mother to probably decent kids but for circumstances. I’m sure her abuser is in hell now. But she has made her own choices and, as we all will, will answer for them also. I get the sense that she is not a profoundly happy person but gets through life relatively well considering the circumstances. I wish her well, but I’m not sure I’d let my teenage daughter hang out with her unchaperoned.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @donvonburg

    Having met Joan, I doubt her being a barren doe is too big a loss. She is probably slightly smarter than average, but not hugely so-Hynde and Harry are both way above average, she is not-but she seemed to me to be high energy but not particularly curious about the world or other people, and very jaded. She also physically doesn't strike me as being birthworthy, flat ass, tiny breasts, little female curvature. A boy(without block and tackle) from the waist down.

    Some women really should not give birth, both from an eugenic standpoint, and because they would not likely have been happier as wives and mothers than as single barren doe's. I think she is as happy as she is going to get doing what she does, her fans like what she does, and I don't believe all that jazz about abortions necessarily being emotionally devastating to women. They can be if they re forced into them, but I think many times they are just relieved and go on to live their lives, and have kids they otherwise would not have had in better circumstances, which isn't to say unlimited abortion on demand is a social good.

    , @Duke84
    @donvonburg

    All three of those women appear to be more masculine than most women.

  142. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Nick Diaz

    If sexuality is an "invented concept" then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn't know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I'd ever seen.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Alden, @Mr. Blank, @Nick Diaz, @Ron Mexico, @JEG

    “If sexuality is an “invented concept” then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn’t know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I’d ever seen”

    Because you are biologically attracted to women? I never denied that sexual attraction is primarilly biological in nature. You didn’t understand my argument at all. My point is that “sexuality” is a *social categorization* . It didn’t exist before the 19th century. Show me the ancients talking about homsoexuals or heterosexuals. You can’t.

  143. @SimpleSong
    @Chris Renner

    One thing's for sure, we've got some serious selective pressure contra- oddballs in this generation, what with the removing of the genitals and all. No more closet cases having 2.4 kids, y'know? Next generation gonna be some seriously straitlaced normies. Too bad because despite my posting history I like some weirdos and homos around. Heck I've been told I'm a bit of a weirdo myself. Next generation gonna be 1.) Mexicans 2.) Amish 3.) Nazis 4.) Moslems. 5.) Hasids 6.) Mormons. Maybe like 20 Methodists nationwide, they'll write articles for the Atlantic about how we need national unity.

    Replies: @anon, @Ron Mexico

    Maybe like 20 Methodists nationwide, they’ll write articles for the Atlantic about how we need national unity.

    Their bishop will be a Kenyan. No, not that Kenyan. A real one.
    lol.

  144. @SimpleSong
    @Anonymous

    Female homosexuality correlates with certain genes that have also been linked to having an ugly face.

    Replies: @donvonburg, @anon

    Female homosexuality correlates with certain genes that have also been linked to having an ugly face.

    Not All Lesbians Look Like That.

    Some wear lipstick and are quite girly.

  145. @U. Ranus
    Cochran is pandering to his audience, but offers nothing of substance. Tradcon rightwingers on homosexuality are really indistinguishable from progressives on HBD. Let's ignore the evidence before our own eyes!

    Globohomo is now a word and for good reasons. Globoschizophrenic, Globodepressive, Globoloner? LOL. There's obviously something that allows male homosexuals cut through society to their benefit so successfully that it easily compensates for some small-effect-size detrimental correlated traits.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @pyrrhus

    On average, homosexuals live shorter lives and are less successful…you think otherwise because of sample bias…..And from an evolutionary standpoint, if you don’t have kids who survive, you don’t matter, so if it were genetic, male gays would have been wiped out millennia ago…

  146. @Chrisnonymous
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    I think the sibling thing makes sense in reverse. Your first born needs to have higher reproductive capacity. If you die after 1, your firstborn will keep on keepin' on, but if your first is gay and you die, game over.

    Therefore, I think the issue is not that younger siblings are gay but that older siblings are especially not gay.

    Also,


    the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things.
     
    Are they? Don't gays have higher incomes and more education than straights?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @pyrrhus

    No, they don’t…..

  147. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Nick Diaz

    If sexuality is an "invented concept" then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn't know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I'd ever seen.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Alden, @Mr. Blank, @Nick Diaz, @Ron Mexico, @JEG

    Oh man, Janet Lupo! How about Marilyn Lange? Didn’t the Beastie Boys complain about mom finding their best porno mag!

  148. @Mr. Anon
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    There is no point in explaining anything to Nick Diaz. He's a bloviating retard. His posts could be replaced with "wah, wah, wah, wah,......" or a random pattern of 1's and 0's and it would make no difference.

    Replies: @Nick Diaz, @Nick Diaz

    This coming from the dumb cow that can’t even spell the word “ethnicity”.

    Oh, you think I am that? Here is news for you: I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me, because in order for me to care I would have to respect your intellect. Which I don’t. Your posts are you ranting at people like a dumbass. You have never said anything intelligent or even remotely intelligible. You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5′ weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.

    Yes, we have nothing in common, Ms.Anonyma. I am Latino, intelligent and well-educated, while you are a stereotype of the white conservative: uneducated, stupid, prejudiced, racist scum. I would love to meet in person and put my finger in your face.

    The only thing that we have in common, Ms.Anonyma, is that I am a dick and you suck. Other than that we have nothing in common. Hey, Ms.Anonyma: go f-k yourself.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Nick Diaz

    You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5′ weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.

    Nothing says intelligent and well-educated like "coward in fear" eh?

  149. @SimpleSong
    @Chris Renner

    One thing's for sure, we've got some serious selective pressure contra- oddballs in this generation, what with the removing of the genitals and all. No more closet cases having 2.4 kids, y'know? Next generation gonna be some seriously straitlaced normies. Too bad because despite my posting history I like some weirdos and homos around. Heck I've been told I'm a bit of a weirdo myself. Next generation gonna be 1.) Mexicans 2.) Amish 3.) Nazis 4.) Moslems. 5.) Hasids 6.) Mormons. Maybe like 20 Methodists nationwide, they'll write articles for the Atlantic about how we need national unity.

    Replies: @anon, @Ron Mexico

    What about generations of Philander Rodmans? Antonio Rodgers-Cromarties? They will outbreed Methodists.

  150. @Chrisnonymous
    @bored identity

    I hope he got a BJ out of that.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @bored identity, @Duke84

    BJs produce too much steam into the atmosphere.

    Martin will maintain his Carbon Schmuckprint on the lowest possible level for many, many decades to come.

  151. @Alden
    @gman

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    The anti birth control men are very careful to limit their own families to the one or two children they can support.

    Yet they rant against birth control and blame the pill, not the older methods for all the ills of society.

    Hypocrites. Or more likely sad old bachelors who never did the deed that results in conception.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Bill

    That woman’s seven children are supported by the taxpayer. I’ve got no problem with people having lots of kids if they can support them, it’s actually eugenic (if you can earn enough to support 7 kids, you’re probably pretty bright and your kids will be too).

    Welfare is highly dysgenic, in that you are subsidising people to have babies who couldn’t otherwise afford to have them (OK, some people will have too many kids come what may, they always did even before welfare, and they serve as a negative example to others).

    The only good reform of the cowardly former UK Prime Minister David Cameron was to limit welfare benefits to the first two children only.

  152. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Nick Diaz

    If sexuality is an "invented concept" then explain why coming across a Playboy magazine was like finding gold when I was in elementary school, yet I had absolutely no desire to ever see any man naked? I didn't know where babies came from yet, but I knew a topless Janet Lupo was the best thing I'd ever seen.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Alden, @Mr. Blank, @Nick Diaz, @Ron Mexico, @JEG

    I think that you are using a very good approach to pinpoint sexual orientation provided you look at junior high kids. Boys that feel the way you did are straight and girls that feel the same way are gay.

  153. @Steve Sailer
    @robot

    Half the songs in country music are about being a faithful work-a-daddy and the other half are about being a woman-chasing hell-raiser.

    Replies: @Daniel Williams, @Apu Apu

    Half the songs in country music are about being a faithful work-a-daddy and the other half are about being a woman-chasing hell-raiser.

    While some well known country songs are about warning city slicker’s that it’s time to git, while they can still git.

  154. @Inquiring Mind
    @El Dato

    Does Ms. Thunberg have a certain Damien from "The Omen" ominous look to her?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=9CADF0800722B8AB4971CC598ED171425398A73F&thid=OIP.X3AVLyhXI1lHJXs9VPjLdgHaFj&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lf02DoQOJag%2FUqOg0yq1E5I%2FAAAAAAAAG5c%2FaET0EP1AAJw%2Fs1600%2Fthe-omen-damian.jpeg&exph=480&expw=640&q=damien+in+the+omen&selectedindex=25&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or are we talking of a more innocent Wednesday Addams look?

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=wednesday+from+the+addams+family&id=EBC38D048E520CD586294528DCF1BF4DF7FDBE01&s=1&view=detailv2&rtpu=%2fsearch%3fq%3dwednesday+from+the+addams+family&form=IEQNAI&selectedindex=0&exph=0&expw=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

    Or the defiant response to "what is your costume"

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=addams+family+what+is+your+costume+scene%3f&view=detail&mid=B2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CAB2EA4E3FFAE9C61B48CA&FORM=VIRE

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Daniel H, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @William Badwhite

    Can someone please help this chap with how to post pictures rather than links to pics? I’d tell him but I don’t know either.

    • Replies: @adreadline
    @William Badwhite

    Get the URL of the image by right clicking it, then selecting the ''copy image URL/address'' option and paste that URL on your comment. That's it; I don't think you need to use IMG html tags or anything. (Whatever starts with ''www.bing.com'', ''www.google.com'' etc. is likely not the actual image's URL, as it's certainly not hosted by Bing or Google)

    Replies: @res, @The Last Real Calvinist

    , @J.Ross
    @William Badwhite

    Try just posting the url. Some urls work and some don't. The links are one more step but they're more reliable.

  155. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    “People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality.”

    Cicero making fun of Antony:

    “You assumed the manly gown, which you soon made a womanly one; at first a public prostitute, with a regular price for your wickedness, and that not a low one. But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron’s robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock. No boy bought for the gratification of passion was ever so wholly in the power of his master as you were in Curio’s. How often has his father turned you out of his house? How often has he placed guards to prevent you from entering? while you, with night for your accomplice, lust for your encourager, and wages for your compeller, were let down through the roof.”

  156. @Anonymous
    @U. Ranus


    There’s obviously something that allows male homosexuals cut through society to their benefit so successfully that it easily compensates for some small-effect-size detrimental correlated traits.
     
    Detrimental traits can have a positive side, esp in certain areas.

    Sociopathy makes people bolder. Risk-taking means adventurousness. Obsessive people are more driven. Many successful people have negative traits that they use to their advantage.

    Replies: @Errac

    Obsessive people are more driven. Many successful people have negative traits that they use to their advantage.

    I’ve lately been maintaining that most successful folks in the entertainment industry, especially actors and comedians, are simply people who found a way to monetize their pathology.

    Any readers in the mental health care field to take a crack at Bill Mahr? William Shatner? Patton Oswalt? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? William Macy?

    Who among those entertainers don’t qualify for professional supervision?

    • Agree: Aft
  157. @petit bourgeois
    @Kronos

    Where I live they have certainly transformed the downtown area into "sodapopa" type gentrification, so I do not doubt their ability to transform quincanera bridal shops into hipster bars and gourmand offerings.

    But when angry purple haired lesbians start dictating what our politics should be, I also understand how such a small percentage of our society tries to control the rest of us. I don't have any personal animus towards them, but they really need to go back in the closet and let the rest of us "breeders" live our lives the way that we want.

    Speaking of "sodapopa" type gentrification, the new season of South Park starts tomorrow night, and I can't wait to see how Parker and Stone deal with the current cancel culture.

    Replies: @Kronos, @MEH 0910

    ICE Comes for the Broflovskis – South Park

    Published on Sep 23, 2019
    An anonymous tip leads ICE to stage a raid on the Broflovski house, separating Kyle and Ike from their parents.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e01-mexican-joker


    Mexican Joker

    s23e01 September 25, 2019
    Randy fights against home-grown. Meanwhile, Kyle goes to camp.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  158. @Alden
    @gman

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    The anti birth control men are very careful to limit their own families to the one or two children they can support.

    Yet they rant against birth control and blame the pill, not the older methods for all the ills of society.

    Hypocrites. Or more likely sad old bachelors who never did the deed that results in conception.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Bill

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    Birth control is inherently dysgenic. You have to know how to use it, and keep to it.

    Stopping to put on a condom presumes one can stop in the first place.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Reg Cæsar


    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201308/reading-the-mind-in-waisthip-ratios-paradox-resolved
    Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, authorities as diverse as the philosopher Bertrand Russell, the statistician, R. A. Fisher, and psychologists too numerous to mention were predicting dire consequences for society as a result of the fact that more children were born to mothers of lower intelligence than to those of higher IQ. [..]

    Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reveal that, controlling for other correlates of cognitive ability, women with lower WHRs and their children had significantly higher cognitive test scores. The data also suggest that teenage mothers with lower WHRs and their children were protected from the cognitive decrements normally associated with teen births. In the words of the researchers, “these findings support the idea that WHR reflects the availability of neurodevelopmental resources and thus offer a new explanation for men's preference for low WHR.”* Indeed, the findings offer additional evidence for the heritability of intelligence from the mother as argued in previous posts.
     
  159. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people.

    They tend to be white.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Yeah,...and not cponservative racists like you guys. They are pretty much liberal. So them beieng white or not, you still lose anyway.

    Replies: @anon, @Ghost of Bull Moose

  160. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a certain amount of evidence supporting the idea that societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs.

    One example: not too many years ago some folks doing a monkey study realized they could treat monkeys for depression. So they did. And the monkey society got wiped out. Why? Because the depressed monkeys would wander out to the outskirts of the living area. When a dangerous predator came by, the depressed monkeys were the first to be aware of the danger. They alerted their comrades, and saved the monkeys.

    Consider that primitive human villages had about 200 people. Since women live longer than men, this would be over 100 women and under 100 men. The exact ratio would depend on whether the village recently fought a battle which wiped out many of the men.

    A small number of men had to be oddballs. The village medicine man/ priest. The wise old village chief. The loner who is really good at tracking animals. The extrovert who could bind them men together in a hunting or war party. The great teacher who can teach the boys how to become men. And so on.

    It is quite possible that the village functions better with at least one or two gays, and at least A few guys who swing both ways.

    Just an interesting hypothesis to consider.

    Which brings up the question: is modern society better off with its oddballs? The Turings or Stallmans of this world.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris Renner, @kaganovitch, @Bill, @Elli

    One example: not too many years ago some folks doing a monkey study realized they could treat monkeys for depression. So they did. And the monkey society got wiped out. Why? Because the depressed monkeys would wander out to the outskirts of the living area. When a dangerous predator came by, the depressed monkeys were the first to be aware of the danger. They alerted their comrades, and saved the monkeys.

    I know nothing about this but I would bet this “study” is complete B.S.

  161. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @SimpleSong
    @Joe Stalin

    Reproduction in American Blacks is seriously, seriously dysgenic. The worst of the worst have the most kids. The talented tenth doesn't have any. In whites it actually seems pretty eugenic to me--the people who have it all together seem to have relatively big families. Asians, neutral, hispanics, dysgenic. Just my impression though; no data on this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Oddsbodkins

    Reproduction in American Blacks is seriously, seriously dysgenic. The worst of the worst have the most kids. The talented tenth doesn’t have any. In whites it actually seems pretty eugenic to me–the people who have it all together seem to have relatively big families. Asians, neutral, hispanics, dysgenic. Just my impression though; no data on this.

    More or less agree. Squared away blacks tend to outbreed or be childless. The worst have a lot of kids.

  162. @William Badwhite
    @Inquiring Mind

    Can someone please help this chap with how to post pictures rather than links to pics? I'd tell him but I don't know either.

    Replies: @adreadline, @J.Ross

    Get the URL of the image by right clicking it, then selecting the ”copy image URL/address” option and paste that URL on your comment. That’s it; I don’t think you need to use IMG html tags or anything. (Whatever starts with ”www.bing.com”, ”www.google.com” etc. is likely not the actual image’s URL, as it’s certainly not hosted by Bing or Google)

    • Replies: @res
    @adreadline

    I think it is necessary to make sure the image is really an image (Wikipedia in particular is bad about naming pages .jpg which are about images rather than the image itself) and make sure the link ends in the image suffix (e.g. jpg, png, gif) without any additional qualifiers.

    What I usually do is get the image link as you say then trim the tags (e.g. size) from it. Then I check in a web browser to see if the link is good. Last, once you have entered the link "Preview Comment" should display the image if you got it right.

    Sometimes this feature is a bit funky. For example, there is a long standing issue where the image will display when I post a comment, but if I then edit the comment it does not display for me. It does work if I open another window though.

    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    @adreadline

    One way to check is to make sure the image's URL ends in a suffix indicating it's in an image format. I've successfully posted images ending in .jpg and .png, and I think .gif works also.

    Do other formats work? Curious.

    Replies: @res

  163. @Alden
    @gman

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    The anti birth control men are very careful to limit their own families to the one or two children they can support.

    Yet they rant against birth control and blame the pill, not the older methods for all the ills of society.

    Hypocrites. Or more likely sad old bachelors who never did the deed that results in conception.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Bill

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    I think pretty much everyone here does realize that.

    Obviously i can’t speak for everyone, but i think there are a fair number of people here who have opinions one this within a standard deviation or so of my own.

    — The Pill was more a radical change in birth control, that–however convenient–seems to have substantially disrupted sexual/marriage/fertility norms in the West.

    Slut culture is incredibly bad for maintaining a high-functioning civilization. Sub-replacement fertility, of particularly of the college level IQ women who carefully use birth control isn’t good.

    — Birth control is fine, but once you have very effective birth control–especially with prosperity, disease control and other medical advances–then to maintain a healthy and competent population you *must* have eugenics. I.e. you must do something to counter the reality that the the least competent people may continue to squirt out kids. (Welfare is the flip side of this. Public provision for those who really can’t take care of themselves is fine–Christian charity. But for the same reason, it must be accompanied by eugenic policy.)

    Eugenics was “on the table” for these reasons by Protestant Progressives 100 years ago. But after the Jewish ascendancy and the rise of the minoritarian ideology, eugenics was somehow “discredited” by the Nazis and pretty soon even talking about the 3rd world population explosion–common as spit when i was a teenager (“Limits to Growth” etc.)–was out.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    "— The Pill was more a radical change in birth control, that–however convenient–seems to have substantially disrupted sexual/marriage/fertility norms in the West."

    I would say the pill along with other factors have combined to alter, rather than disrupt, those norms. Scientific breakthroughs have that type of impact.

    "Slut culture is incredibly bad for maintaining a high-functioning civilization."

    You mean both men and women having sexual relations outside of marriage.

    "Sub-replacement fertility, of particularly of the college level IQ women who carefully use birth control isn’t good."

    Was that your opening line, your go-to when trying to make headway with a young filly?

    "I.e. you must do something to counter the reality that the the least competent people may continue to squirt out kids."

    Actually, it is up to people themselves, whether it be rich or poor, intelligent or "dumb", to decide to have offspring. You can discourage them all you want, but as soon as there are specific policies in place, then I contend such policies are intrusive to individual liberty.

    "But after the Jewish ascendancy and the rise of the minoritarian ideology, eugenics was somehow “discredited” by the Nazis and pretty soon even talking about the 3rd world population explosion–common as spit when i was a teenager (“Limits to Growth” etc.)–was out."

    Right, because Jews, like women, ruin everything. That's why we can't have nice things. LOL.

  164. @William Badwhite
    @Inquiring Mind

    Can someone please help this chap with how to post pictures rather than links to pics? I'd tell him but I don't know either.

    Replies: @adreadline, @J.Ross

    Try just posting the url. Some urls work and some don’t. The links are one more step but they’re more reliable.

  165. @AnotherDad
    @Nick Diaz


    “Sexuality”, like ” race”, is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it’s best. Both “race” and ” sexuality” are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn’t even speak of race or sexuality.
     
    Nick, i used to think you weren't a troll, just some semi-bright dude seriously butt hurt about his Latino identity. (Lower average IQ and educational performance than NW European whites; and general mediocrity of Latin American nations.) Lots of people get all super-sensitive, defensive about the issues with their particular group. Objectivity is hard.

    But this stuff is just lunacy. So stupid it doesn't even merit serious comment. I'd suspect "troll" except for the length of this incoherent babbling.

    Replies: @Nick Diaz, @J.Ross

    Nick was an obvious bird-dogger from day one.

  166. anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ziel
    The graphic shows a + correlation with # of children - surprising

    Replies: @gabriel alberton, @anon, @Aft

    I believe that that correlation table is comparing the genotypes of non-heterosexuals in this study to SNPs found to be significant to some trait in other GWAS studies.

    So, if some previous GWAS found SNPs at locations X,Y,and Z significant to say, anxiety, the authors of this study then looked at the subjects in this study to see if non-hetero were disproportionately prone to those alleles.

    That would also explain why the correlation table contains age of menarche and age of menapause for males.

    This study elsewhere contained a chart showing the familiar decreased fertility for those having same-sex sexual behavior.

    (Steve, note I included a Sci-Hub link… not sure your or Unz’s policy on that).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @anon

    (Steve, note I included a Sci-Hub link… not sure your or Unz’s policy on that).

    Thanks, sounds great. I don't know anything about Sci-Hub, so is there any reason we wouldn't want you to include that link? (That's not a snarky question.)

    Replies: @res

  167. @Reg Cæsar
    @Maciano


    1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children.
     
    Why do you assume this? In most societies, everyone is expected to "be fruitful and multiply". In such an environment, queers have an incentive to outbreed their neighbors: pregnancy is the best excuse for getting out of the hated sex act.

    I know a family where an eventual lesbian was 14% of her generation but produced 19% of the next. This figure dipped a bit as one of hers was among those who died young, but that's still higher at 16.7%.


    I'm not supporting the genetic explanation, just pointing out that it is not as impossible as people take it to be.

    Replies: @jon, @Anonymous

    Why do you assume this? In most societies, everyone is expected to “be fruitful and multiply”. In such an environment, queers have an incentive to outbreed their neighbors: pregnancy is the best excuse for getting out of the hated sex act.

    Whenever this topic comes up, I always mention this (including upthread). No one ever seems to address the fact that, at least until relatively recently (and only really in the West) it was not acceptable for gay people to avoid getting married and having kids. The ancient Greeks were all sodomizing each other with reckless abandon, but they also all got married and fathered kids, so the Greeks didn’t disappear.

    • Replies: @HEL
    @jon


    Whenever this topic comes up, I always mention this (including upthread). No one ever seems to address the fact that, at least until relatively recently (and only really in the West) it was not acceptable for gay people to avoid getting married and having kids.
     
    It's absurd to suggest that having no desire to have sex with the opposite sex will not cause a fitness hit. Christ, most young men are absolutely obsessed with sex, will do anything to get it. You think this has no impact? Gays have only the societal pressure, whereas straights have the exact same pressure PLUS their own extreme desire. This combination is going to result in more reproduction. Yes, innumerable people with exclusively homosexual proclivities have reproduced over the years. But some avoided marriage, others got married and reproduced less than would a typical heterosexual couple etc. That's all it takes. It doesn't need to be an overwhelming failure to reproduce, a modest hit will quickly cause allow the non-homosexually inclined variants to utterly overwhelm the homosexual ones. Simple.

    This is all moot though, as homosexuality is not primarily genetic anyway. I don't pretend to know the primary cause, or if there even is one primary cause, but genetic inheritance ain't it.

    Replies: @Sean

  168. @Unladen Swallow
    @Genrick Yagoda

    The left's various beliefs about people have developed piecemeal, the genetic basis of homosexuality is literally the exception to the rule, no where else do they invoke genetics as explanatory.

    They would also have to acknowledge that blacks are more likely to be criminal and violent, which a great many of them deny, which they can because they live in high income bubbles they contain very few blacks and the few they interact with tend to be light skinned elites. As far as Jewish behavior goes, that's just an anti-Semitic slur.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Everything they do is ad hoc (eg, USA as a proposition nation is just to invalidate Anglo-Saxon specialness, no need to ask what the proposition is) and they would drop the genetic explanation of homosexuality (which is just there to invalidate the child abuse explanation) the minute an externality arose.

  169. @obwandiyag
    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don't.

    And you're not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kronos, @Redneck farmer, @Maciano, @MEH 0910, @JMcG, @Unladen Swallow, @MBlanc46

    Uh, he doesn’t think genes are the cause of homosexuality, what about that don’t you understand? Genes have influence elsewhere in homosexuals.

  170. @SimpleSong
    @Joe Stalin

    Reproduction in American Blacks is seriously, seriously dysgenic. The worst of the worst have the most kids. The talented tenth doesn't have any. In whites it actually seems pretty eugenic to me--the people who have it all together seem to have relatively big families. Asians, neutral, hispanics, dysgenic. Just my impression though; no data on this.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Oddsbodkins

    For whites it is a U, with both dysgenic and eugenic ends. I saw a graph of this somewhere, maybe here.

  171. @Mr McKenna
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     

    It might be that homosexuality evolved as population control.
     
    I've heard crazier theories. Question is, how do we export it to Africa and Asia, where population control is most desperately needed? Despite decades of Hollywood 'entertainment" exports, they haven't caught on; the few who do catch on seem to be the first to come to America.

    If there's one thing America doesn't need more of,

    Replies: @anon, @Mis(ter)Anthrope

    Negroes seem to be very comfortable sticking it in other men. As a criminal defense lawyer, I talk to a lot of men who have been to prison. They tell me gay sex is completely acceptable among black inmates. (Although for some strange reason they don’t consider themselves gay if they are sticking it another man. Only the receiver is gay, even if it is not consensual.

    Whites and Hispanics look down on their co-ethnics who engage in the gay sex in prison.

  172. @Tark Marg
    I feel that some popular assumptions about evolution are quite simplistic. Some issues I’d like to point out:

    1) Evolution has not ended. It will only asymptotically approach a stable state if the external and social environment remains constant for dozens of generations. But this is rarely the case, especially in recent centuries, what with the industrial revolution, large-scale migrations, massive population growth, greatly increased availability of calories etc. This is why we have mass obesity for example as the previously beneficial tendency to store calories is now counterproductive given the sudden switch from scarcity to abundance.

    2) Evolution can make mistakes. It is a miracle that 3 billion base pairs can be replicated in trillions of cells with sufficient accuracy to allow a living creature to form and function in most cases. Naturally there will be random errors and unfortunate combinations of incompatible alleles. Cystic fibrosis or down syndrome are examples of this. Especially with polygenic conditions, it is almost certain that some fraction of a large enough population will draw the short straw and inherit alleles which in combination manifest too much or too little of that condition.

    3) Genetic issues need not be fixed by genetic means. Humans did not evolve fur or blubber to deal with arctic conditions. Similarly in my opinion the existence of homosexuality has mostly been paired across history and space with social norms which seek to suppress this tendency as in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. This is analogous to the almost global prohibition of incest; the harm from homozygous recessive disease arising from incest was suppressed not by a genetic mechanism but by developing social norms.

    Replies: @Valentino

    Genetic issues need not be fixed by genetic means. Humans did not evolve fur or blubber to deal with arctic conditions. Similarly in my opinion the existence of homosexuality has mostly been paired across history and space with social norms which seek to suppress this tendency as in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. This is analogous to the almost global prohibition of incest; the harm from homozygous recessive disease arising from incest was suppressed not by a genetic mechanism but by developing social norms.

    You mean essentially only Abrahamic religions.

  173. @Reg Cæsar
    @Alden


    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.
     
    Birth control is inherently dysgenic. You have to know how to use it, and keep to it.

    Stopping to put on a condom presumes one can stop in the first place.

    Replies: @Sean

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201308/reading-the-mind-in-waisthip-ratios-paradox-resolved
    Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, authorities as diverse as the philosopher Bertrand Russell, the statistician, R. A. Fisher, and psychologists too numerous to mention were predicting dire consequences for society as a result of the fact that more children were born to mothers of lower intelligence than to those of higher IQ. [..]

    Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reveal that, controlling for other correlates of cognitive ability, women with lower WHRs and their children had significantly higher cognitive test scores. The data also suggest that teenage mothers with lower WHRs and their children were protected from the cognitive decrements normally associated with teen births. In the words of the researchers, “these findings support the idea that WHR reflects the availability of neurodevelopmental resources and thus offer a new explanation for men’s preference for low WHR.”* Indeed, the findings offer additional evidence for the heritability of intelligence from the mother as argued in previous posts.

  174. @anon
    @Ziel

    I believe that that correlation table is comparing the genotypes of non-heterosexuals in this study to SNPs found to be significant to some trait in other GWAS studies.

    So, if some previous GWAS found SNPs at locations X,Y,and Z significant to say, anxiety, the authors of this study then looked at the subjects in this study to see if non-hetero were disproportionately prone to those alleles.

    That would also explain why the correlation table contains age of menarche and age of menapause for males.

    This study elsewhere contained a chart showing the familiar decreased fertility for those having same-sex sexual behavior.

    (Steve, note I included a Sci-Hub link... not sure your or Unz's policy on that).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    (Steve, note I included a Sci-Hub link… not sure your or Unz’s policy on that).

    Thanks, sounds great. I don’t know anything about Sci-Hub, so is there any reason we wouldn’t want you to include that link? (That’s not a snarky question.)

    • Replies: @res
    @Steve Sailer


    What is SciHub?
    Sci.Hub is a site to download reference papers and journal articles for free. Just paste the DOI of the journal article you want, and ScienceHub will fetch the PDF for you for free.
     
    From https://sci-hub.now.sh/ which is a good source for dealing with the Sci-hub whack a mole game we see.

    Some reasons I see not to post Sci-hub links:
    - Copyright violation concerns.
    - Making it easier for TPTB to play Sci-hub whack a mole.
    - Because of Sci-hub whack a mole the links can go bad.

    Similar thoughts apply for Libgen (Library Genesis) currently at libgen.is

    What I usually do is post a DOI and say to go look for it there.

    Some links which might be of interest:
    https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-battles-pirate-bay-esque-domain-name-whack-a-mole-171216/
    https://www.sspnet.org/library/scihub-are-publishers-just-going-to-play-whack-a-mole-forever-or-can-they-actually-do-something/
  175. @Muse
    It seems that less testosterone improves social skills, and perhaps political effectiveness and power. This might be useful in a ruler’s court, a Royal bon vivant’s salon or a large bureaucracy. Eunuchs in China ascended to administrative power inside the imperial courts. It is clear that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has become a haven for gays and pedophiles.

    Not sure if large administrative organizations benefit from an efficiency standpoint in having lots of gay men with great communication skills, or the environment is simply attractive and/or nurturing for gays. It may also be that they serve as a bridge between influential women and male rulers and somehow this improves organizational effectiveness.

    See:
    http://chinaknowledge.de/History/Terms/eunuchs.html

    And if you can find it, Chapter 4 of this book;

    https://www.powells.com/book/rome-and-china-9780195336900

    There was certainly some sexual chicanery going on in the Roman world in Baia, the equivalent in Las Vegas of the Roman Empire:

    In Baiae, “unmarried women are common property, old men behave like young boys, and lots of young boys act like young girls,” wrote the ancient Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro

    At a minimum, having homosexuals mixed into the group complicates political relationships. There was a point when my son as a teenager asked me why people were so obsessed about which people were sleeping with each other as it seemed silly to him. I informed that you can never be assured of having an arms length transaction if a pair of the participants are screwing each other.

    Replies: @Sean

    https://www.livescience.com/22179-evolutionary-battle-sexes-height.html

    In modern western societies, studies have found that women who are on the short side tend to have more children. In contrast, average-height men do the best, reproductively speaking, outpacing short and tall men in number of children fathered […]

    “We should not simply assume that when a trait is beneficial for one sex, that selection or evolution will necessarily favor this trait,” study researcher Gert Stulp, a scientist at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, […] In the same way, traits that harm one sex but not the other may not be “weeded out” by natural selection, Stulp said […] The results revealed that in short families, where both brother and sister were likely to be below-average height, sisters had more children than brothers. In average-height families, however, brothers had more children than their sisters.. […] “Because selection in this generation is then likely to be stronger on average-height men, the next generation will again be slightly taller,” Stulp said. “This is, of course, to the detriment of women, so that the selection pressure on female height will get stronger to push it back to shorter height again.”

    This back-and-forth loop between slightly shorter and slightly taller generations will continue as long as evolutionary pressures for men and women remain different, Stulp said.

  176. It reproduces academic papers– some (or many?) of which are “pirated”. No idea of the legal implications of hosting a link in a comments section that directs to a potential instance of copyright infringement.

  177. @Genrick Yagoda
    I don't know why the left is is eager to accept that there is a gene for homosexual behavior.

    Because once they accept that, then it follows that the uber-violent behavior of blacks is genetic, and so is the behavior of God's Chosen.

    Replies: @peterike, @Unladen Swallow, @anonymous

    you are what Pope spoke of when he said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @anonymous


    you are what Pope spoke of when he said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
     
    It doesn't take being elected by the College of Cardinals to know that!
  178. @adreadline
    @William Badwhite

    Get the URL of the image by right clicking it, then selecting the ''copy image URL/address'' option and paste that URL on your comment. That's it; I don't think you need to use IMG html tags or anything. (Whatever starts with ''www.bing.com'', ''www.google.com'' etc. is likely not the actual image's URL, as it's certainly not hosted by Bing or Google)

    Replies: @res, @The Last Real Calvinist

    I think it is necessary to make sure the image is really an image (Wikipedia in particular is bad about naming pages .jpg which are about images rather than the image itself) and make sure the link ends in the image suffix (e.g. jpg, png, gif) without any additional qualifiers.

    What I usually do is get the image link as you say then trim the tags (e.g. size) from it. Then I check in a web browser to see if the link is good. Last, once you have entered the link “Preview Comment” should display the image if you got it right.

    Sometimes this feature is a bit funky. For example, there is a long standing issue where the image will display when I post a comment, but if I then edit the comment it does not display for me. It does work if I open another window though.

  179. @adreadline
    @William Badwhite

    Get the URL of the image by right clicking it, then selecting the ''copy image URL/address'' option and paste that URL on your comment. That's it; I don't think you need to use IMG html tags or anything. (Whatever starts with ''www.bing.com'', ''www.google.com'' etc. is likely not the actual image's URL, as it's certainly not hosted by Bing or Google)

    Replies: @res, @The Last Real Calvinist

    One way to check is to make sure the image’s URL ends in a suffix indicating it’s in an image format. I’ve successfully posted images ending in .jpg and .png, and I think .gif works also.

    Do other formats work? Curious.

    • Replies: @res
    @The Last Real Calvinist


    Do other formats work? Curious.
     
    I have been unable to get svg to work. I am also interested in any formats other than jpg/gif/png which work. Perhaps bmp or tiff?

    Here is a fairly detailed list of formats if anyone feels like experimenting.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats

    Replies: @Lot

  180. @Steve Sailer
    @anon

    (Steve, note I included a Sci-Hub link… not sure your or Unz’s policy on that).

    Thanks, sounds great. I don't know anything about Sci-Hub, so is there any reason we wouldn't want you to include that link? (That's not a snarky question.)

    Replies: @res

    What is SciHub?
    Sci.Hub is a site to download reference papers and journal articles for free. Just paste the DOI of the journal article you want, and ScienceHub will fetch the PDF for you for free.

    From https://sci-hub.now.sh/ which is a good source for dealing with the Sci-hub whack a mole game we see.

    Some reasons I see not to post Sci-hub links:
    – Copyright violation concerns.
    – Making it easier for TPTB to play Sci-hub whack a mole.
    – Because of Sci-hub whack a mole the links can go bad.

    Similar thoughts apply for Libgen (Library Genesis) currently at libgen.is

    What I usually do is post a DOI and say to go look for it there.

    Some links which might be of interest:
    https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-battles-pirate-bay-esque-domain-name-whack-a-mole-171216/
    https://www.sspnet.org/library/scihub-are-publishers-just-going-to-play-whack-a-mole-forever-or-can-they-actually-do-something/

  181. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @adreadline

    One way to check is to make sure the image's URL ends in a suffix indicating it's in an image format. I've successfully posted images ending in .jpg and .png, and I think .gif works also.

    Do other formats work? Curious.

    Replies: @res

    Do other formats work? Curious.

    I have been unable to get svg to work. I am also interested in any formats other than jpg/gif/png which work. Perhaps bmp or tiff?

    Here is a fairly detailed list of formats if anyone feels like experimenting.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats

    • Replies: @Lot
    @res

    “I am also interested in any formats other than jpg/gif/png which work. Perhaps bmp or tiff?”

    I have probably posted more isteve comment pics than anyone, but have never been tempted to post a bmp or tiff.

    They are usually both larger and less compressed than jpgs. Since Unz doesn’t host linked images in comments, it is also kind of rude to have a random third party deliver a large file many hundreds of times.

  182. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a certain amount of evidence supporting the idea that societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs.

    One example: not too many years ago some folks doing a monkey study realized they could treat monkeys for depression. So they did. And the monkey society got wiped out. Why? Because the depressed monkeys would wander out to the outskirts of the living area. When a dangerous predator came by, the depressed monkeys were the first to be aware of the danger. They alerted their comrades, and saved the monkeys.

    Consider that primitive human villages had about 200 people. Since women live longer than men, this would be over 100 women and under 100 men. The exact ratio would depend on whether the village recently fought a battle which wiped out many of the men.

    A small number of men had to be oddballs. The village medicine man/ priest. The wise old village chief. The loner who is really good at tracking animals. The extrovert who could bind them men together in a hunting or war party. The great teacher who can teach the boys how to become men. And so on.

    It is quite possible that the village functions better with at least one or two gays, and at least A few guys who swing both ways.

    Just an interesting hypothesis to consider.

    Which brings up the question: is modern society better off with its oddballs? The Turings or Stallmans of this world.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris Renner, @kaganovitch, @Bill, @Elli

    Did women live longer than men in “primitive human villages?” Childbirth is pretty dangerous.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Bill

    Childbirth is dangerous, but battles were even more dangerous.

    For those who survived, women’s lifespans were, and still are, generally longer.

    I would be curious as to what the ratio was for primitive villages.

  183. @Alden
    @gman

    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.

    The anti birth control men are very careful to limit their own families to the one or two children they can support.

    Yet they rant against birth control and blame the pill, not the older methods for all the ills of society.

    Hypocrites. Or more likely sad old bachelors who never did the deed that results in conception.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Bill

    Unz.com: anti-birth-control hotbed

  184. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    @Maciano


    1-4% is homosexual in most Western populations while they have very few children.
     
    Why do you assume this? In most societies, everyone is expected to "be fruitful and multiply". In such an environment, queers have an incentive to outbreed their neighbors: pregnancy is the best excuse for getting out of the hated sex act.

    I know a family where an eventual lesbian was 14% of her generation but produced 19% of the next. This figure dipped a bit as one of hers was among those who died young, but that's still higher at 16.7%.


    I'm not supporting the genetic explanation, just pointing out that it is not as impossible as people take it to be.

    Replies: @jon, @Anonymous

    My dad knew a woman (thin and attractive even after kids) that had five kids by 30. At 40, her husband of twenty years traded her in on a new younger model. After a big freakfest, a divorce, and much shit slinging, she decided she was a lesbian and moved in (along with her brood) with a butch lickalotapus dinosaur (imagine a 300 lb, 6′ Ann B.Davis who could lift a head off an 8V71 Detroit without undue effort-she was, literally, a diesel dyke!) who also had three kids before deciding she too was a lesbian.

    They still live together although the butch is getting to be afflicted by senility at 80+ now.

    All eight kids are completely screwed up, several have done time, they all have illegitimate kids, two of the girls are major coalburners, one of the boys is down for life without in Missouri.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Anonymous

    Financial guru Suze Orman was overheard at South Shore High School in Chicago saying: "I want to go to Cincinnati and find a Jewish husband."

    A few years ago, I was looking at the Chicago Tribune magazine insert ("Parade"?) and there on Page 2 was a small blurb about how she had a FEMALE partner!

    So it took her a bunch of years to go from Jew hubby hunting to a full time lesbian.

  185. @anonymous
    @Genrick Yagoda

    you are what Pope spoke of when he said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Replies: @Anonymous

    you are what Pope spoke of when he said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

    It doesn’t take being elected by the College of Cardinals to know that!

  186. @obwandiyag
    So let me get this straight. Sometimes you like the genetic explanation and sometimes you don't.

    And you're not a hypocrite or anything. Interesting.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kronos, @Redneck farmer, @Maciano, @MEH 0910, @JMcG, @Unladen Swallow, @MBlanc46

    I won’t waste my hourly Troll on him.

  187. @robot
    OT: Is Ken Burns skewing his storyline to emphasize the unity and underplay the disagreements in 'country' music? Sex, drugs, drink, religion, politics, war, family-- I wish he'd analyse how these themes cross every musical genre.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Bugg, @Carol

    He skipped over Spade Cooley didn’t he?

    Whitewash.

  188. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @donvonburg
    @SimpleSong

    I wouldn't consider Joan Jett, Cara Delevingne, or even Jane Lynch ugly.

    I'm sure Joan went lesbian because she was abused and impregnated by a predatory male, had her baby done away with, and was so traumatized that lesbianism became her 'outlet'. She's closeted because her decent but naive parents would be traumatized if she acknowledged it. Her parents, were too decent-they raised her naively and she was not prepared for what she would run into in Los Angeles rock and roll culture in 1975. In those pre-AIDS days it was Sodom incarnate. The death toll from suicide, drug overdoses and car crashes alone was horrendous even before AIDS broke out.

    One of her guitar techs was trained by me and he got to know her pretty well. All the above is public knowledge, I'm not violating any confidences, but it does illustrate a facet of the phenomenon.

    Joan is an example of a woman who would have made a decent and happy wife and mother to probably decent kids but for circumstances. I'm sure her abuser is in hell now. But she has made her own choices and, as we all will, will answer for them also. I get the sense that she is not a profoundly happy person but gets through life relatively well considering the circumstances. I wish her well, but I'm not sure I'd let my teenage daughter hang out with her unchaperoned.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Duke84

    Having met Joan, I doubt her being a barren doe is too big a loss. She is probably slightly smarter than average, but not hugely so-Hynde and Harry are both way above average, she is not-but she seemed to me to be high energy but not particularly curious about the world or other people, and very jaded. She also physically doesn’t strike me as being birthworthy, flat ass, tiny breasts, little female curvature. A boy(without block and tackle) from the waist down.

    Some women really should not give birth, both from an eugenic standpoint, and because they would not likely have been happier as wives and mothers than as single barren doe’s. I think she is as happy as she is going to get doing what she does, her fans like what she does, and I don’t believe all that jazz about abortions necessarily being emotionally devastating to women. They can be if they re forced into them, but I think many times they are just relieved and go on to live their lives, and have kids they otherwise would not have had in better circumstances, which isn’t to say unlimited abortion on demand is a social good.

  189. @Daniel H
    @Inquiring Mind

    Looking at her I can't believe that she is 16 years. She looks to be about 11 or 12. She displays no sexual maturation characteristics (no breasts). This is probably a good thing. I have read that as recently as 150 years ago girls matured at 16-18, rather than 12-13. It is probably better for girls' psychological and physical development to mature slower.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Looking at her I can’t believe that she is 16 years. She looks to be about 11 or 12. She displays no sexual maturation characteristics (no breasts). This is probably a good thing.

    It’s not a good thing. I’ve read that her normal growth and development were delayed/retarded because she starved herself almost to death when she was younger. She’s still a vegan, and given the stridency and fanaticism she displays, who knows what she actually eats these days?

    She’s obviously got serious mental problems, and is being cruelly exploited.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    A friends's child was vegetarian from age 6 (didn't like to kill animals). She didn't grow much, and got a lot of non-serious illness - every bug going round school would get her. By 17 she decided, with a heavy dose of parental pressure, to drop it for her exam year - she stopped getting sick and got great grades.

    But she'll never get that height back.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    And that fascist right wing nazi network known as Fox news blew off a guest who said some true things about Saint Greta.

    She knows as much about "climate change" as that poofter David Hogg knows about guns.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/343081/

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

  190. @Bill
    @Paleo Liberal

    Did women live longer than men in "primitive human villages?" Childbirth is pretty dangerous.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    Childbirth is dangerous, but battles were even more dangerous.

    For those who survived, women’s lifespans were, and still are, generally longer.

    I would be curious as to what the ratio was for primitive villages.

  191. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    It is pseudo-science at it’s best. Both “race” and ” sexuality” are 19th century concepts…Christinaity:.. is at the root of the evolution of the concept of “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”

    That might be a plausible notion if Christianity was likewise a 19th century concept. Otherwise, unless you can explain why it took Christians 19 whole centuries to come up with these concepts, it isn’t.

    It is true, however, that Christianity does not traditionally care about dividing people into homosexuals and heterosexuals, not to mention the 31 other flavors that have since come to the fore, with new ones being cooked up every few months or so:

    Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals…were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think.

    Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity’s marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations.

  192. @Anonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    My dad knew a woman (thin and attractive even after kids) that had five kids by 30. At 40, her husband of twenty years traded her in on a new younger model. After a big freakfest, a divorce, and much shit slinging, she decided she was a lesbian and moved in (along with her brood) with a butch lickalotapus dinosaur (imagine a 300 lb, 6' Ann B.Davis who could lift a head off an 8V71 Detroit without undue effort-she was, literally, a diesel dyke!) who also had three kids before deciding she too was a lesbian.

    They still live together although the butch is getting to be afflicted by senility at 80+ now.

    All eight kids are completely screwed up, several have done time, they all have illegitimate kids, two of the girls are major coalburners, one of the boys is down for life without in Missouri.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Financial guru Suze Orman was overheard at South Shore High School in Chicago saying: “I want to go to Cincinnati and find a Jewish husband.”

    A few years ago, I was looking at the Chicago Tribune magazine insert (“Parade”?) and there on Page 2 was a small blurb about how she had a FEMALE partner!

    So it took her a bunch of years to go from Jew hubby hunting to a full time lesbian.

  193. @res
    @The Last Real Calvinist


    Do other formats work? Curious.
     
    I have been unable to get svg to work. I am also interested in any formats other than jpg/gif/png which work. Perhaps bmp or tiff?

    Here is a fairly detailed list of formats if anyone feels like experimenting.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats

    Replies: @Lot

    “I am also interested in any formats other than jpg/gif/png which work. Perhaps bmp or tiff?”

    I have probably posted more isteve comment pics than anyone, but have never been tempted to post a bmp or tiff.

    They are usually both larger and less compressed than jpgs. Since Unz doesn’t host linked images in comments, it is also kind of rude to have a random third party deliver a large file many hundreds of times.

    • Agree: res
  194. @Mr. Anon
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    There is no point in explaining anything to Nick Diaz. He's a bloviating retard. His posts could be replaced with "wah, wah, wah, wah,......" or a random pattern of 1's and 0's and it would make no difference.

    Replies: @Nick Diaz, @Nick Diaz

    This coming from the dummy that can’t even spell the word “ethnicity”.
    Oh, you think I am that? Here is news for you: I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me, because in order for me to care I would have to respect your intellect. Which I don’t. Your posts are you ranting at people like a dumbass. You have never said anything intelligent or even remotely intelligible. You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5′ weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.
    Yes, we have nothing in common, Ms.Anonyma. I am Latino, intelligent and well-educated, while you are a stereotype of the white conservative: uneducated, stupid, prejudiced, racist scum. I would love to meet in person and put my finger in your face.
    The only thing that we have in common, Ms.Anonyma, is that I am a dick and you suck. Other than that we have nothing in common. Hey, Ms.Anonyma: go “f” you.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Nick Diaz

    As I said, you are a stupid bloviating retard. It is obvious to everyone here. It is probably obvious to your own family.

    , @William Badwhite
    @Nick Diaz

    Testing my recently taught pic-posting skills (thanks all)

    Nick be all

    http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2016/04/06/446254-speedy-gonzales-looney-tunes-facebook.jpg

  195. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    @Nick Diaz


    First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people.
     
    They tend to be white.

    Replies: @Nick Diaz

    Yeah,…and not cponservative racists like you guys. They are pretty much liberal. So them beieng white or not, you still lose anyway.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Nick Diaz

    Has anyone ever seen Nick Diaz and Thomm in the same thread?

    , @Ghost of Bull Moose
    @Nick Diaz

    It's probably for the best that these white liberals won't reproduce.

  196. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a certain amount of evidence supporting the idea that societies function better with a small percentage of oddballs.

    One example: not too many years ago some folks doing a monkey study realized they could treat monkeys for depression. So they did. And the monkey society got wiped out. Why? Because the depressed monkeys would wander out to the outskirts of the living area. When a dangerous predator came by, the depressed monkeys were the first to be aware of the danger. They alerted their comrades, and saved the monkeys.

    Consider that primitive human villages had about 200 people. Since women live longer than men, this would be over 100 women and under 100 men. The exact ratio would depend on whether the village recently fought a battle which wiped out many of the men.

    A small number of men had to be oddballs. The village medicine man/ priest. The wise old village chief. The loner who is really good at tracking animals. The extrovert who could bind them men together in a hunting or war party. The great teacher who can teach the boys how to become men. And so on.

    It is quite possible that the village functions better with at least one or two gays, and at least A few guys who swing both ways.

    Just an interesting hypothesis to consider.

    Which brings up the question: is modern society better off with its oddballs? The Turings or Stallmans of this world.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris Renner, @kaganovitch, @Bill, @Elli

    In earlier times, female life expectancy was not longer. As many or more women died young from child-bearing as men did from fighting.

  197. @Kronos
    I’ve always been curious about the social class breakdown of homosexuality. It seems to be more self-evident in high societies of high political intrigue. The evolutionary forces may have evidently encouraged the potential of a Lady Macbeth in a man’s body. That women are better at reading gossip and back stabbing then compared to men’s average preference of frontal assaults.


    Think about Down Syndrome. The pressure for it within itself isn’t there (they’re sterile) but the cognitive gene pressures lead towards falling off down certain IQ gene cliffs.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

    Replies: @Apu Apu, @ApacheTrout, @Old Palo Altan, @Alden, @Anonymous, @Bruno

    Louis XIV was the straightest and hornless guy ever. He is supposed to have said around 70 yo about his Willy, until yesterday I thought it was a bone.

    Completely out of context to suppose he was an effeminate ….

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Bruno

    He may have won the genetic ability to read women. But his brother was REALLY gay. Which not just gave him the ability to understand women but their attraction to males.

    Replies: @BB753

  198. @Mike1
    It is baffling that people do not know that gay men usually do actually breed. When they have kids they have them young. They are far more sexually active at a young age than heterosexual males. For anyone capable of statistical math having one child early equals having a standard number of children later in life.

    Cochran's explanation doesn't pass the laugh test. The guy is clearly on the spectrum he "knows" the absolute answer to everything.

    Replies: @gcochran

    “For anyone capable of statistical math having one child early equals having a standard number of children later in life.”

    Nope.

    • Replies: @Mike1
    @gcochran

    I'll dumb it down for you:

    Heterosexual female, first child at 15, second at 17, third at 18, fourth at 20 and fifth at 21.

    Risk taking behavior is passed on. Ratio stays the same. By year 36 from birth of subject there are 25 descendants.

    At year 36 many women still are looking for "Mr Right".

    Gay men are often the father of child one (gay men experiment early and often in general). Again, following the behavior pattern, at year 21 this guy can have 5 descendants.

  199. @Sean
    https://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/ariana-grande-brother-frankie-2010-billboard-650.jpg


    She is fit for a purpose.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-doesnt-evolution-get-rid-of-ugly/

    In a groundbreaking study, biologists at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland have figured out why, at least in one species: genes that are good for males are bad for females and, perhaps, vice versa.

    The scientists studied red deer, 3,559 of them from eight generations, living on Scotland’s Isle of Rum. They carefully noted each animal’s fitness, who mated with whom, how many offspring survived, which offspring mated and with what results. Bottom line: “male red deer with relatively high fitness fathered, on average, daughters with relatively low fitness,” Edinburgh’s Katharina Foerster and her colleagues conclude in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature. “Male red deer with a relatively high lifetime [fitness, which includes their reproductive success, the only thing evolution cares about] sired, on average, daughters with a relatively low [fitness].” The reverse also holds. Males that were relatively less successful in their reproductive success and fitness had daughters that were extra successful.
     
    Cochran says "Generally, the traits genetically correlated with homosexuality are bad things. As far as I can see, they look like noise, rather than any kind of genetic strategy". Why isn't IQ negatively affected then?

    Replies: @Bruno

    Are schizophrenia and autism associated with a lower average IQ ? I can understand that depression lowers IQ, but are dépressive people, when they are treated, less intelligent than the average ?

    Because your assumption is that all mental illnesses are associated with a lower intelligence and gays have a normal intelligence, then homosexuality can’t be a mental illness.

    Are the 2 premises true ?

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Bruno

    The thing that made modern humans more intelligent and less straight than their archaic ancestors was probably domestication or genetic pacification. Obviously genes for murder would be pursuing a genetic strategy for access to choice females. So the violent problem men were the straightest men.


    https://undark.org/article/book-review-goodness-paradox/

    Wrangham... There are two kinds of violence, he writes: the reactive, which is hot and immediate; and the proactive, which is cold and premeditated. We display much less reactive violence than our chimpanzee cousins, he notes, and he thinks it’s due to self-domestication. “Our social tolerance increased even as our bones changed,” he writes. “Our more wolf-like behavior of the past became our more doglike behavior of the present.” [...] It all comes down to domestication, a process that has made males more “feminine” — less physically brutish and reactively aggressive — compared to such hominid relatives as the Neanderthals. (He also suggests that it explains the relatively high incidence of human homosexuality.“The Goodness Paradox” wades into controversy when it discusses the “execution hypothesis,” an idea going back to Darwin, which maintains that capital punishment may have helped domesticate humans by culling those more prone to reactive aggression. The end result is fewer and fewer hot-headed, socially disruptive individuals — mainly males — who are prone to murderous outbursts and other crimes against fellow group members.

     

    Replies: @BB753

  200. @Coffee Jack

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.
     
    Maybe they were instrumental in our learning how to cook meat properly, or having a clean cave.
    Maybe they invented dessert. Maybe they assisted, de facto, in civilizing savage tribes.
    Maybe the purpose they served was contributing to fitness for modern civilization.
    In any case, it’s pretty safe to assume there are unrecorded episodes of "Queer Eye for the Cave Guy."

    Replies: @bored identity, @bored identity, @Apu Apu, @anon, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @J

    So, not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.

    Meaning: It is a disease.

    Incurable, till medicine advances to the point of curing genetic diseases.

  201. @Bruno
    @Kronos

    Louis XIV was the straightest and hornless guy ever. He is supposed to have said around 70 yo about his Willy, until yesterday I thought it was a bone.

    Completely out of context to suppose he was an effeminate ....

    Replies: @Kronos

    He may have won the genetic ability to read women. But his brother was REALLY gay. Which not just gave him the ability to understand women but their attraction to males.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Kronos

    Why? I've found that homosexuals are generally clueless about what makes women tick. Sharing gossip is not a profound knowledge.

    Replies: @Kronos

  202. @Nick Diaz
    @Mr. Anon

    This coming from the dummy that can’t even spell the word “ethnicity”.
    Oh, you think I am that? Here is news for you: I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me, because in order for me to care I would have to respect your intellect. Which I don’t. Your posts are you ranting at people like a dumbass. You have never said anything intelligent or even remotely intelligible. You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5′ weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.
    Yes, we have nothing in common, Ms.Anonyma. I am Latino, intelligent and well-educated, while you are a stereotype of the white conservative: uneducated, stupid, prejudiced, racist scum. I would love to meet in person and put my finger in your face.
    The only thing that we have in common, Ms.Anonyma, is that I am a dick and you suck. Other than that we have nothing in common. Hey, Ms.Anonyma: go "f" you.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @William Badwhite

    As I said, you are a stupid bloviating retard. It is obvious to everyone here. It is probably obvious to your own family.

  203. @Nick Diaz
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Yeah,...and not cponservative racists like you guys. They are pretty much liberal. So them beieng white or not, you still lose anyway.

    Replies: @anon, @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Has anyone ever seen Nick Diaz and Thomm in the same thread?

  204. @Chrisnonymous
    @bored identity

    I hope he got a BJ out of that.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @bored identity, @Duke84

    Looks like he would prefer a donut.

  205. @Alden
    @Kronos

    The man in the picture was sexually active with women from age 14 on despite the best efforts of his regent/ mother and numerous advisors . He had 10 children with his wife and 10,12 who knows how many with other women.

    If you wanted to display a homosexual King of France, find pictures of his father, Louis 13.

    Replies: @Kronos

    Which supports my point. Both the Sun King’s Father and Brother possessed strong homosexual tendencies. Something that suggests that genetics are afoot. That some male political leaders possessed superb interpersonal social skills that surpassed the average woman.

    The best modern political incarnation of that trait is Bill Clinton. That man could win over women in the millions with the “I feel your pain” speeches and hugging Presidential debate observers. George HW Bush and Perot were superb analytical skills but lacked Bill’s finesse in a crowd. Jeff Epstein was right to be awed by D.C.’s most skillful political animal.

    I’d strongly argue Billie boy understood women quite well. (That proved his partial undoing.) that his kind possess cognitive genes that help provide a extrovert feel for predicting the thoughts of women. Something that if genetically overloaded might turn someone gay.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Kronos

    Clinton was a great politician but not a ladies' man. Just look at the women he was involved with. Women loved him as a politician and love power. But as a man separate from his political power--meh.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  206. @donvonburg
    @SimpleSong

    I wouldn't consider Joan Jett, Cara Delevingne, or even Jane Lynch ugly.

    I'm sure Joan went lesbian because she was abused and impregnated by a predatory male, had her baby done away with, and was so traumatized that lesbianism became her 'outlet'. She's closeted because her decent but naive parents would be traumatized if she acknowledged it. Her parents, were too decent-they raised her naively and she was not prepared for what she would run into in Los Angeles rock and roll culture in 1975. In those pre-AIDS days it was Sodom incarnate. The death toll from suicide, drug overdoses and car crashes alone was horrendous even before AIDS broke out.

    One of her guitar techs was trained by me and he got to know her pretty well. All the above is public knowledge, I'm not violating any confidences, but it does illustrate a facet of the phenomenon.

    Joan is an example of a woman who would have made a decent and happy wife and mother to probably decent kids but for circumstances. I'm sure her abuser is in hell now. But she has made her own choices and, as we all will, will answer for them also. I get the sense that she is not a profoundly happy person but gets through life relatively well considering the circumstances. I wish her well, but I'm not sure I'd let my teenage daughter hang out with her unchaperoned.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Duke84

    All three of those women appear to be more masculine than most women.

  207. @Anonymous
    @Kronos

    High heels and ladylike legs were a sign that you rode rather than walked. They were marks of high social status.

    The modern equivalent of this would be (e.g.) sporting a tan in midwinter, as only the wealthy can afford to take long holidays in warm places.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “The modern equivalent of this would be (e.g.) sporting a tan in midwinter, as only the wealthy can afford to take long holidays in warm places.”

    We’ve seen the wheel turn full circle on this.

    Victorian times – tan meant you worked in the fields, how lower class, ladies have white skin!

    1950s-60s – tan means you can afford to holiday abroad by jet – upper class, pasty pale skin – how lower class!

    2010s – tan means broiling yourself in Spain or Cyprus on cheap holiday or worse the tanning salon, how lower class, ladies have pale skin!

    Admittedly no male’s going to kick a fit girl with a tan out of bed, no matter what class she be.

  208. @Kronos
    @Bruno

    He may have won the genetic ability to read women. But his brother was REALLY gay. Which not just gave him the ability to understand women but their attraction to males.

    Replies: @BB753

    Why? I’ve found that homosexuals are generally clueless about what makes women tick. Sharing gossip is not a profound knowledge.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @BB753

    The ones I’ve known have been able to read a female as soon as she entered a room. (This is more of the feminine hairdresser type.)

    “OMG! Here comes trouble! How was the date Suzy? I just WANT to know.

  209. @Bruno
    @Sean

    Are schizophrenia and autism associated with a lower average IQ ? I can understand that depression lowers IQ, but are dépressive people, when they are treated, less intelligent than the average ?

    Because your assumption is that all mental illnesses are associated with a lower intelligence and gays have a normal intelligence, then homosexuality can’t be a mental illness.

    Are the 2 premises true ?

    Replies: @Sean

    The thing that made modern humans more intelligent and less straight than their archaic ancestors was probably domestication or genetic pacification. Obviously genes for murder would be pursuing a genetic strategy for access to choice females. So the violent problem men were the straightest men.

    https://undark.org/article/book-review-goodness-paradox/

    Wrangham… There are two kinds of violence, he writes: the reactive, which is hot and immediate; and the proactive, which is cold and premeditated. We display much less reactive violence than our chimpanzee cousins, he notes, and he thinks it’s due to self-domestication. “Our social tolerance increased even as our bones changed,” he writes. “Our more wolf-like behavior of the past became our more doglike behavior of the present.” […] It all comes down to domestication, a process that has made males more “feminine” — less physically brutish and reactively aggressive — compared to such hominid relatives as the Neanderthals. (He also suggests that it explains the relatively high incidence of human homosexuality.“The Goodness Paradox” wades into controversy when it discusses the “execution hypothesis,” an idea going back to Darwin, which maintains that capital punishment may have helped domesticate humans by culling those more prone to reactive aggression. The end result is fewer and fewer hot-headed, socially disruptive individuals — mainly males — who are prone to murderous outbursts and other crimes against fellow group members.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Sean

    Yet jails are full of homosexuals. Homos have higher incarceration rates than straights. Less impulse control and sundry mental disorders are to blame.

    Replies: @Sean

  210. @Mr. Blank
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    My wife likes to tell the story about how when she was a teen, she spent a long time thinking she was a lesbian. It wasn’t that she liked girls — it was just that she could never figure out what other girls saw in boys. She thought boys were stupid and icky. Ergo, she just assumed she was playing for the other team.

    Then, she said, one day this new boy showed up at school. As she puts it, “the second he walked in the room, I knew for a fact I wasn’t a lesbian.”

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Yes, girls will sometimes claim to be lesbians to stop boys they don’t like from pestering them. They drop the act immediately when a boy they do like appears.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Anonymous


    Yes, girls will sometimes claim to be lesbians to stop boys they don’t like from pestering them. They drop the act immediately when a boy they do like appears.
     
    I will not succumb to the temptation of asking how you know this to be true.
  211. @Realist
    @JR Ewing


    But sticking one’s sexual member into another’s rectum is 100% free will. As is all of the other “lifestyle” actions these people engage in.
     
    Yes, as is sticking one’s sexual member into another’s vagina...your point? Why does the consensual sex act of homosexuals cause you such consternation? Homosexuality is repugnant to me, but the fact that some have homosexual relations is none of my business.

    Replies: @JMcG

    It’s being made your business.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @JMcG


    It’s being made your business.
     
    Ummm...I think not.

    Replies: @JMcG

  212. @Ziel
    The graphic shows a + correlation with # of children - surprising

    Replies: @gabriel alberton, @anon, @Aft

    Curiously and deceptively unmentioned by Cochran:

    Literally the trait that defines Darwinian fitness (offspring) was found to be POSITIVELY correlated with homosexuality at the genetic level. Meaning the old thesis that the relatives (specifically it seems to be the male relatives) of homosexuals have more children holds true. That’s a pretty damn good explanation for the genes staying in the population, especially back when gay men would just wife up and have kids and play on their own time.

    Seems like a pretty coherent genetic strategy: more drugs, more risk-taking, more sex partners, more children etc. The rockstar strategy for having lots of kids. Tough on the body, good for fecundity.

    Just because Greg doesn’t like those things don’t mean they are “bad things”; Darwinian selection doesn’t work that way.

    Paper: https://geneticsexbehavior.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ganna190830.pdf

    BTW Steve this is wrong: “not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose.” The paper presents strong evidence these genes stayed in the population because they help male relatives with a moderate dose of them have more children. Very common genetic phenomenon (heterozygosity or a moderate level of the trait is good; homozygosity or too much can hurt fitness).

    • Replies: @e
    @Aft

    That fell short of statistical significance.

  213. @JMcG
    @Realist

    It’s being made your business.

    Replies: @Realist

    It’s being made your business.

    Ummm…I think not.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Realist

    Do you have kids?

    Replies: @Realist

  214. @Element59
    @gcochran9

    Is there any variation in homosexual discordance between MZ twins sharing one amniotic sack versus MZ twins that developed in two separate sacks? Is epigenetics in play here?

    Replies: @Aft

    Uterine environment matters (though not sure about the specific question asked):

    each older brother increased the probability of being gay by about 33% (1). This startling phenomenon was confirmed in multiple studies based on independent populations totaling over 10,000 subjects, and a meta-analysis indicated that between 15% and 29% of gay men owe their sexual orientation to this effect…

    …the increased incidence of homosexuality in males with older brothers results from a progressive immunization of the mother against a male-specific cell-adhesion protein that plays a key role in cell–cell interactions, specifically in the process of synapse formation, during development

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/

  215. @donvonburg
    @Alastair Trumpington

    In the natural state man has been beset by homosexuality since, roughly, forever. Even if you don't believe the Bible being the true Word of God, you have to admit the Book of Genesis is at least four thousand years old. To describe Sodom and Gomorrah the writer had to have some contact with an advanced level of, ahem, "gay culture". The ancient Greeks certainly had different and conflicting ideas on the practice and propriety of it, but it was well described, at least several hundred years before Christ.

    But homosexuals have always been a tiny minority and though they often had a disproportionate influence they were never really in control of things-except in a tiny number of places where things didn't turn out well in short order. Healthy societies may leave homosexuals alone but they don't let them run things and keep them out of positions of real power and influence.

    I predict Apple Computer will be a massively reduced company or not exist at all in a decade or so based on nothing more than Tim Cook being 1) incapable of having created what he runs and 2) yes, gay. There are many other reasons, too, but I suspect 1 and 2 are sufficient. Time will tell if I am right or wrong. But I'm not buying Apple stock.

    I might hire a known homosexual for a job in which homosexuals typically do well but I would not hire one for any position of serious responsibility or in which he or she might have to interact with what I consider vulnerable members of the community. That's probably actually illegal, or would open me to civil sanction were it publicized. So be it.

    It does seem that female homosexuality does differ in the respect that it's much more situational than the male version. I have female family members that had dalliances with "being lesbians" then "straightened out". They have stayed straightened out. They are grandmothers now and their grandkids have no idea and I hope it stays that way.

    Men who are gay stay gay. My church has had a gay-man-to-straight ministry for some time and my private thought is that it wastes everyone's time and annoys the gay, so to speak. Worse, some of these guys have "gone straight" and married , fathered kids, then "fallen off the p***ywagon" (sorry, I know it's a sin, but I couldn't resist that mixed metaphor!!) and went back to rump rangering leaving a devastated wife and kids in a bad situation to say the least. I don't have the answer, there probably isn't one. Maybe the Catholics were half right-make them priests, but in an order with little public contact instead of diocese priests around all that pubescent chicken.

    Replies: @Aft

    Worse, some of these guys have “gone straight” and married , fathered kids, then “fallen off the p***ywagon”

    From the perspective of trying to get people who share your genes (offspring, relatives, or even a church group more similar than the average citizen) to pass on their genes–the main evolutionary driver beyond most parental urges–that’s called a success…

  216. @Nick Diaz
    @Mr. Anon

    This coming from the dummy that can’t even spell the word “ethnicity”.
    Oh, you think I am that? Here is news for you: I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me, because in order for me to care I would have to respect your intellect. Which I don’t. Your posts are you ranting at people like a dumbass. You have never said anything intelligent or even remotely intelligible. You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5′ weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.
    Yes, we have nothing in common, Ms.Anonyma. I am Latino, intelligent and well-educated, while you are a stereotype of the white conservative: uneducated, stupid, prejudiced, racist scum. I would love to meet in person and put my finger in your face.
    The only thing that we have in common, Ms.Anonyma, is that I am a dick and you suck. Other than that we have nothing in common. Hey, Ms.Anonyma: go "f" you.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @William Badwhite

    Testing my recently taught pic-posting skills (thanks all)

    Nick be all

  217. @Kronos
    @Alden

    Which supports my point. Both the Sun King’s Father and Brother possessed strong homosexual tendencies. Something that suggests that genetics are afoot. That some male political leaders possessed superb interpersonal social skills that surpassed the average woman.

    The best modern political incarnation of that trait is Bill Clinton. That man could win over women in the millions with the “I feel your pain” speeches and hugging Presidential debate observers. George HW Bush and Perot were superb analytical skills but lacked Bill’s finesse in a crowd. Jeff Epstein was right to be awed by D.C.’s most skillful political animal.

    I’d strongly argue Billie boy understood women quite well. (That proved his partial undoing.) that his kind possess cognitive genes that help provide a extrovert feel for predicting the thoughts of women. Something that if genetically overloaded might turn someone gay.


    https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/10/02/20121002-210809-pic-941487354_c0-51-2000-1217_s885x516.jpg?707d9da97e64104b97cfb3eb3ea5bd859d4c216a

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Clinton was a great politician but not a ladies’ man. Just look at the women he was involved with. Women loved him as a politician and love power. But as a man separate from his political power–meh.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Chrisnonymous

    I seem to recall one of the Arizona detectives investigating the murder of actor Bob Crane said they interviewed quite a collection of unattractive women. He wasn't particular. Hellary, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky - none of them are all that appealing (and he evidently prefers sodomy to coitus). Contrast with his brother's wife and the mother of his brother's ba*tard child. The former in her prime was quite handsome and the latter has at least aged well.

  218. @Realist
    @JMcG


    It’s being made your business.
     
    Ummm...I think not.

    Replies: @JMcG

    Do you have kids?

    • Replies: @Realist
    @JMcG


    Do you have kids?
     
    I guess you are trying to imply that children are threatened by homosexuals. Sexually children are threatened by pedophiles...both hetrosexual and homosexual.
  219. @Sean
    @Bruno

    The thing that made modern humans more intelligent and less straight than their archaic ancestors was probably domestication or genetic pacification. Obviously genes for murder would be pursuing a genetic strategy for access to choice females. So the violent problem men were the straightest men.


    https://undark.org/article/book-review-goodness-paradox/

    Wrangham... There are two kinds of violence, he writes: the reactive, which is hot and immediate; and the proactive, which is cold and premeditated. We display much less reactive violence than our chimpanzee cousins, he notes, and he thinks it’s due to self-domestication. “Our social tolerance increased even as our bones changed,” he writes. “Our more wolf-like behavior of the past became our more doglike behavior of the present.” [...] It all comes down to domestication, a process that has made males more “feminine” — less physically brutish and reactively aggressive — compared to such hominid relatives as the Neanderthals. (He also suggests that it explains the relatively high incidence of human homosexuality.“The Goodness Paradox” wades into controversy when it discusses the “execution hypothesis,” an idea going back to Darwin, which maintains that capital punishment may have helped domesticate humans by culling those more prone to reactive aggression. The end result is fewer and fewer hot-headed, socially disruptive individuals — mainly males — who are prone to murderous outbursts and other crimes against fellow group members.

     

    Replies: @BB753

    Yet jails are full of homosexuals. Homos have higher incarceration rates than straights. Less impulse control and sundry mental disorders are to blame.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @BB753

    Aren't homosexuals more likely to gossip and shirk tough and dangerous work than become enraged and seriously assault someone? While primordial gays were maybe thought annoying, I don't think they were more likely something to do anything that could get them lynched by a mob of the others in their prehistoric band.


    https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/book-review-life-finds-way-andreas-wagner

    On a molecular level, Wagner explains how the shortcomings of natural selection and its relentless forward momentum are overcome by mechanisms that allow for short-term failure in the service of long-term success, such as genetic drift and DNA recombination. These processes shake up the gene pool of a population, allowing for a diversity of features, both good and bad, and the potential for a breakthrough that can benefit an entire species. “Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better,” Wagner writes.
     

  220. @jon
    @Reg Cæsar


    Why do you assume this? In most societies, everyone is expected to “be fruitful and multiply”. In such an environment, queers have an incentive to outbreed their neighbors: pregnancy is the best excuse for getting out of the hated sex act.
     
    Whenever this topic comes up, I always mention this (including upthread). No one ever seems to address the fact that, at least until relatively recently (and only really in the West) it was not acceptable for gay people to avoid getting married and having kids. The ancient Greeks were all sodomizing each other with reckless abandon, but they also all got married and fathered kids, so the Greeks didn't disappear.

    Replies: @HEL

    Whenever this topic comes up, I always mention this (including upthread). No one ever seems to address the fact that, at least until relatively recently (and only really in the West) it was not acceptable for gay people to avoid getting married and having kids.

    It’s absurd to suggest that having no desire to have sex with the opposite sex will not cause a fitness hit. Christ, most young men are absolutely obsessed with sex, will do anything to get it. You think this has no impact? Gays have only the societal pressure, whereas straights have the exact same pressure PLUS their own extreme desire. This combination is going to result in more reproduction. Yes, innumerable people with exclusively homosexual proclivities have reproduced over the years. But some avoided marriage, others got married and reproduced less than would a typical heterosexual couple etc. That’s all it takes. It doesn’t need to be an overwhelming failure to reproduce, a modest hit will quickly cause allow the non-homosexually inclined variants to utterly overwhelm the homosexual ones. Simple.

    This is all moot though, as homosexuality is not primarily genetic anyway. I don’t pretend to know the primary cause, or if there even is one primary cause, but genetic inheritance ain’t it.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @HEL

    Where men are men everyone is nervous, because totally heterosexual males are extremely violent. What was selected against was something that goes with flawless hetrosexuality.


    https://youtu.be/acOZT240bTA?t=1004


    Thus the hit against total hetrosexuality was actually against the individual-instinctive or reactive aggression that goes with absolute straightness. Disciplined organised proactive aggression can be increased at the same time that impulsive aggression is wiped out. Hence the homo hijinks of the Spartans, and the Vikings working each others passages in the longboats.

  221. @BB753
    @Kronos

    Why? I've found that homosexuals are generally clueless about what makes women tick. Sharing gossip is not a profound knowledge.

    Replies: @Kronos

    The ones I’ve known have been able to read a female as soon as she entered a room. (This is more of the feminine hairdresser type.)

    “OMG! Here comes trouble! How was the date Suzy? I just WANT to know.

  222. @gcochran
    @Mike1

    "For anyone capable of statistical math having one child early equals having a standard number of children later in life."

    Nope.

    Replies: @Mike1

    I’ll dumb it down for you:

    Heterosexual female, first child at 15, second at 17, third at 18, fourth at 20 and fifth at 21.

    Risk taking behavior is passed on. Ratio stays the same. By year 36 from birth of subject there are 25 descendants.

    At year 36 many women still are looking for “Mr Right”.

    Gay men are often the father of child one (gay men experiment early and often in general). Again, following the behavior pattern, at year 21 this guy can have 5 descendants.

  223. @HEL
    @jon


    Whenever this topic comes up, I always mention this (including upthread). No one ever seems to address the fact that, at least until relatively recently (and only really in the West) it was not acceptable for gay people to avoid getting married and having kids.
     
    It's absurd to suggest that having no desire to have sex with the opposite sex will not cause a fitness hit. Christ, most young men are absolutely obsessed with sex, will do anything to get it. You think this has no impact? Gays have only the societal pressure, whereas straights have the exact same pressure PLUS their own extreme desire. This combination is going to result in more reproduction. Yes, innumerable people with exclusively homosexual proclivities have reproduced over the years. But some avoided marriage, others got married and reproduced less than would a typical heterosexual couple etc. That's all it takes. It doesn't need to be an overwhelming failure to reproduce, a modest hit will quickly cause allow the non-homosexually inclined variants to utterly overwhelm the homosexual ones. Simple.

    This is all moot though, as homosexuality is not primarily genetic anyway. I don't pretend to know the primary cause, or if there even is one primary cause, but genetic inheritance ain't it.

    Replies: @Sean

    Where men are men everyone is nervous, because totally heterosexual males are extremely violent. What was selected against was something that goes with flawless hetrosexuality.

    Thus the hit against total hetrosexuality was actually against the individual-instinctive or reactive aggression that goes with absolute straightness. Disciplined organised proactive aggression can be increased at the same time that impulsive aggression is wiped out. Hence the homo hijinks of the Spartans, and the Vikings working each others passages in the longboats.

  224. @JMcG
    @Realist

    Do you have kids?

    Replies: @Realist

    Do you have kids?

    I guess you are trying to imply that children are threatened by homosexuals. Sexually children are threatened by pedophiles…both hetrosexual and homosexual.

  225. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Daniel H


    Looking at her I can’t believe that she is 16 years. She looks to be about 11 or 12. She displays no sexual maturation characteristics (no breasts). This is probably a good thing.

     

    It's not a good thing. I've read that her normal growth and development were delayed/retarded because she starved herself almost to death when she was younger. She's still a vegan, and given the stridency and fanaticism she displays, who knows what she actually eats these days?

    She's obviously got serious mental problems, and is being cruelly exploited.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jim Don Bob

    A friends’s child was vegetarian from age 6 (didn’t like to kill animals). She didn’t grow much, and got a lot of non-serious illness – every bug going round school would get her. By 17 she decided, with a heavy dose of parental pressure, to drop it for her exam year – she stopped getting sick and got great grades.

    But she’ll never get that height back.

  226. @Chrisnonymous
    @Kronos

    Clinton was a great politician but not a ladies' man. Just look at the women he was involved with. Women loved him as a politician and love power. But as a man separate from his political power--meh.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I seem to recall one of the Arizona detectives investigating the murder of actor Bob Crane said they interviewed quite a collection of unattractive women. He wasn’t particular. Hellary, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky – none of them are all that appealing (and he evidently prefers sodomy to coitus). Contrast with his brother’s wife and the mother of his brother’s ba*tard child. The former in her prime was quite handsome and the latter has at least aged well.

  227. @Nick Diaz
    @Mr. Anon

    This coming from the dumb cow that can't even spell the word "ethnicity".

    Oh, you think I am that? Here is news for you: I couldn't care less about your opinion of me, because in order for me to care I would have to respect your intellect. Which I don't. Your posts are you ranting at people like a dumbass. You have never said anything intelligent or even remotely intelligible. You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5' weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.

    Yes, we have nothing in common, Ms.Anonyma. I am Latino, intelligent and well-educated, while you are a stereotype of the white conservative: uneducated, stupid, prejudiced, racist scum. I would love to meet in person and put my finger in your face.

    The only thing that we have in common, Ms.Anonyma, is that I am a dick and you suck. Other than that we have nothing in common. Hey, Ms.Anonyma: go f-k yourself.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    You are not only stupid, you are almost certaily a 5′ weakling in real life and you would coward in fear if we met in real life.

    Nothing says intelligent and well-educated like “coward in fear” eh?

  228. @BB753
    @Sean

    Yet jails are full of homosexuals. Homos have higher incarceration rates than straights. Less impulse control and sundry mental disorders are to blame.

    Replies: @Sean

    Aren’t homosexuals more likely to gossip and shirk tough and dangerous work than become enraged and seriously assault someone? While primordial gays were maybe thought annoying, I don’t think they were more likely something to do anything that could get them lynched by a mob of the others in their prehistoric band.

    https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/book-review-life-finds-way-andreas-wagner

    On a molecular level, Wagner explains how the shortcomings of natural selection and its relentless forward momentum are overcome by mechanisms that allow for short-term failure in the service of long-term success, such as genetic drift and DNA recombination. These processes shake up the gene pool of a population, allowing for a diversity of features, both good and bad, and the potential for a breakthrough that can benefit an entire species. “Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better,” Wagner writes.

  229. @Old Prude
    @Bugg

    Good comment. Who expected anything different from a Burns production? It’s a polished turd.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Who expected anything different from a Burns production? It’s a polished turd.

    True, but even some of my nazi friends are lapping it up. Burns is so soothing.

    Burns hit it big with the Civil War and it’s been down hill for me ever since, but he does know how to pander to the NPR good whites.

  230. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Daniel H


    Looking at her I can’t believe that she is 16 years. She looks to be about 11 or 12. She displays no sexual maturation characteristics (no breasts). This is probably a good thing.

     

    It's not a good thing. I've read that her normal growth and development were delayed/retarded because she starved herself almost to death when she was younger. She's still a vegan, and given the stridency and fanaticism she displays, who knows what she actually eats these days?

    She's obviously got serious mental problems, and is being cruelly exploited.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jim Don Bob

    And that fascist right wing nazi network known as Fox news blew off a guest who said some true things about Saint Greta.

    She knows as much about “climate change” as that poofter David Hogg knows about guns.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/343081/

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Jim Don Bob

    Yes, it was Michael Knowles. He's a sharp guy; I listen to his Daily Wire podcast sometimes.

  231. @Anonymous
    @Mr. Blank

    Yes, girls will sometimes claim to be lesbians to stop boys they don't like from pestering them. They drop the act immediately when a boy they do like appears.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Yes, girls will sometimes claim to be lesbians to stop boys they don’t like from pestering them. They drop the act immediately when a boy they do like appears.

    I will not succumb to the temptation of asking how you know this to be true.

  232. @Jim Don Bob
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    And that fascist right wing nazi network known as Fox news blew off a guest who said some true things about Saint Greta.

    She knows as much about "climate change" as that poofter David Hogg knows about guns.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/343081/

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Yes, it was Michael Knowles. He’s a sharp guy; I listen to his Daily Wire podcast sometimes.

  233. @MEH 0910
    @petit bourgeois

    https://twitter.com/SouthPark/status/1176559326422544384

    ICE Comes for the Broflovskis - South Park
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiP8VA0Ijfo


    Published on Sep 23, 2019
    An anonymous tip leads ICE to stage a raid on the Broflovski house, separating Kyle and Ike from their parents.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e01-mexican-joker

    Mexican Joker

    s23e01 September 25, 2019
    Randy fights against home-grown. Meanwhile, Kyle goes to camp.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/blogs.comedycentral.com-production/wp-content/uploads/sites/58/2019/09/2301-blog.jpg

  234. @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e01-mexican-joker


    Mexican Joker

    s23e01 September 25, 2019
    Randy fights against home-grown. Meanwhile, Kyle goes to camp.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  235. @AnotherDad
    @Alden


    Every year hundreds of UNZ commenters post anti birth control diatribes. Actually anti birth control pill diatribes. In their total ignorance, they don’t realize that there was birth control thousands of years before 1960.
     
    I think pretty much everyone here does realize that.

    Obviously i can't speak for everyone, but i think there are a fair number of people here who have opinions one this within a standard deviation or so of my own.

    -- The Pill was more a radical change in birth control, that--however convenient--seems to have substantially disrupted sexual/marriage/fertility norms in the West.

    Slut culture is incredibly bad for maintaining a high-functioning civilization. Sub-replacement fertility, of particularly of the college level IQ women who carefully use birth control isn't good.


    -- Birth control is fine, but once you have very effective birth control--especially with prosperity, disease control and other medical advances--then to maintain a healthy and competent population you *must* have eugenics. I.e. you must do something to counter the reality that the the least competent people may continue to squirt out kids. (Welfare is the flip side of this. Public provision for those who really can't take care of themselves is fine--Christian charity. But for the same reason, it must be accompanied by eugenic policy.)

    Eugenics was "on the table" for these reasons by Protestant Progressives 100 years ago. But after the Jewish ascendancy and the rise of the minoritarian ideology, eugenics was somehow "discredited" by the Nazis and pretty soon even talking about the 3rd world population explosion--common as spit when i was a teenager ("Limits to Growth" etc.)--was out.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “— The Pill was more a radical change in birth control, that–however convenient–seems to have substantially disrupted sexual/marriage/fertility norms in the West.”

    I would say the pill along with other factors have combined to alter, rather than disrupt, those norms. Scientific breakthroughs have that type of impact.

    “Slut culture is incredibly bad for maintaining a high-functioning civilization.”

    You mean both men and women having sexual relations outside of marriage.

    “Sub-replacement fertility, of particularly of the college level IQ women who carefully use birth control isn’t good.”

    Was that your opening line, your go-to when trying to make headway with a young filly?

    “I.e. you must do something to counter the reality that the the least competent people may continue to squirt out kids.”

    Actually, it is up to people themselves, whether it be rich or poor, intelligent or “dumb”, to decide to have offspring. You can discourage them all you want, but as soon as there are specific policies in place, then I contend such policies are intrusive to individual liberty.

    “But after the Jewish ascendancy and the rise of the minoritarian ideology, eugenics was somehow “discredited” by the Nazis and pretty soon even talking about the 3rd world population explosion–common as spit when i was a teenager (“Limits to Growth” etc.)–was out.”

    Right, because Jews, like women, ruin everything. That’s why we can’t have nice things. LOL.

  236. @Reg Cæsar
    @Inquiring Mind

    Now you know why the easygoing Danes don't like Swedes.

    Replies: @Lot

    “Now you know why the easygoing Danes don’t like Swedes.”

    I thought it was because they were drunks.

  237. Id be shocked that homosexuality was NOT an STD, or just a side ffect of promiscuity, we already know STDs target the nervous system (Syphilis insanity) it makes sense theyd target the morality part of the brain for maximum proliferation. Our knowledge or how virus work is limited to viruses that leave flashing red physical flags, viruses that subtlety effect behavior could go unnoticed for eons.

    We also know male sperm ends up lodged in the brains of women, its logical that promiscous women would also get crazier with the number or sex partners she’s had (imagine thousands of tens of thousands of different sperms residing in your brain).

    Human morality was created out of millions of years of human evolution, not prudish unfounded religious dogma, the religious dogma came from trial and error, what we call science, cultures with no sexual morality eat shit. (Pun not intended)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @LA Smitty


    We also know male sperm ends up lodged in the brains of women, its logical that promiscous women would also get crazier with the number or sex partners she’s had (imagine thousands of tens of thousands of different sperms residing in your brain).
     
    Would it not also wind up in the brains of gay males? They'd presumably be even crazier. No woman racks up as many men as the average homosexual man does.
  238. @Nick Diaz
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Yeah,...and not cponservative racists like you guys. They are pretty much liberal. So them beieng white or not, you still lose anyway.

    Replies: @anon, @Ghost of Bull Moose

    It’s probably for the best that these white liberals won’t reproduce.

  239. @Aft
    @Ziel

    Curiously and deceptively unmentioned by Cochran:

    Literally the trait that defines Darwinian fitness (offspring) was found to be POSITIVELY correlated with homosexuality at the genetic level. Meaning the old thesis that the relatives (specifically it seems to be the male relatives) of homosexuals have more children holds true. That's a pretty damn good explanation for the genes staying in the population, especially back when gay men would just wife up and have kids and play on their own time.

    Seems like a pretty coherent genetic strategy: more drugs, more risk-taking, more sex partners, more children etc. The rockstar strategy for having lots of kids. Tough on the body, good for fecundity.

    Just because Greg doesn't like those things don't mean they are "bad things"; Darwinian selection doesn't work that way.

    Paper: https://geneticsexbehavior.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ganna190830.pdf

    --

    BTW Steve this is wrong: "not much evidence here that homosexuality evolved for some fitness purpose." The paper presents strong evidence these genes stayed in the population because they help male relatives with a moderate dose of them have more children. Very common genetic phenomenon (heterozygosity or a moderate level of the trait is good; homozygosity or too much can hurt fitness).

    Replies: @e

    That fell short of statistical significance.

  240. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @LA Smitty
    Id be shocked that homosexuality was NOT an STD, or just a side ffect of promiscuity, we already know STDs target the nervous system (Syphilis insanity) it makes sense theyd target the morality part of the brain for maximum proliferation. Our knowledge or how virus work is limited to viruses that leave flashing red physical flags, viruses that subtlety effect behavior could go unnoticed for eons.

    We also know male sperm ends up lodged in the brains of women, its logical that promiscous women would also get crazier with the number or sex partners she's had (imagine thousands of tens of thousands of different sperms residing in your brain).

    Human morality was created out of millions of years of human evolution, not prudish unfounded religious dogma, the religious dogma came from trial and error, what we call science, cultures with no sexual morality eat shit. (Pun not intended)

    Replies: @Anonymous

    We also know male sperm ends up lodged in the brains of women, its logical that promiscous women would also get crazier with the number or sex partners she’s had (imagine thousands of tens of thousands of different sperms residing in your brain).

    Would it not also wind up in the brains of gay males? They’d presumably be even crazier. No woman racks up as many men as the average homosexual man does.

  241. @Nick Diaz
    "Sexuality", like " race", is not even a valid scientific concept. It is pseudo-science at it's best. Both "race" and " sexuality" are 19th century concepts. People in the anient World didn't even speak of race or sexuality. They might have spoken off nations and peoples, but not of races. Likewise, they might have spoken of prefered sexual roles during sex, but not really of "homosexual", or "heterosexual", or " bisexual". The " homosexual" is essentially a 19th century invention, and the term was popularized by Freud and his disciple, Jung.

    Christianity, that rotten pustule - and I am not singinf out Christinaity: all religions are rottten atavistic pustules -, is at the root of the evolution of the concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", with it's emphasis on copulation for sexual reproduction only, therefore of a family composed of a man and a woman and their children, and it's strong rejection of "sodomy". The Industrial Revolution came along, and the " heterosexual" family was emphasized even more, as capitalists considered men that had kids to feed much more obedient employees and unwilling to rebel than organized gangs of young men. Then, came along thinkiers like Freud and Jung who reduced sexuality to genitals, espoecially the male fallus, and you get the picture of how " sexuality" was invented.

    "Sexuality" is an invented concept, just like race. The Christian churches germinated the concept, the industrialists supported it, and then it received an intellectual cover by Freud and Jjung.

    Even worse if trying to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to try to explain any and all behavior of biological beings. No therory in the history of Mankind has given rise to as much speculation on as many varied topics, and has been as used to justify atrocious ideologies, from Nazi-fascism to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The problem with trying to find Darwinian explanations for all human behavior, in which everything that a person does must serve some end-goal of reproduction, is that it is prima facie demonstrable that there are human behaviors that are directly counter-productive to reproduction. The most obvious is people mating for pleasure, while wearing condoms to make sure that no baby will result from the act. An even more dramatic example are people who willingly decide not to have kids.

    I once asked Cochran why did we even evolve minds that can decide not to reproduce. According to Evolution, this should never have happened. He didn't answer. One of his sycophants replied to me that those people actually are engaging in reproductive-fitness. He claims that they are defective, and thus there is a genetic self-destroy mechanism that makes them forsake reproduction, and frees their energies to do other things that help their communities, thus enabling his genes be passed on by their healthier relatives. Ok, a creative explanation. But there are two problems with this explantion. First, the people that are forsaking reproduction tend to be the healthiest and better educated people. They don't seem defective, quite the opposite. Secondly, it makes no sense that a relatively small number of people would choose to forsake reproduction throughout history, and then suddently in the second half of he 20th century, the number of these "defectives" would rise so sharply, despite improved medicine, sanitation and living conditions, and people getting taller, with less diseases, longer lifespans, etc. Like Spock would say:

    "Something does not compute."

    No theory can be " stretched" to explain more things than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everything as varied from why some people prefer to defecate outside rather than indoors to the development of the atomic bomb can be somehow explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is an-size-fits-all explanation for anything that has to be with living creatures and especially to do with humens. It never occurs to these miscreants that Darwin's theory could either be deeply flawed or at least imcomplete. And I am saying this as someone who certainly believes in Evolution.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Andrey illyich, @eugyppius, @El Dato, @AnotherDad, @TWS, @Lot, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @HA, @Eduardo Cortez

    1. To begin in ancient times there were already some archaic notions about “race”, from Egyptians to Greeks.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/28/htm

    2. Certainly, Christianity always opposed this, since it states that sexuality is reduced to genitality, the oldest known of this term dates from Ancient Rome.

    3. Do people who abandon reproduction always tend to be the healthiest and best educated people?
    This is false, I have seen studies that say otherwise, so I need you to link a paper to this statement.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS