Sneaky Males

[snousle]

I wonder if anyone has tested the idea that gay men might be sneaky males - that historically, gay men have had higher procreation rates than straight men because we do an end-run around the usual human mating rituals.

Humans are among the few animals to have concealed ovulation. Is it possible that gay men have a secret talent - the ability to know when women are ovulating?

Maybe when the planets line up right and the right pheormoes waft past their nose, gay men suddenly turn straight for a few hours, only to wake up the next morning wondering "what the hell was I thinking?" In the meanwhile, their encounter would have resulted in an unusually high probability of fertilization - not just because of this postulated detection of ovulation, but because (again, maybe) gay men might have a higher ratio of offensive to defensive sperm as per current theories of sperm competition in human reproduction. Gay sex, in this model, would have the effect of adjusting this offensive/defensive ratio - which, incidentally, has already been proposed as a reason for both masturbation and the taboo against it.

It's not a TOTALLY crazy idea. It is just a speculation based on the combination of already well-documented phenomena. We all know how some women just adore gay men and sometimes try to seduce them. And it might also account for why straight men absolutely hate this - you might call it the Rudolph Valentino effect.

Unlike most theories of homosexuality, this one is actually quite testable. However, it is possible that if we do ever find the biological basis for homosexuality, the result may not favor tolerance; it could just as easily provide a justification for violent homophobia.

Comments

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

It's conceivable (pun intended)... sexuality in the human population isn't a binary hetero/homo divide, from what I've seen. Men with some interest (even though primarily interested in other men) might be easier to "tip" via such a mechanism.

That said ... it's never going to happen to ME. ;)

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Never say never! I suspect that humans have at least a few latent behaviors that we would never expect or believe, but which nevertheless get triggered in rare circumstances.

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

I think "never" is actually a pretty safe bet in my case.

Even if - through some bizarre series of events - I somehow wanted to have sex with a woman in a procreative context ... the fact that I'm HIV+ would put an abrupt end to that idea.

[barbarian-rat.livejournal.com]

Very interesting, especially the article on the Theory and Practice of Masturbation.
Who knew we had warrior sperm, and blocking sperm ....

[mellowtigger]

Except that homosexuality seems to occur throughout the animal kingdom. If other animals have strict gender-social groupings (and some do) then I suppose it would be reasonable to look for the same effect there. (Except that homosexuality doesn't really mean wanting-to-be-the-other-sex. Hrmmm.)

My belief has long been that homosexuality is Mother Nature's accommodation to the exponential growth problem. If homosexuality increases among progeny when parents experience stress (low food availability, overcrowding, etc), then it slows the overall reproductive rate until times are better. All accomplished without making any adjustments to the sex drive itself, only the object of affection.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with when you say "except".

There are quite a few ways one could imagine homosexuality being adaptive, even if it's women responding to stress. I can imagine ways having sterile offspring now might increase your chance of brereding again in a few years. The trouble is that there are way too many plausible theories of this type, and few ways to test them.

Today's women in the developed world are extremely not-stressed by historical standards, so one would expect especially low rates of homosexuality today under your hypothesis.

It's worth mentioning that I am uncomfortable with metaphors such as "Mother Nature's accommodation" because it implies teleology (that evolution involves a "goal" of some sort). A theory that some feature is "adaptive" needs, at least, a story of how that feature gave its ancestors a better chance of survival in the past. Not what it will do in the future.

[broduke2000.livejournal.com]

Being sorta Bi, I've let women seduce me.

Not very often, but in the times that it happened, it's sorta interesting that they were as kinky as I was.

[gloeden.livejournal.com]

Biologically, I get it. Intellectually, it make sense.
But the whole thing makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
But I get the same reaction about test-tube babies, surrogates, and sperm banks. I don't know why.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Why? Because it's vicious and nasty and suggests that we aren't all one big happy family.

Biology isn't always pretty!

[gloeden.livejournal.com]

No. It just seems creepy to me, somehow.
Irrational of me? Yup.