Sneaky Males
Jan. 12th, 2010 10:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleI 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 01:32 am (UTC)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.