In doing some research, I came across this interesting book by psychologist Dr. Louis Berman. In The Puzzle: Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of Male Homosexuality, Berman discusses the probable genetic causes of homosexuality, and proposes that before six weeks of gestation, all humans have a "proto-female" brain, which, in the case of boys, then gets "washed" with hormones that "masculinize" the brain. Some boys get more of this than others, and those with "Low Masculinized Brains" often turn out to be homosexual. He also discusses how he believes there is no evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.
You can also read
- the publisher’s site for The Puzzle
- one review of his book here,
- a 2003 interview regarding this book
- his article Who are the Metrosexuals?
- his article Long Term Gay Relationships
No evolutionary advantage? There goes my thesis that we are a superhuman race of beings. I was also unaware of my sub-conscious masculinity deficit… In any even, an interesting theory that needs more research.
No advantage to being homosexual (forget the "evolutionary" part, as you yourself deny it has anything to do with anything)? I find plenty of advantages: sex partner who actually WANT to have sex, no kids thus no drain on my resources (both monetary and emotional), a higher standard of living, no need to placate women (irrational nutjobs), no need to subject myself to stupid and authoritarian religious superstitions, do what I like when I like without answering to needy and selfish women and children, etc.
It's so typical of bigots like you, seeker: find some nutjob who denigrates homosex and pass that off as "science." Screw you.
Seeker, you're in a tough spot to discuss the evolutionary advantages (or lack thereof) of anything, since you don't even believe it takes place. But anyway, I'm not sure that there is an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality. Or, if there is, it's pretty obviously not an advantage for the homosexual's genes, which would clearly not be passed on under the expected circumstances. Is that really contentious? It doesn't seem that way to me.
I didn't read all the links you pointed to, but Who Are the Metrosexuals is stupid. To suggest that an upsurge in men's fashion has anything to do with their sexuality is just unfounded. In fact the only research that he mentions in the piece is market research.
Oh gosh, they must be gay!
You make youself look absurd when you continue to associate with and disseminate the idea that sexuality corresponds with stereotypical concepts of masculinity and femininity. They don't, and there's no reputable evidence (market research? come on) to suggest that they do.
You make youself look absurd when you continue to associate with and disseminate the idea that sexuality corresponds with stereotypical concepts of masculinity and femininity.
Oh, I'll bet they do. Doesn't the knee-jerk reaction to villify the link between femininity and male homosexuality belie a kind of misogynism? (spoken as an occasionally flaming heterosexual who's had to put up with his share of harassment)
I mentioned this not because I believe in evolution, which I clearly do not, but because it is interesting, and related to the whole homosexual debate.
And Stewart, you are free to think his metrosexual discsussion is "stupid", but I thought he made some nice observations, like:
What we are witnessing is, in part, a by-product of our society's increased respect for homosexual men. Openly gay men now hold high-profile, high status positions in virtually all walks of life. In the old days, a man would be shunned, openly ridiculed, or even punished if he were suspected of being homosexual. Today, the risk is much lower. Today, men are less afraid to be mistaken for a homosexual. These straight guys are comfortable even though they may look gay. They more freely yield to their impulse to adorn themselves, to display their artistic or nurturant side.
I also bring this book up because one of my main arguments against norming homosexuality is the "argument from nature," which has among it's tenets that homosexuals can not reproduce, so they would be selected against in reproduction (remember, creationists believe in natural selection, just not evolution – if you think the two are inseparable, then you are an unthinking, evolutionary stooge ;).
As to the author's discussion of male/female as they relate to hx, I find some of his observations quite interesting, while you find any questioning of even examination of the role of masculine and feminine and how they play into homosexuality as some witch hunt.
I understand not wanting to be misunderstood or mis-stereotyped, but the study of such things, as the author mentioned, is often stymied by those who are unwilling to look at it from both a genetic and sociological side, as well as from both normative and pathologic sides.
Because considering homosexuality possibly a developmental disorder, or even one in which environment plays a significant role (pathologic or not) is now considered "hateful", we are now hindering an entire area of research, in an area where not much is known.
Louis, you bring up an amazing list of awful stereotypes, and an interesting set of personal values that you associate w/ the gay life. I'd like to unpack them.
1. sex partners who actually WANT to have sex
So I guess you buy into that whole thing about women not wanting to have sex? There is some truth to it, but everyone's mileage may vary. Sure, men are more sex-driven and less emotionally driven in relatioships, but that can be a good thing. If we always did things the man's way, we might end up w/ very superficial relationships.
And as you mature in a relationship, it just isn't about sex all the time. What starts out as daily goes to three times a week, down to once a week if you are sick or pregnant or tired from too much work. Less than that? I'd say there is a problem in your relationship. But I'm not Dr. Ruth. But the relationship deepens and satisfies even if you don't have sex like rabbits until you are 80.
2. No kids thus no drain on my resources (both monetary and emotional)
Well, nothing worth anything comes without work and investment. Children are a drain, as you said, but they are an incredible joy, and way worth the effort. And when trying to find meaning in life, one of the things you have to ask yourself is "what am I investing myself in that will live on after I die?" This is not a narcissistic question, it is one of worth and meaning. Am I wasting my life or investing it? Can I be proud of how I've loved others, or just myself?
3. A higher standard of living
Well, just be sure you don't lose your soul for money. A higher standard of living has diminishing returns after a while. And the love of family, esp. children, is worth more than money.
4. no need to placate women (irrational nutjobs)
They do think and communicate differently from men. Again, wordly women may need placating, in the sense that they may be manipulative and demanding. But a godly woman is not an irrational nut job, but a comfort, a support, and even a spiritual co-leader in the relationship and home. Godly women don't need placating, but like any human, they do need love and understanding – but what they give back is well worth it. And I'm not just talking about sex. ;)
5. no need to subject myself to stupid and authoritarian religious superstitions
You don't need to be gay to enjoy that 'benefit' – just look at Sam ;)
6. do what I like when I like without answering to needy and selfish women and children
Nice. But we are all needy and selfish – you think your boyfriends are somehow above that? Puhlease.
I think that Louis was taking a purposfully acerbic tone. It sounds like he is speaking in stereotypes like that more from anger at how you stereotype homosexuals than anything else.
Yup, Cineaste caught on. I guess some things just have to be spelled out for some (dumb) people.
I DO, however, enjoy a higher standard of living than my co-workers (I just treated myself to a second HDTV – a nice 23" Samsung LCD. Boy, were they all jealous.). Tough titty.
I also thought it hilarious that seeker, the rabid creationist on a jihad against science, would try to cite evolutionary theory as another point in his jihad against gays. What a hypocrite! I think human civilization would be impossible (or at least much more difficult) without gays. After all, we produce more than we consume as we aren't constantly producing little replicas of ourselves. Lacking our own families (for the most part), we have time and energy to lavish that effort on others, including others' kids. Just ask my cousin with whom I spent a lot of time and money after his parents divorced. Think the priesthood: without the selfish concerns of providing for one's own, you are free to aid the larger society. There IS a reason gays evolved (no matter what bigots and christians believe). After all, everything in nature evolved for a reason, a survival mechanism for the species. Of course seeker and his ilk think we were invented by the mysterious skygod, so he won't agree. Superstitions are hard to change.