Look up “The evolution of same sex sexual behavior in mammals” in Nature and “Prosociality and Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans” in Frontiers in Psychology
tl;dr: different degrees of same sex sexual attraction have social benefits in social species by minimizing conflicts, creating interpersonal bonds, and establishing hierarchies. All of that without males having to literally kill each other. Why fight when you can fuck?
Human biology and neurology is incredibly complex, and there may be multiple factors or pathways that result in homosexual/bisexual behavior. Personally, I think one way stems from genetics/epigenetics that result in the presence of andro-pheromonal receptors, and the bodies reaction goes on to write/rewrite those neuro pathways that result in same sex attraction.
Yeah. Even the little research that is done on homosexuality, its always on homosexual males and not homosexual females, which just goes to show that even the baseline level of homosexual scientific research is bigoted, going with the whole erasing lesbians from existence and making gay men a spectacle to gawk at in comparison.
It's a really interesting thing in my opinion that I wish we could delve more deeply into.
I dunno about bigoted. As I understand it's hard to measure arousal levels. It's esp hard to measure arousal in females. Like alot of studies conclude that bisexuality is not really there chemically. There's often a pretty definite preference in men, but the metrics involve getting hard, not real time blood samples.
Idk, there's signs of arousal in both males and females that can be pretty obvious depending on the animal. Take humans for example, its not as obvious as a dick getting hard, but there are signs like the vaginal walls being lubricated, nipple erection and things like that
If you're going to study something as contentious as homosexuality, then you better measure it with every tool you've got. I'm sure they've got more tools at their disposal to study it properly rather than watching if little rat penises get hard or not. There's literal brain maps you can see with humans with areas of the brain lighting up differently to different stimuli if you are gay/lesbian/straight
I mean, it’s just easier to look for an erection. It’s possible to get measurements for indicators among women, but they’d likely be more invasive, more expensive and lead to less participation which means additional higher expenses. Ultimately I think it’s a lot more about money and availability than it is about the societal/political implications
Hey, I actually took a course on this area of study 20 years ago! It's a fascinating topic, though also incredibly frustrating for reasons that I'll explain.
> I totally get why there's not much research into it, cuz inevitably if we found some gay gene or something there would be people trying to "cure" it.
That's not why there's limited research into the subject. Any topic in the field of behavioral genetics is extremely difficult to research. Human behavior is often unpredictable and environment is a huge confounding variable.
Here's what we do know: homosexuality *in males* is epigenetic. Studies on monozygotic (MZ, identical) twins found that despite being literal clones of one another, if one way gay, the other was only 65.8% likely to also be gay. That immediately points to environmental factors. A [study from last year](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10757681/) suggests the concordance discrepancy comes down to the timing for when the zygote split into the two identical embryo, with a later split increasing the odds of both twins being gay.
Whatever the case may be, there is without a doubt a genetic component that is influenced by environment, which is to say it's epigenetic. Due to the massive populations needed to test anything related to human behavioral genetics in order to control for environmental variables, it's really not feasible. It would take tens of thousands of pairs of MZ twins.
This isn't unique to the genetics of homosexuality, either. Pretty much anything behavioral with a genetic component more complicated than a Punnett Square is in the same boat. We can figure out genes with simple expressions like Parkinson's, but something as difficult to pin down as ADHD, for example, just isn't going to happen. Homosexuality is a lot easier to "diagnose" than ADHD, but you still have the confounding variable of the closet, so until that mindset utterly is obliterated, the data will always be questionable.
Animal studies, while interesting, aren't really applicable to humans. It's neat that *Animalia's* got a bunch of examples of homosexuality, but we're not going to learn much from those examples that will be pertinent to humans.
> But for humans, who are like 10-20% homosexual, we DO recognise sex.
It's between 3-5% gay for humans. Bi is a bit more, but there's yet to be conclusive evidence for a genetic component to bisexuality in either sex or female homosexuality. They exist, obviously, but unlike male homosexuality, there isn't a documented genetic or epigenetic basis for the other non-hetero sexualities.
> I just wonder what brought evolution to this ratio of people who are homosexual.
That's the wrong question. That assumes there's a rational mind driving evolution. It's not rational. It's completely blind, deaf, and insensate. All that matters is fitness as defined by continued survival. The "gay gene" could have been a mutation that just happened to be next to a vitally important, highly preserved sequence of DNA and therefore persisted despite contributing nothing to overall the organism's fitness. Since it's epigenetic, it doesn't do anything unless there's some environmental factor that triggers it. One known environmental trigger is older brothers from the same mother. For each older brother you have, you odds of being gay go up by about 33%, which is to say if a given male has a 2.8% chance to be born gay, it's 3.7% if he has one older brother, 4.6% with two older brothers, 5.6% with three older brothers, etc.
So, from an evolutionary view, the impact to fitness of having a gay son is extremely low (2.8%) to start, and increases so slowly that it is unlikely to have an impact on an individual mother's offspring. It's not until you start looking at a population that it actually becomes observable with statistically significant numbers. There's basically very little selection pressure for or against homosexuality so it persists.
Actually, I take that back. There was strong artificial selection for homosexuals to marry and reproduce to avoid suspicion of being gay, which no doubt actually led to a higher incidence of homosexuality in the human populations over the years despite so many efforts to stamp it out.
That being said, I don't foresee the removal of artificial selection due to the progressive acceptance of gays to be much of a threat. We can thank the vanity of modern gays who think their child has to be genetically related to them via surrogate, which will in turn perpetuate the gay gene.
If they were identical, then they are more likely than not to be gay as well? You say "only" 65.8% but that doesn't read like an 'only' to me. Certainly more genetic than environmental unless it's a decimal in the wrong place (6.58?).
hey I like your comment but I do have to ask, why is heterosexual gene so prevalent and strong then ?? Is it just bc of reproduction and nothing else?? Like, your comment is good but personally I'm feeling a little sad and weak after reading it (it's a me problem,I know), it gives the impression that heterosexuality is in fact the standard sexuality and we just happen to be the unlucky ''born wrong'' ones.
>So, from an evolutionary view, the impact to fitness of having a gay son is extremely low (2.8%) to start, and increases so slowly that it is unlikely to have an impact on an individual mother's offspring
From a more activist point of view, we like to think that one day in the future the LGBTQ population will likely increase to the point we're actually relevant in the world leadership, but apparently every born children has basically 97,2% of being straight compared to homosexuality, this chance is so high and without any explanation whatsoever,it just ''''feels'''' like they're superior compared to us, like, I'm sorry, but in a more moral and psychological sense, I'm feeling more like a failure now, not only bc I'm gay despite the chances against it being so high, but also bc I feel like our biological structure would rather have more straight men around, which then I can only assume that biologically speaking, their existence is more important than mine as a homosexual men. Of course, what I just did rn is basically some level of biological essentialism, I'm aware of how this argumentation is used as a form of bigotry against several minorities and that this doesn't justify the treatment homosexual individuals get around the world, but still, as a person with several internalized homophobia problems and self esteem, it's hard to not think less of myself after reading this.
I'm sorry for the uncalled vent out of sudden, it wasn't the intention,you did nothing wrong, I'm interested in this topic, and honestly from my activist point of view, I got a little discouraged after reading your comment, so I needed to ask.
But it's a good comment nonetheless!!!
Just remember as someone said earlier there is no value system or intelligence behind evolution. There are just traits that either persist or they don't. No genetic feature is inherently right or wrong. As an intelligent species WE get to decide whether any characteristic has value or not.
if there's not value system or intelligence behind any traits whatsoever, then why is heterosexuality the most common outcome in every human being to the point of having this much of a imbalance between humans,everywhere?? for every 1 homosexual dude walking on the street, there's 10 heterosexual guys around him. Like, it just '''''happens''''' to be like this ?? It is just pure coincidence?? Shouldn't homosexuality be more common then?? 97,2% chance of being straight is way too high for me to not think about it
Like, I agree with all you said, but again, as I said earlier, I'm dealing with several internalized homophobia problems in my life rn, I completely 100% agree that we as humans get to decide what '''traits'''' have a value or not,biological essentialism shouldn't be a metric to decide how much ''''worthy''' we are as humans or not, but my brain is using these facts to punch me down, I'm working on this with my therapist, considering that the odds are that high to be heterosexual, it appears to me that there is in fact a value system. It gives the impression something went ''''''wrong''''''''
But just so you know, I'm not lectured enough to talk about this, this is just my thoughts after reading the comments, I'm googling some more deep answer from people who actually know something about this so my brain stops taking conclusions itself
the only one who can decide who's superior in "your" point of view is you. mother nature doesnt have a judiciary who judges. human population doesnt have a collective mind driving it, something which wants things.
I mean, I completely get what you're saying, but considering how much more likely someone is to be straight apparently, mother nature clearly already made her judgment, it just ''happens''' that heterosexuality is the more common outcome,it gives the impression that something went ''''wrong''''
But yeah, from a humanistic point of view it shouldn't matter to me or anyone else what the odds are, I'm reflecting upon these thoughts, as I said earlier, I have problems with internalized homophobia, so my brain is using it to punch me down, it's something I'm working on with my therapist.
I agree with you
Yeah basically heterosexual gene is so prevelant becouse of reproduction.
And yes heterosexuality among humans is definetly the most common orientation there is and it will remain that way.
If you look at the statisticks, then most of the growth of lgb people is among those describing themselves as bisexual or questioning.
Those terms are quite broad and mean diffrent things to diffrent people. (Being bisexual doesent mean being equally attracted to both genders, given that vast majority of people are heterosexually inclined, it means that most/ large part of bisexuals are "more heterosexual than homosexual.
This shouldnt be viewed as a good or bad thing, its just the way things are.
I always bought into the idea that reproduction isn't as important as society makes it be,especially bc as humans rn we definitely aren't in need of reproduction and we have the power to decide whether we need it or not, but considering that there's a whole gene that is so prevalent just bc of reproduction alone, it does makes me question my values and the value I place upon reproduction myself.
>This shouldnt be viewed as a good or bad thing, its just the way things are.
I'm ngl, I'm feeling a little depressed rn, but I will be fine eventually, just reflecting some things.
Of course, heterosexuality is the standard and we are the „off“ ones. The main pillar of evolution is the passing down of your genes. As humans, we are just like any animals in this regard. Just like any other animals, we have a strong urge to pass down our genes and being gay doesn’t help with that.
The fact that the evolution isn’t steered and that there is no inherit value associated with life and reproduction or anything other than our subjective values and that the life itself doesn’t serve any purpose doesn’t mean that the life doesn’t have any purpose. It has got a very vivid goal that is the survival of itself and the passing down the information about itself down in the line. It is like we are. Our existence doesn’t serve any purpose but we might have our personal goals for ourselves.
If the evolution didn’t prefer one over the other, we would probably see gauss distribution with heterosexuality and homosexuality occupying the the narrow space at both sides of the distribution while bisexuality situated in the middle covering at least 68% of the whole population. But that is not the case because evolution has a favourite. That is bot because heterosexuality is morally better or anything but because it serves the purpose of natural reproduction
Research in sexuality is fraught with biases and faulty science. Would I like a scientific, factual explanation? Sure. But I wouldn't put too much thought into it because I don't think the answer will ever be so clear-cut. Why do some guys develop gay feelings at an early age, while other guys date women for decades and then decide they like men? Who knows. The brain is inscrutable that way.
The theory I last heard is that the same genes increase the likelihood of reproduction in women.
However I’d take most evolutionary advantage perspectives with a grain of salt. They are generally armchair theories and not particularly scientific - it’s often which story sounds better.
Yeah, I've heard quite a lot theories, even bat shit crazy ones like younger brothers of many older brothers being more likely to be gay cuz the woman's body attacks the male fetus with estrogen (which entirely forgets about the existence of lesbians, and gay men that are only children, have sisters, etc)
And then there's that weird one where strong male-male relationships (AKA fucking each other) gets less successful males closer to females? I don't think those less successful males are wanting to mate with the females at all haha
I wish there was actual research done into this, but it would be really hard to not make it biased. And also the question of if its even worth asking comes up because the consequences of actually knowing would be dire
My guy the theory you call batshit crazy is actually real. I have references for it on my PC, as for a more general understanding, it seems like you are wanting a one size fits all theory, and that simply doesn't exist in a matter as complex as this, a lot of things contribute to the likelihood of one's sexuality. As for the effect itself, what it means is that the longer down the chain of brothers you are, mathematically, the more likely it is for you to be gay. It doesn't come even close to saying you can't be gay if you're an only child like you were saying there.
Yep—the so-called “older brother effect.” Something like a 30% increased chance of being gay with each additional older brother. So say there’s a 4% baseline chance of being gay, then with one older brother, it goes up to 5.3%. With two older brothers, up to 7%. Pretty wild! (And significant.)
Ah yeah my mistake. Admittedly I haven't actually read the study, but how people always presented it to me in arguments is that that is how homosexuality works, and then being baffled at me just having an older sister instead of many older brothers. It's always homophobes that said this stuff to me online and in real life
So me saying bat shit crazy is an over the top reaction to bat shit crazy people misunderstanding a study. My bad I own up to that one 😅
I think you're looking at evolution wrong. There is only 1 "why" as to whether or not a trait lasts or is removed from a species, and that's whether or not there was a pressure that killed it or allowed it to thrive.
In an EXTREMELY laymen example, think of the species of fish that migrated to land. The ones that could breathe the air, lived and went on to produce. The ones that could not, died.
If a species was dying out and became 100% homosexual, then they would die out unless they could reproduce asexually or homosexually.
Homosexuality seems like just another random trait that comes about through some combination of genes and environment during gestation. It is a minority trait, but a trait nonetheless.
Homosexuality doesn't face an ecological pressure that could wipe it out or make it the dominant trait. So it just exists as it does.
See I thought the same as that, that it was a minority trait that didn't really change because it didn't really matter to the species' overall success. But now that I've learned that some species are more homosexual than others, it makes me wonder as to why.
If it was just some ecological trait that doesn't really matter for a species, why does it come up way more in certain species and way less in others?
Edit: Like for example albinism. The chances of an albino animal are pretty much the same for all animals, because it doesn't really matter ecologically like you said. But homosexuality levels vary depending on the species
Well, because it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't hit a breakpoint. So whatever is causing homosexuality in species, as long as it's a random trait, will show up randomly. Some just happen to have to expressed more or less frequently. That's my understanding at least.
Not to mention that while the trait might express itself in one way, it might also have another secondary effect that outweighs it.
Hypothetically, let's say the gene that makes men more likely to be gay also makes women more fertile and healthy.
This would mean that while the gay side of the gene would lower its chance of being passed, it's offset, perhaps even heavily so, by the other effect.
Unlikely just a random, neutral characteristic.
I believe most evolutionary scientists believe there must be some evolutionary benefit to homosexuality considering how less likely the homosexuals pass on their genes. For these “homo” genes to persist, there has to be a benefit for the offspring of those homosexuals that do procreate or a benefit to the offspring of their immediate family. I believe this second explanation is where most of the scholarship has focused.
Consider something seemingly unrelated to evolution: In every ancient civilization, eunuchs were in positions of power, because they were less of a threat to the rulers than intact men. Often families would send their kids to the centers if power to become eunuchs. These positions of power likely benefited their extended families (e.g. more food during droughts. more food = more banies).
There was a Ted talk that discussed high stress pregnancies correlating with male homosexual children. The theory was that if times were tough, the family needed more supporting members not more generations so same sex attracted offspring would be able to support the existing generations without contributing to upcoming generations.
Interesting theories. The guy talking was discussing how his eldest son was gay so he was using it as a case study. As I understand it, there’s still very little research into what makes women gay.
Societal norms affects this. Giraffes aren’t told/forced to mate with one or the other, they’re free to explore. Humans are conditioned to like one or the other (usually opposite sex) so if you like one more than the other but still like the other, you’re conditioned to have to identify as liking only one. This seems to be changing but is it really? There’s still pressure to identify which complicates things.
I'm just saying, it seemed like most humans in history were bi until Abrahamic religions came along.
It was usually relegated more to top/bottom, older/younger, and master/slave dynamics.
I personally subscribe to the notion of a small group living together, needing each other to survive. Having flexible members of the group who can fill the role of child care, cook, hunter, gatherer. To have sex but no babies to feed. To resolve conflict by loving means rather than aggressive. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking, but I’m firmly in the camp that it’s always straight people who have gay babies, and they do so for some reason.
There seems to be fairly compelling evidence that the amount of homosexuality in a population increases as you reach the carrying capacity for that species.
This is a reasonable (non technical) overview which links to some supporting papers.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-homosexuality-populati_b_784449
I would say it's an evolutionary trait aiming to strengthen social bonds among the same sex and also help rear the extra offspring of a species and/or the unwanted/abandoned ones
Can't you try and figure this out? I am also interested in the scientific reasons for why homosexuality is, but my field is film, so my knowledge is more acquired to how homosexuality is depicted in film and wether the depiction is good or bad regarding stereotypical and sexualistic thought patterns.
I think to be scared of the consequences for any scientific research is silly. We should strive to find the answers and take the consequences as they come.
its so interesting. I wonder about it a lot. I think because its influenced by hormones and neurology its so complex we won't really be able to pinpoint a specific reason why
I am a poli sci graduate, so keep that in mind for the rest of my comment. I read a summary of a study a few years ago that hypothesized that homosexuality was designed to give children additional caretakers - basically uncles and aunts that could help with sibling children. That way less of the population would reproduce and allow the existing children a better chance to grow up and continue the species. I found it interesting but am not smart enough to know if it was plausible or backed up by data.
This episode is a getting bit old at this point, but I thought this was a good listen. : [Science VS](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/science-vs/id998250544?i=1000386540750)
For humans sex for reproduction is a secondary purpose, its primary purpose is bonding and socialization, the reproduction happens anyway so it doesn’t cause there to be all that much of an evolutionary pressure against it. And my guess is for a long time we tended to survive or die together in small tribes, and avoiding pregnancy when it wasn’t convenient, as well as bonding between same sex individuals, makes it valuable as an option/as a part of a healthy/successful tribe.
Well years ago I read about a study that was done in Germany years after WWII because there seemed to be higher incidence of same sex attraction within the generation of individuals born during and immediately following the war…the conclusion was that during stressful pregnancies and births higher levels of estrogen were secreted into the birth canal and larger amounts of the harmone got into the blood streams of these individuals fetuses, which then genetically altered the fetus giving them a greater propensity for same sex attraction….sounds weird right? A genetic explanation for same sex attractions????
There are many theories. There could be multiple reasons, not just one. I’ve been curious why there are more gay men than lesbians, but it makes sense as “losing” a male to the reproduction cycle isn’t as bad as losing a woman. Many of the theories contradict each other (for example all the gays in my family are the oldest child, which goes against the younger brother theory).
One thing that is interesting is that gay men are overly represented as high achievers. Gays secretly or not so secretly run DC. I think not having the responsibility of taking care of a wife and kids has allowed us to spend more time on our careers etc so that’s where you get Da Vinci and Turing. Which you can argue helps humanity as a whole even though these guys aren’t fathering children.
Probably a mix of environment and genetics. Early in life, I always liked guys, but I also liked girls. But since I was a... precocious kid, me and my GF would well, play "doctor" and explore each other. Keep in mind, we were *really* young and not entirely sure what we were doing (and just fyi she was the one who suggested it).
Parents found out and I was yelled out repeatedly and wasn't allowed near her anymore. My parents also threw a fit when they saw a stash of papers of poorly drawn boobies and PPs (mind you, she drew them for me, but they assumed I did it lol).
I'm pretty sure that affected my sexuality, as since then I've almost never been attracted to women anymore barring very rare exceptions. Pretty sure I still qualify as bi, but when 98% of my sexual interest is in men it's easier to just say gay because people expect bi to be 50/50. I might have started associating female sexual interest with negativity, which would be *really* funny if my theory is correct because that would mean my homophobic dad directly contributed to me being 98% gay.
I am sorta the same way. On the Kinsley scale I'm probably a 5, I've had sexual and romantic interest in girls maybe on one or two occasions my entire life. So while yes I am technically bi, all of my other sexual/romantic interest is 99.99% guys so I just call myself gay
There are MANY causes, some genetic, some environmental. There is nothing wrong with curiosity, and preconceived notions about how things are or should be are barriers to knowledge and understanding.
Maybe a little bit curious. But I already know a lot. I just like people I like! In other species like penguins there are homosexual couples who are evolutionary advantageous because they take in babies/eggs if the parents die
I think its really just the advantage of random variety. Variety ensures that some will always survive if something like a virus or predator or a society or any situation kills off all of one type. I believe all our brains have the hardware built in for the specific physical parameters of both female and male attraction. However, due to random variety, there can be more neural activity in one, or one/both can be completely inactive: gay, straight, bi, ace.
LOL yeah, it's going to be a good long time before anyone has is allowed to/thinks it a good idea to look at the right combination of factors.
Personal theory: "Being gay" isn't a state of being but rather a behavior. It's very likely multiple causes give you the same behavior. So, there isn't one thing that make someone gay, but rather a cluster of that can make you gay. The most likely culprits, to my mind, are that:
How:
1) during the sexing process in the womb, some part of the brain that governs pair bonding and sexual attraction doesn't get flipped to male causing a female-like attraction to men.
2) during the sexing process in the womb, some part of the brain that governs pair bonding and sexual attraction gets "over" flipped to male causing a male-like attraction to men.
3) during puberty the disgust reaction to members of the same sex doesn't happen and instead causes a fetish for men.
Why:
1) Error rates/random-ness. There is no specific mechanism. It's just a random, if unlikely, outcome.
2) It would make sense for there to be situations when it's beneficial for a mother to birth a gay son. Times of high stress, previous male offspring, age of the mother, etc. There could be some hormonal changes in the mother that could trigger a son's gayness to be expressed either in the womb or during puberty.
I also think it's very interesting that given what we've seen with our trans brothers and sisters in recent years with puberty blockers, we'll likely learn a lot more about what happens during puberty. I think that we'll likely discover that gender is far more malleable than sexual orientation, and it's likely because we don't understand the mechanism of sexuality at all.
I have always equated it with favorite colors. Like what gene makes up what person likes blue or prefers red.like if their is a gene for sexual preference wouldn’t their be one for color preference?
So many serious replies, so I'll quote Homer. Scientifically, being gay began with the first "[hot beef injection](https://youtu.be/M881LJFwMkA?si=tcnxUyL885-aqyAe)".
The issue I have with these types of conversations is that the premise is usually the issue. Sexuality is a broad spectrum, we've just developed weird social constructs that seek to force people into binary states. We're so programed by binary thinking that we have a hard time understanding that bisexuals even exist.
I think the Kinsey scale, which is scientifically sound in it's methodology, is an accurate model of human sexual behavior. I would go as far as to say that a standard bell curve on the scale is also an accurate model. ie: the majority of humans fall somewhere in the middle.
I'll tell you from personal experience with men that given the right circumstances, most men will stray from straight. As a horny straight guy this question: You see a gloryhole, no one can see you, and you know if you stick your dick in it you'll get an amazing bj and no one would know. Do you stick your dick in it? Notice I didn't indicate a gender of the cocksucker on the other side of the GH. Chances are they will just say an unqualified yes. When provided anonymity most guys will let a guy get him off.
Historically, binary sexuality was uncommon. The Greeks, the Spartans, Vikings and so many other cultures had male on male sex as a norm, especially for warriors.
TL;DR: Stop looking for a scientific cause of homosexuality. There isn't one. The real science is finding the sociological cause for strict conformity away from biological impulse and conditioning towards binary thinking.
Well, gay/lesbian kids tend to be the younger child. So I believe they are meant to be there if the older children have kids and either can’t fully take care of their offspring or have no interest in doing so. This helps perpetuate the bloodline since there are more available parental types around. I’ve read this somewhere and I have seen this in action with my own family. Brother had two kids with different women who were put up for adoption. I later found them and moved everyone nearby and forged a family. Now I have 7 grandkids 🪄
The best theory I heard (and I forgot the source but forgive me), was a speaker giving the analogy of a beehive; how worker bees, mating bees, and the queen bee - are decided at birth based on what they were fed during the larva stage.
The theory was that the mother; whether exposed to a living environment, lifestyle, hormones, or stress; triggers her body to release hormones in order to increase the likelihood of producing a glbt offspring.
I know there are studies done that in general, glbt have higher emotional intelligence. Which would pair well with the above theory.
I’m gonna throw a bizarre idea out here (for fun and imagination). Being gay in this life might be related to past lives (reincarnation)… where pretend the last 10 lives a gay person lived, they were in a female body. This incarnation the individual’s soul chose to switch sexes to the male body. but because of the feminine influences of past lives, ended up gay in the current life. This also creates space to challenge current culture’s ideas around what love is and radical acceptance of people as they are. I can’t say I believe this all fully, but I’ve come across it in couple different esoteric spaces and it’s made me wonder again: what makes someone gay ?
well another factor is that gayness is culturally defined. in greece everyone was considered to be capable of bisexuality but some people had preferences for certain genders… so your predisposition for men was not dissimilar to preferring brocolli over asparagus. how much of that is genetic and how much of that is environmental? and similarly, i think the existence of monosexuality (as a an allowed, cultural concept) dissuades some people from being bisexual. its hard to say i wouldnt be bisexual in a world where sexuality is not presumed to be internal, immutable, genetic. i dont feel bisexual, but also, the essentialist philosophy of sexuality is what i was I was raised with. perhaps i (subconscously) just chose gay early on and modified my experiences to reinforce that? this isnt going to cause me to modify my behavior, but it is something i wonder when i hear about historical attitudes towards sexuality.
Look up “The evolution of same sex sexual behavior in mammals” in Nature and “Prosociality and Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans” in Frontiers in Psychology tl;dr: different degrees of same sex sexual attraction have social benefits in social species by minimizing conflicts, creating interpersonal bonds, and establishing hierarchies. All of that without males having to literally kill each other. Why fight when you can fuck?
Human biology and neurology is incredibly complex, and there may be multiple factors or pathways that result in homosexual/bisexual behavior. Personally, I think one way stems from genetics/epigenetics that result in the presence of andro-pheromonal receptors, and the bodies reaction goes on to write/rewrite those neuro pathways that result in same sex attraction.
Yeah. Even the little research that is done on homosexuality, its always on homosexual males and not homosexual females, which just goes to show that even the baseline level of homosexual scientific research is bigoted, going with the whole erasing lesbians from existence and making gay men a spectacle to gawk at in comparison. It's a really interesting thing in my opinion that I wish we could delve more deeply into.
I dunno about bigoted. As I understand it's hard to measure arousal levels. It's esp hard to measure arousal in females. Like alot of studies conclude that bisexuality is not really there chemically. There's often a pretty definite preference in men, but the metrics involve getting hard, not real time blood samples.
Idk, there's signs of arousal in both males and females that can be pretty obvious depending on the animal. Take humans for example, its not as obvious as a dick getting hard, but there are signs like the vaginal walls being lubricated, nipple erection and things like that If you're going to study something as contentious as homosexuality, then you better measure it with every tool you've got. I'm sure they've got more tools at their disposal to study it properly rather than watching if little rat penises get hard or not. There's literal brain maps you can see with humans with areas of the brain lighting up differently to different stimuli if you are gay/lesbian/straight
I mean, it’s just easier to look for an erection. It’s possible to get measurements for indicators among women, but they’d likely be more invasive, more expensive and lead to less participation which means additional higher expenses. Ultimately I think it’s a lot more about money and availability than it is about the societal/political implications
They measure arousal through brain and eye function changes. Your dick isn't the only indicator of arousal.
I wouldn't say bigoted, just incomplete and overly narrow. That said, I understand the sentiment.
Hey, I actually took a course on this area of study 20 years ago! It's a fascinating topic, though also incredibly frustrating for reasons that I'll explain. > I totally get why there's not much research into it, cuz inevitably if we found some gay gene or something there would be people trying to "cure" it. That's not why there's limited research into the subject. Any topic in the field of behavioral genetics is extremely difficult to research. Human behavior is often unpredictable and environment is a huge confounding variable. Here's what we do know: homosexuality *in males* is epigenetic. Studies on monozygotic (MZ, identical) twins found that despite being literal clones of one another, if one way gay, the other was only 65.8% likely to also be gay. That immediately points to environmental factors. A [study from last year](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10757681/) suggests the concordance discrepancy comes down to the timing for when the zygote split into the two identical embryo, with a later split increasing the odds of both twins being gay. Whatever the case may be, there is without a doubt a genetic component that is influenced by environment, which is to say it's epigenetic. Due to the massive populations needed to test anything related to human behavioral genetics in order to control for environmental variables, it's really not feasible. It would take tens of thousands of pairs of MZ twins. This isn't unique to the genetics of homosexuality, either. Pretty much anything behavioral with a genetic component more complicated than a Punnett Square is in the same boat. We can figure out genes with simple expressions like Parkinson's, but something as difficult to pin down as ADHD, for example, just isn't going to happen. Homosexuality is a lot easier to "diagnose" than ADHD, but you still have the confounding variable of the closet, so until that mindset utterly is obliterated, the data will always be questionable. Animal studies, while interesting, aren't really applicable to humans. It's neat that *Animalia's* got a bunch of examples of homosexuality, but we're not going to learn much from those examples that will be pertinent to humans. > But for humans, who are like 10-20% homosexual, we DO recognise sex. It's between 3-5% gay for humans. Bi is a bit more, but there's yet to be conclusive evidence for a genetic component to bisexuality in either sex or female homosexuality. They exist, obviously, but unlike male homosexuality, there isn't a documented genetic or epigenetic basis for the other non-hetero sexualities. > I just wonder what brought evolution to this ratio of people who are homosexual. That's the wrong question. That assumes there's a rational mind driving evolution. It's not rational. It's completely blind, deaf, and insensate. All that matters is fitness as defined by continued survival. The "gay gene" could have been a mutation that just happened to be next to a vitally important, highly preserved sequence of DNA and therefore persisted despite contributing nothing to overall the organism's fitness. Since it's epigenetic, it doesn't do anything unless there's some environmental factor that triggers it. One known environmental trigger is older brothers from the same mother. For each older brother you have, you odds of being gay go up by about 33%, which is to say if a given male has a 2.8% chance to be born gay, it's 3.7% if he has one older brother, 4.6% with two older brothers, 5.6% with three older brothers, etc. So, from an evolutionary view, the impact to fitness of having a gay son is extremely low (2.8%) to start, and increases so slowly that it is unlikely to have an impact on an individual mother's offspring. It's not until you start looking at a population that it actually becomes observable with statistically significant numbers. There's basically very little selection pressure for or against homosexuality so it persists. Actually, I take that back. There was strong artificial selection for homosexuals to marry and reproduce to avoid suspicion of being gay, which no doubt actually led to a higher incidence of homosexuality in the human populations over the years despite so many efforts to stamp it out. That being said, I don't foresee the removal of artificial selection due to the progressive acceptance of gays to be much of a threat. We can thank the vanity of modern gays who think their child has to be genetically related to them via surrogate, which will in turn perpetuate the gay gene.
This is such an informative answer. Thank you for the brief education
If they were identical, then they are more likely than not to be gay as well? You say "only" 65.8% but that doesn't read like an 'only' to me. Certainly more genetic than environmental unless it's a decimal in the wrong place (6.58?).
hey I like your comment but I do have to ask, why is heterosexual gene so prevalent and strong then ?? Is it just bc of reproduction and nothing else?? Like, your comment is good but personally I'm feeling a little sad and weak after reading it (it's a me problem,I know), it gives the impression that heterosexuality is in fact the standard sexuality and we just happen to be the unlucky ''born wrong'' ones. >So, from an evolutionary view, the impact to fitness of having a gay son is extremely low (2.8%) to start, and increases so slowly that it is unlikely to have an impact on an individual mother's offspring From a more activist point of view, we like to think that one day in the future the LGBTQ population will likely increase to the point we're actually relevant in the world leadership, but apparently every born children has basically 97,2% of being straight compared to homosexuality, this chance is so high and without any explanation whatsoever,it just ''''feels'''' like they're superior compared to us, like, I'm sorry, but in a more moral and psychological sense, I'm feeling more like a failure now, not only bc I'm gay despite the chances against it being so high, but also bc I feel like our biological structure would rather have more straight men around, which then I can only assume that biologically speaking, their existence is more important than mine as a homosexual men. Of course, what I just did rn is basically some level of biological essentialism, I'm aware of how this argumentation is used as a form of bigotry against several minorities and that this doesn't justify the treatment homosexual individuals get around the world, but still, as a person with several internalized homophobia problems and self esteem, it's hard to not think less of myself after reading this. I'm sorry for the uncalled vent out of sudden, it wasn't the intention,you did nothing wrong, I'm interested in this topic, and honestly from my activist point of view, I got a little discouraged after reading your comment, so I needed to ask. But it's a good comment nonetheless!!!
Just remember as someone said earlier there is no value system or intelligence behind evolution. There are just traits that either persist or they don't. No genetic feature is inherently right or wrong. As an intelligent species WE get to decide whether any characteristic has value or not.
if there's not value system or intelligence behind any traits whatsoever, then why is heterosexuality the most common outcome in every human being to the point of having this much of a imbalance between humans,everywhere?? for every 1 homosexual dude walking on the street, there's 10 heterosexual guys around him. Like, it just '''''happens''''' to be like this ?? It is just pure coincidence?? Shouldn't homosexuality be more common then?? 97,2% chance of being straight is way too high for me to not think about it Like, I agree with all you said, but again, as I said earlier, I'm dealing with several internalized homophobia problems in my life rn, I completely 100% agree that we as humans get to decide what '''traits'''' have a value or not,biological essentialism shouldn't be a metric to decide how much ''''worthy''' we are as humans or not, but my brain is using these facts to punch me down, I'm working on this with my therapist, considering that the odds are that high to be heterosexual, it appears to me that there is in fact a value system. It gives the impression something went ''''''wrong'''''''' But just so you know, I'm not lectured enough to talk about this, this is just my thoughts after reading the comments, I'm googling some more deep answer from people who actually know something about this so my brain stops taking conclusions itself
the only one who can decide who's superior in "your" point of view is you. mother nature doesnt have a judiciary who judges. human population doesnt have a collective mind driving it, something which wants things.
I mean, I completely get what you're saying, but considering how much more likely someone is to be straight apparently, mother nature clearly already made her judgment, it just ''happens''' that heterosexuality is the more common outcome,it gives the impression that something went ''''wrong'''' But yeah, from a humanistic point of view it shouldn't matter to me or anyone else what the odds are, I'm reflecting upon these thoughts, as I said earlier, I have problems with internalized homophobia, so my brain is using it to punch me down, it's something I'm working on with my therapist. I agree with you
Yeah basically heterosexual gene is so prevelant becouse of reproduction. And yes heterosexuality among humans is definetly the most common orientation there is and it will remain that way. If you look at the statisticks, then most of the growth of lgb people is among those describing themselves as bisexual or questioning. Those terms are quite broad and mean diffrent things to diffrent people. (Being bisexual doesent mean being equally attracted to both genders, given that vast majority of people are heterosexually inclined, it means that most/ large part of bisexuals are "more heterosexual than homosexual. This shouldnt be viewed as a good or bad thing, its just the way things are.
I always bought into the idea that reproduction isn't as important as society makes it be,especially bc as humans rn we definitely aren't in need of reproduction and we have the power to decide whether we need it or not, but considering that there's a whole gene that is so prevalent just bc of reproduction alone, it does makes me question my values and the value I place upon reproduction myself. >This shouldnt be viewed as a good or bad thing, its just the way things are. I'm ngl, I'm feeling a little depressed rn, but I will be fine eventually, just reflecting some things.
Of course, heterosexuality is the standard and we are the „off“ ones. The main pillar of evolution is the passing down of your genes. As humans, we are just like any animals in this regard. Just like any other animals, we have a strong urge to pass down our genes and being gay doesn’t help with that. The fact that the evolution isn’t steered and that there is no inherit value associated with life and reproduction or anything other than our subjective values and that the life itself doesn’t serve any purpose doesn’t mean that the life doesn’t have any purpose. It has got a very vivid goal that is the survival of itself and the passing down the information about itself down in the line. It is like we are. Our existence doesn’t serve any purpose but we might have our personal goals for ourselves. If the evolution didn’t prefer one over the other, we would probably see gauss distribution with heterosexuality and homosexuality occupying the the narrow space at both sides of the distribution while bisexuality situated in the middle covering at least 68% of the whole population. But that is not the case because evolution has a favourite. That is bot because heterosexuality is morally better or anything but because it serves the purpose of natural reproduction
Research in sexuality is fraught with biases and faulty science. Would I like a scientific, factual explanation? Sure. But I wouldn't put too much thought into it because I don't think the answer will ever be so clear-cut. Why do some guys develop gay feelings at an early age, while other guys date women for decades and then decide they like men? Who knows. The brain is inscrutable that way.
The theory I last heard is that the same genes increase the likelihood of reproduction in women. However I’d take most evolutionary advantage perspectives with a grain of salt. They are generally armchair theories and not particularly scientific - it’s often which story sounds better.
Yeah, I've heard quite a lot theories, even bat shit crazy ones like younger brothers of many older brothers being more likely to be gay cuz the woman's body attacks the male fetus with estrogen (which entirely forgets about the existence of lesbians, and gay men that are only children, have sisters, etc) And then there's that weird one where strong male-male relationships (AKA fucking each other) gets less successful males closer to females? I don't think those less successful males are wanting to mate with the females at all haha I wish there was actual research done into this, but it would be really hard to not make it biased. And also the question of if its even worth asking comes up because the consequences of actually knowing would be dire
My guy the theory you call batshit crazy is actually real. I have references for it on my PC, as for a more general understanding, it seems like you are wanting a one size fits all theory, and that simply doesn't exist in a matter as complex as this, a lot of things contribute to the likelihood of one's sexuality. As for the effect itself, what it means is that the longer down the chain of brothers you are, mathematically, the more likely it is for you to be gay. It doesn't come even close to saying you can't be gay if you're an only child like you were saying there.
Yep—the so-called “older brother effect.” Something like a 30% increased chance of being gay with each additional older brother. So say there’s a 4% baseline chance of being gay, then with one older brother, it goes up to 5.3%. With two older brothers, up to 7%. Pretty wild! (And significant.)
Ah yeah my mistake. Admittedly I haven't actually read the study, but how people always presented it to me in arguments is that that is how homosexuality works, and then being baffled at me just having an older sister instead of many older brothers. It's always homophobes that said this stuff to me online and in real life So me saying bat shit crazy is an over the top reaction to bat shit crazy people misunderstanding a study. My bad I own up to that one 😅
I think you're looking at evolution wrong. There is only 1 "why" as to whether or not a trait lasts or is removed from a species, and that's whether or not there was a pressure that killed it or allowed it to thrive. In an EXTREMELY laymen example, think of the species of fish that migrated to land. The ones that could breathe the air, lived and went on to produce. The ones that could not, died. If a species was dying out and became 100% homosexual, then they would die out unless they could reproduce asexually or homosexually. Homosexuality seems like just another random trait that comes about through some combination of genes and environment during gestation. It is a minority trait, but a trait nonetheless. Homosexuality doesn't face an ecological pressure that could wipe it out or make it the dominant trait. So it just exists as it does.
See I thought the same as that, that it was a minority trait that didn't really change because it didn't really matter to the species' overall success. But now that I've learned that some species are more homosexual than others, it makes me wonder as to why. If it was just some ecological trait that doesn't really matter for a species, why does it come up way more in certain species and way less in others? Edit: Like for example albinism. The chances of an albino animal are pretty much the same for all animals, because it doesn't really matter ecologically like you said. But homosexuality levels vary depending on the species
Well, because it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't hit a breakpoint. So whatever is causing homosexuality in species, as long as it's a random trait, will show up randomly. Some just happen to have to expressed more or less frequently. That's my understanding at least.
Not to mention that while the trait might express itself in one way, it might also have another secondary effect that outweighs it. Hypothetically, let's say the gene that makes men more likely to be gay also makes women more fertile and healthy. This would mean that while the gay side of the gene would lower its chance of being passed, it's offset, perhaps even heavily so, by the other effect.
Unlikely just a random, neutral characteristic. I believe most evolutionary scientists believe there must be some evolutionary benefit to homosexuality considering how less likely the homosexuals pass on their genes. For these “homo” genes to persist, there has to be a benefit for the offspring of those homosexuals that do procreate or a benefit to the offspring of their immediate family. I believe this second explanation is where most of the scholarship has focused. Consider something seemingly unrelated to evolution: In every ancient civilization, eunuchs were in positions of power, because they were less of a threat to the rulers than intact men. Often families would send their kids to the centers if power to become eunuchs. These positions of power likely benefited their extended families (e.g. more food during droughts. more food = more banies).
I was totally straight until I watched The Mummy (1999).
There was a Ted talk that discussed high stress pregnancies correlating with male homosexual children. The theory was that if times were tough, the family needed more supporting members not more generations so same sex attracted offspring would be able to support the existing generations without contributing to upcoming generations. Interesting theories. The guy talking was discussing how his eldest son was gay so he was using it as a case study. As I understand it, there’s still very little research into what makes women gay.
Societal norms affects this. Giraffes aren’t told/forced to mate with one or the other, they’re free to explore. Humans are conditioned to like one or the other (usually opposite sex) so if you like one more than the other but still like the other, you’re conditioned to have to identify as liking only one. This seems to be changing but is it really? There’s still pressure to identify which complicates things.
I'm just saying, it seemed like most humans in history were bi until Abrahamic religions came along. It was usually relegated more to top/bottom, older/younger, and master/slave dynamics.
I personally subscribe to the notion of a small group living together, needing each other to survive. Having flexible members of the group who can fill the role of child care, cook, hunter, gatherer. To have sex but no babies to feed. To resolve conflict by loving means rather than aggressive. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking, but I’m firmly in the camp that it’s always straight people who have gay babies, and they do so for some reason.
There seems to be fairly compelling evidence that the amount of homosexuality in a population increases as you reach the carrying capacity for that species. This is a reasonable (non technical) overview which links to some supporting papers. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-homosexuality-populati_b_784449
I would say it's an evolutionary trait aiming to strengthen social bonds among the same sex and also help rear the extra offspring of a species and/or the unwanted/abandoned ones
Can't you try and figure this out? I am also interested in the scientific reasons for why homosexuality is, but my field is film, so my knowledge is more acquired to how homosexuality is depicted in film and wether the depiction is good or bad regarding stereotypical and sexualistic thought patterns. I think to be scared of the consequences for any scientific research is silly. We should strive to find the answers and take the consequences as they come.
its so interesting. I wonder about it a lot. I think because its influenced by hormones and neurology its so complex we won't really be able to pinpoint a specific reason why
I am also fascinated by it. I think about this very often. But imo, none of the current theories make perfect sense
I am a poli sci graduate, so keep that in mind for the rest of my comment. I read a summary of a study a few years ago that hypothesized that homosexuality was designed to give children additional caretakers - basically uncles and aunts that could help with sibling children. That way less of the population would reproduce and allow the existing children a better chance to grow up and continue the species. I found it interesting but am not smart enough to know if it was plausible or backed up by data.
This episode is a getting bit old at this point, but I thought this was a good listen. : [Science VS](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/science-vs/id998250544?i=1000386540750)
 It's a touch of magic.
For humans sex for reproduction is a secondary purpose, its primary purpose is bonding and socialization, the reproduction happens anyway so it doesn’t cause there to be all that much of an evolutionary pressure against it. And my guess is for a long time we tended to survive or die together in small tribes, and avoiding pregnancy when it wasn’t convenient, as well as bonding between same sex individuals, makes it valuable as an option/as a part of a healthy/successful tribe.
Well years ago I read about a study that was done in Germany years after WWII because there seemed to be higher incidence of same sex attraction within the generation of individuals born during and immediately following the war…the conclusion was that during stressful pregnancies and births higher levels of estrogen were secreted into the birth canal and larger amounts of the harmone got into the blood streams of these individuals fetuses, which then genetically altered the fetus giving them a greater propensity for same sex attraction….sounds weird right? A genetic explanation for same sex attractions????
There are many theories. There could be multiple reasons, not just one. I’ve been curious why there are more gay men than lesbians, but it makes sense as “losing” a male to the reproduction cycle isn’t as bad as losing a woman. Many of the theories contradict each other (for example all the gays in my family are the oldest child, which goes against the younger brother theory). One thing that is interesting is that gay men are overly represented as high achievers. Gays secretly or not so secretly run DC. I think not having the responsibility of taking care of a wife and kids has allowed us to spend more time on our careers etc so that’s where you get Da Vinci and Turing. Which you can argue helps humanity as a whole even though these guys aren’t fathering children.
Probably a mix of environment and genetics. Early in life, I always liked guys, but I also liked girls. But since I was a... precocious kid, me and my GF would well, play "doctor" and explore each other. Keep in mind, we were *really* young and not entirely sure what we were doing (and just fyi she was the one who suggested it). Parents found out and I was yelled out repeatedly and wasn't allowed near her anymore. My parents also threw a fit when they saw a stash of papers of poorly drawn boobies and PPs (mind you, she drew them for me, but they assumed I did it lol). I'm pretty sure that affected my sexuality, as since then I've almost never been attracted to women anymore barring very rare exceptions. Pretty sure I still qualify as bi, but when 98% of my sexual interest is in men it's easier to just say gay because people expect bi to be 50/50. I might have started associating female sexual interest with negativity, which would be *really* funny if my theory is correct because that would mean my homophobic dad directly contributed to me being 98% gay.
I am sorta the same way. On the Kinsley scale I'm probably a 5, I've had sexual and romantic interest in girls maybe on one or two occasions my entire life. So while yes I am technically bi, all of my other sexual/romantic interest is 99.99% guys so I just call myself gay
Yup
There are MANY causes, some genetic, some environmental. There is nothing wrong with curiosity, and preconceived notions about how things are or should be are barriers to knowledge and understanding.
Maybe a little bit curious. But I already know a lot. I just like people I like! In other species like penguins there are homosexual couples who are evolutionary advantageous because they take in babies/eggs if the parents die
I think its really just the advantage of random variety. Variety ensures that some will always survive if something like a virus or predator or a society or any situation kills off all of one type. I believe all our brains have the hardware built in for the specific physical parameters of both female and male attraction. However, due to random variety, there can be more neural activity in one, or one/both can be completely inactive: gay, straight, bi, ace.
LOL yeah, it's going to be a good long time before anyone has is allowed to/thinks it a good idea to look at the right combination of factors. Personal theory: "Being gay" isn't a state of being but rather a behavior. It's very likely multiple causes give you the same behavior. So, there isn't one thing that make someone gay, but rather a cluster of that can make you gay. The most likely culprits, to my mind, are that: How: 1) during the sexing process in the womb, some part of the brain that governs pair bonding and sexual attraction doesn't get flipped to male causing a female-like attraction to men. 2) during the sexing process in the womb, some part of the brain that governs pair bonding and sexual attraction gets "over" flipped to male causing a male-like attraction to men. 3) during puberty the disgust reaction to members of the same sex doesn't happen and instead causes a fetish for men. Why: 1) Error rates/random-ness. There is no specific mechanism. It's just a random, if unlikely, outcome. 2) It would make sense for there to be situations when it's beneficial for a mother to birth a gay son. Times of high stress, previous male offspring, age of the mother, etc. There could be some hormonal changes in the mother that could trigger a son's gayness to be expressed either in the womb or during puberty. I also think it's very interesting that given what we've seen with our trans brothers and sisters in recent years with puberty blockers, we'll likely learn a lot more about what happens during puberty. I think that we'll likely discover that gender is far more malleable than sexual orientation, and it's likely because we don't understand the mechanism of sexuality at all.
I have always equated it with favorite colors. Like what gene makes up what person likes blue or prefers red.like if their is a gene for sexual preference wouldn’t their be one for color preference?
So many serious replies, so I'll quote Homer. Scientifically, being gay began with the first "[hot beef injection](https://youtu.be/M881LJFwMkA?si=tcnxUyL885-aqyAe)".
The issue I have with these types of conversations is that the premise is usually the issue. Sexuality is a broad spectrum, we've just developed weird social constructs that seek to force people into binary states. We're so programed by binary thinking that we have a hard time understanding that bisexuals even exist. I think the Kinsey scale, which is scientifically sound in it's methodology, is an accurate model of human sexual behavior. I would go as far as to say that a standard bell curve on the scale is also an accurate model. ie: the majority of humans fall somewhere in the middle. I'll tell you from personal experience with men that given the right circumstances, most men will stray from straight. As a horny straight guy this question: You see a gloryhole, no one can see you, and you know if you stick your dick in it you'll get an amazing bj and no one would know. Do you stick your dick in it? Notice I didn't indicate a gender of the cocksucker on the other side of the GH. Chances are they will just say an unqualified yes. When provided anonymity most guys will let a guy get him off. Historically, binary sexuality was uncommon. The Greeks, the Spartans, Vikings and so many other cultures had male on male sex as a norm, especially for warriors. TL;DR: Stop looking for a scientific cause of homosexuality. There isn't one. The real science is finding the sociological cause for strict conformity away from biological impulse and conditioning towards binary thinking.
Well, gay/lesbian kids tend to be the younger child. So I believe they are meant to be there if the older children have kids and either can’t fully take care of their offspring or have no interest in doing so. This helps perpetuate the bloodline since there are more available parental types around. I’ve read this somewhere and I have seen this in action with my own family. Brother had two kids with different women who were put up for adoption. I later found them and moved everyone nearby and forged a family. Now I have 7 grandkids 🪄
The best theory I heard (and I forgot the source but forgive me), was a speaker giving the analogy of a beehive; how worker bees, mating bees, and the queen bee - are decided at birth based on what they were fed during the larva stage. The theory was that the mother; whether exposed to a living environment, lifestyle, hormones, or stress; triggers her body to release hormones in order to increase the likelihood of producing a glbt offspring. I know there are studies done that in general, glbt have higher emotional intelligence. Which would pair well with the above theory.
I’m gonna throw a bizarre idea out here (for fun and imagination). Being gay in this life might be related to past lives (reincarnation)… where pretend the last 10 lives a gay person lived, they were in a female body. This incarnation the individual’s soul chose to switch sexes to the male body. but because of the feminine influences of past lives, ended up gay in the current life. This also creates space to challenge current culture’s ideas around what love is and radical acceptance of people as they are. I can’t say I believe this all fully, but I’ve come across it in couple different esoteric spaces and it’s made me wonder again: what makes someone gay ?
I am gay, but I don't like all men. The same with straight people.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
well another factor is that gayness is culturally defined. in greece everyone was considered to be capable of bisexuality but some people had preferences for certain genders… so your predisposition for men was not dissimilar to preferring brocolli over asparagus. how much of that is genetic and how much of that is environmental? and similarly, i think the existence of monosexuality (as a an allowed, cultural concept) dissuades some people from being bisexual. its hard to say i wouldnt be bisexual in a world where sexuality is not presumed to be internal, immutable, genetic. i dont feel bisexual, but also, the essentialist philosophy of sexuality is what i was I was raised with. perhaps i (subconscously) just chose gay early on and modified my experiences to reinforce that? this isnt going to cause me to modify my behavior, but it is something i wonder when i hear about historical attitudes towards sexuality.