Saturday, September 09, 2017

No longer living the lie or surviving themselves

Since 2008 the GSS has explicitly asked respondents about their sexual orientations. About one-in-seven homosexual men (13.8%) report having at least one biological child (among men over thirty years old to allow the chance for procreation to have occurred).

Homosexuality is a Darwinian death sentence. About the only thing worse from a reproductive standpoint is failing to make it out of adolescence at all (something Agnostic has anyway argued gay men don't do):

n = 7,603
Female sexuality is more 'fluid' than male sexuality is. Some women allegedly experience changes in sexual orientation over their lifetimes. Men rarely do. It is not therefore suprising to see that lesbians have higher fertility than gay men do.

The gay male mean presented above is lower than historical estimates of homosexual male reproductive fitness by about one-third. The normalization and then salient celebration of homosexuality has reduced the social pressure that used to keep queers in the closet. They aren't on just on Castro street at night anymore--they're out there in broad daylight now, too.

One consequence of gays becoming who they are is that they spawn less than the fruitcakes who came before them did. Were he living today, Oscar Wilde wouldn't shackle up with a woman for the sake of keeping up appearances, and so Milo were he living today, he wouldn't be producing any direct descendants, either.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(1)(2)(3), AGE(30-89), CHILDS, SEX

20 comments:

Sid said...

The cause of male homosexuality is a mystery to me. On the one hand, it's clear that male homosexuality has strong biological causes. A study came out recently in which an AI program was able to identify gay and straight men with high accuracy, along the lines of 90% or so: https://betanews.com/2017/09/08/ai-gaydar-sexuality-prediction/

(Lesbians were identified only 70-80% of the time, which corroborates your claim about their relative sexual fluidity.)

On the other hand, male homosexuality is only moderately heritable. This study from 2010 put male homosexuality's heritability at only around 34-39%, with individual-specific environments accounting for the rest. Quite curious: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

(Apparently lesbianism is less than 20% heritable, which again corroborates your statement.)

Greg Cochran has argued that pathogens are one of the causes for male homosexuality. Not a bad idea, but so far I don't think anyone has found hard evidence or identified such pathogens.

I will look forward to seeing if GWAS studies can identify specific alleles which are associated with male homosexuality. Right now it's not especially clear what causes homosexuality or why it should even exist, and GWAS studies should be able to at least shed light on the genetics.

On a different note: Back when I was in undergrad, I told a female student I agreed with Cochran's hypothesis (I'm less certain now), and she was angry that I would say homosexuality was caused by a disease!

The politically correct view of male homosexuality holds that it is nearly 100% genetic in origin, but SJWs get angry when you suggest there are physical identifiers for homosexuality (gaydar is not a PC concept). If you state that gays talk a certain way or have a particular look, they get furious. More proof that PC is just intentional stupidity and inability to recognize patterns.

Dan said...

To my mind human sexuality is all about imprinting. This is really obvious to me because it explains why boys who were molested turn out gay, and it explains why people develop fetishes and particular porn addictions. But in a word where truth is of no interest to most people, imprinting is never explored.

Anonymous said...

It seems obvious that in any given species, only a select number, perhaps determined by the species itself, are "breeders", who will produce the next generation. In wolf packs, for example, only the alpha male and female will breed. The rest of the pack perform other functions, but are not permitted to breed.

However, this does not inhibit the motivation to breed in non-breeders, and this creates a problem for the breeders. So to help them out, nature has come up with ways to divert the non-breeders. One of these means is with homosexuality, another is perhaps with non-procreative prostitution, yet another is with post-menopausal sex. For the breeders there is the use of monogamy to protect themselves.

Humans, however, have a more advanced form of monogamy with socially-enforced marriage. It not only protects the breeding couple, protects the male and female imperatives, but enhances the quality of life for their offspring.

Sadly, it can be fouled up with things like the dowry, or selling young brides to older men, or just the unwillingness of society to protect the couple from interlopers. It has now been established that single motherhood is disastrous for their offspring, who are raised in a "survival" instead of "success" mode, and have a far greater chance of becoming criminal offenders, even adjusting for race and wealth.

So the bottom line is for society to "purpose" the non-breeders, instead of insisting that everyone should at least try to breed.

James said...

I am curious to see what the "gay' replacement rate would be if homosexuals formed their own isolated enclaves. Let's say that 100,00 gay men and lesbians decided to create Sodom on a Greek island in the Mediterranean. No one else but homosexuals could live on that island. What would be the population decline look like? Since you have gay men and lesbians, you have the potential for pregnancies. If the lesbian kept the offspring, would it be gay? Very possibly, since it would be raised only knowing what it was surrounded by. And there would be continued production of gays in the remainder of the world, which Sodom would gladly take in for fresh meat. So, given worldwide travel with no restrictions, continued production of gays by the straight world (regardless of the mechanism for this), possible accidental births on Sodom (if not outlawed), and a life span about 20 years less than the straight world, would the population of Sodom reach zero, remain constant, or become overpopulated?

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Gay germ theory is my working assumption because it seems to account for objections that genetics (given how devastating it is for reproductive fitness, wouldn't it have been bred out of existence by now?) and life experiences/imprinting (it seems to occur fairly consistently across time and place in around 2%-4% of the male population). That consistency suggests that the 'germ' doesn't have much to do with the mother's hygiene, health, etc. My working assumption is just an amateur's opinion and could be wrong.

politically correct view of male homosexuality holds that it is nearly 100% genetic in origin

Which leads into the trap that it's terrible from a Darwinian perspective. Homosexuality wreaks a lot of havoc on the PC parameters of our time. Throw in the clear differences between male and female homosexuality and things get even trickier for the thought police.

Parenthetically, it seems that homosexuality as a cultural/political issue mostly concerns gay men. Lesbians are often an afterthought if they're brought up at all. There are plenty of reasons for this--the flamboyant behavior of gay men compared to the laconic nature of lesbians; male homosexuality leads to a host of health problems while lesbianism doesn't lead to any so gay men make great victims while lesbians don't; there's more disgust among normies for male homosexuality than for lesbianism, etc.

Dan,

Do you think imprinting explains lesbianism or just male homosexuality?

Anon,

In humans most are breeders. Historically, almost all females have been. In the West, the proportion of men who were breeders probably peaked in the earlier part of the 20th century and has been coming back down since then.

Whether or not homosexuals have children doesn't have much impact on the TFR of society as a whole, but my sense is now, at least in the West, we have too many people who *should* be breeders who aren't fulfilling that role.

Jim Bowery said...

See Parasitic Castration.

Anonymous said...

If one could keep teen boys away from homosexual men and pornography, what would the number be? It's long known , that the gay-male community "recruits" young men. Get a confused or conflicted young man to "try" something. Had that "helper" not been there, would that youngster grow out of their phase? Would he find a woman that sparked his desire? There are many lines of thinking that are taboo now. I'd say genetics account for a percentage ... but I argue ( w/o citation} that at least half are led to it in adolescence for one reason or another.

Audacious Epigone said...

Parasitic castration, a more specific version of gay germ theory.

James,

Cities are population sinkholes as is. An entirely gay island city would have an even faster rate of population turnover than a densely populated modern city. The supply of gays would continue though. I doubt reproduction would be higher than what was graphed out here--probably lower, settling at whatever the baseline is under an environment of full social acceptance.

Sid said...

In the book "Evil Genes," Barbara Oakley wrote that there is a distinction to be made between sociopaths and psychopaths. There are a number of alleles which help bring about psychopathy: sociopaths have a limited number of them, while psychopaths have a fuller measure of them.

Sociopaths are born with evil inclinations, but in order to become a merciless person, a sociopath usually needs their evil genes to be activated. Usually this comes about from early childhood abuse. In contrast, psychopaths are born evil, and will get a kick from harming people even if they had a lovely childhood.

There are probably a certain number of alleles which help bring about homosexuality. GWAS studies should help us identify which ones they are and what they do. My guess is that "flaming queers" are born with a high number of them, whereas other men who become homosexuals had some leeway with their sexuality. My guess is that they experienced an event which triggered their homosexuality: gay germs, imprinting from early childhood abuse, growing up in a permissive social environment and not having access to or success with women (jail, being around feminists in San Francisco/Seattle, etc.). That's the 60+% called individual-specific environment.

My guess is that pedophilia is an extreme form of homosexuality, where nearly all of the "gay genes" are present plus a big helping of abuse/gay germs. But I could be wrong.

To reiterate, I expect we'll know a lot more about the genetics of homosexuality in five years than what we know now, to the extent that the years before 2020 will look like a dark age.

Of course, this will probably be a train wreck for political correctness...

"Parenthetically, it seems that homosexuality as a cultural/political issue mostly concerns gay men. Lesbians are often an afterthought if they're brought up at all."

Most people mildly dislike lesbians but have a love/hate relationship with gays. Lesbians are usually unattractive, humorless scolds. The area where they seem to have the most fame and influence is in academia, where they develop and adhere to utterly bizarre leftist cults. Camille Paglia is both an example and exception of a lesbian academic, because her work is usually incisive and grounded in reality.

That said, outside of academia and maybe HR departments, lesbians tend to be invisible and leave you alone, so it's hard to get worked up about them.

In contrast, people tend to love or hate gays. They're usually incredibly funny, stylish, and affable. That said, gay sex is incredibly unhealthy, and gay men have lots of it with a lot of people they don't know. Gays are rarely paragons of virtuous masculinity, and at best there's still something not quite right about them. Milo is a great example: he's funny as all hell and knows how to bash leftists with the best of them, but you have to turn off the YouTube video of him you're watching once he openly boasts about blowing black dudes.

Feryl said...

"Conservatives who strongly approve of Trump and his populist-nationalist agenda were the most likely of all sub-groups to oppose DACA. Fifty-six percent of that group agreed with Sessions’ announcement. Another 48 percent of American voters who somewhat approve of Trump said they too oppose DACA."

Magic Dirt Lives! This ain't the late 50's, or even the early 90's. Successively younger generations have a weaker and weaker grasp of what it means to be an American, and thus are less likely to be nativist. When far fewer Americans had a recent immigrant background, and there were fewer immigrants in general, it was easier to see aliens as a threat and a weird and undesired presence. Keep in mind also that striving was at a lower level decades ago; we had more genuine concern for our fellow citizens back then. Right now too many people have a mercenary type attitude and are clueless about what's best for everyone long-term.

This is all part of the globalist plan to weaken Western identity by flooding countries with aliens. Some have openly admitted that that's been the goal all along, since the late 90's if not earlier.

There was obviously successful push back against past amnesties proposed after 1986. But if those polls are to be believed, which the GOP likely does, there isn't enough hostility extant among ur typical American to make DACA a total non-starter. Now don't get me wrong, a massive chunk of Trump voters are likely to try and knock out the cucks responsible for amnesty. But until the general public sentiment is more nativist, and striving diminishes, we can only expect so many victories. Perspective; McKinley was elected in 1896 and implemented some minor reforms before he died. Voters would have to wait until the mid-1920's before elites reached a consensus that too many immigrants were dangerous which enabled elites to wind down immigration. Some of that was driven by the unrest and even terrorism that occurred in the 1910's and early 20's.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Yes, it's the flamboyance is the major differentiator. Lesbians are among the least flamboyant people in society, less so than heater men or women, whereas gay men are the most flamboyant of all. Those who are not--like Jack Donovan--don't elicit a disgust response at all. He is a paragon of virtuous masculinity in spite of being gay.

I often ask a hypothetical with SWPLs if the question of the cause(s) of homosexuality come up. Say through embryo selection you are able to effectively select the sexuality of your child. Do you choose for them to be gay? Does anybody, even gay the odd gay who has a child? Maybe a few attention whores like the circus freaks we occasionally see in social media feeds showing off their (severely psychologically abused) 'transgendered' 6 year-old would opt for a gay child, but I suspect the percentage who would knowingly choose to would be well under the ~2%-4% of the population that is 'naturally' gay.

Feryl,

I'm skeptical. Looked at a Morning Consult poll showing lots of support for amnestying 'dreamers' (58%). But the same organization shows 49% for amnestying all 11 million illegals. Part of the problem is the restriction in responses--legalize or deport is usually the way it's presented.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

Homosexuality can be inherited AND not bred out of existence. For example: tall men will tend to have both tall sons and tall daughters. It helps the sons but hurts the daughters. Short women will tend to have both short sons and short daughters. It helps the daughters but hurts the sons.

There is no gene for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. There are only genes for androphilia and genes for gynophilia.

Ever noticed that manly men often have ogre/lesbian looking daughters or sisters? Ever notice that beautiful, ultrafeminine women often have wimpy/gay looking brothers or sons? This is why. The most ultrafeminine straight women have SO many genes for androphilia that their brothers/sons have a high chance of inheriting them too and become bisexual or gay. The most masculine straight men have SO many genes for gynophilia that their sisters/daughters have a high chance of inheriting them too and become bisexual or gay. A person who has no genes for androphilia or gynophilia is an asexual. I wouldn't be surprised if many asexual people out there are descended from men and women who are straight, but have low sex drives.

Homo/bisexuality will never be bred out of existence, nor will things like ADHD, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, etc.

Feryl said...

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table1

The 1880's-early 1920's were a time of extremely high immigration levels. It wasn't until these things started literally blowing up in the faces of Americans that elites got serious about reining it in. So we're talking about a 40 year period of Ellis Island infiltrators, some of whom still haven't totally assimilated and who permanently (?) altered the composition of the Northeastern US which became less far less Teutonic than the South and Midwest. And certain urban areas of the Midwest were quite affected as well (even friggin Milwaukee was quite mobbed up until the mid-80's).

Though we like to be horrified about 1965, immigration levels weren't that low in the 1950's and then they crept up a bit in the 60's and early 70's. It's in the late 70's that levels began to soar, leaving us with our current predicament. The late 70's is when athletes started doing tons of drugs, working out like crazy, etc. It's when Jimmy Carter began to move elite Dems away from beefy white union guys. It's when middle-class people lost interest in fighting the system and gained interest in having the best hair cut and car.

Go figure, the late 70's were 40 years ago. So we ought to be nearing a big reduction. Keep in mind that Obama, esp. in his first term actually deported a decent amount of people. And as Agnostic pointed out, mostly young and Mestizo Dreamers represent a fairly small number of people, so we're not talking about anything that approaches the betrayal of 1986 (a theoretically decent compromise whose employment sanctions plank were never enforced, since it would've cut into big business and abetted self-deportation, Romney wasn't off the mark when he made a reasonable observation that inexplicably was blown into a dystopian nightmare for illegals) or the ignominious gang of 8 BS.

Feryl said...

The initial Trump era wisely focused on cleaning up the refugee racket and denying entry to certain nationals altogether (the tortured travel ban saga). Accepting 2 million mestizos (or whatever) is an acceptable compromise in exchange for not letting a caliphate take shape in America. And the Tom Cotton bill ain't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. We can't get away with declaring all immigration a horror that must be halted (we're not Japan and never will be), but skill based policy and keeping Wahabists out is the least we can do.

All this being said, we didn't have such a variety of ethnic groups back in 1925. Neither did we allow so many people perceived to be removed from founding father culture/mores to have so much power back then. White, Protestant, male, and well-rooted people were more upfront about protecting America's trad. culture back then.

We beat back the sentiment from non-founding stock Americans in the 20's, something that Ellis Island promoters smarted from for decades and were able to finally surmount in the 60's due heavily to an Irishman and a Jew. We've now hitched our wagon to so much diversity that it's tough to foresee either mainstream party ever being able to fully get away with restoring Teutonic America. How would Nicky Haley feel about that? If somebody like Steve King (IA) and his acolytes made the party over, The GOP would truly assume the mantle of legacy Americans, with outliers from other groups along for the ride (like Jews who don't want Muslims in America). But would that ever happen? I think we'll be ashes before that can happen.

Sid said...

AE,

Agreed on Jack Donovan. People like him don't bother me in the slightest.

For me personally, I wouldn't have a fetus aborted if you showed me he or she would become gay, but if you gave me two fetuses that my hypothetical wife could bring to term, you told me nothing about them other than one would be gay and one would be straight, and I could only pick one, I'd of course go with the straight one.

I read a study a few weeks ago that around 3% of mothers have bipolar disorder, but 53% of mothers of "transgender" children have that mental illness.

Anonymous,

I can believe that high testerone women become lesbian. If you have broad shoulders, narrow hips, beady eyes, and a hard, sculpted face, the dating market for men is not going to be fun.

Gay men are often effeminate, but there are critical distinctions between them and men with low testosterone/high estrogen. Low testosterone men tend to look amorphous, whereas gays are often obsessed with how they look and strive to look as sharp and handsome as possible. Low testosterone men have soft features, whereas gays often have a sharp, angular look, and what gives gays away is that they have an unusually sharp, intense gaze.

There is also a subset of "girlie men" who are master seducers, as they understand how girls think and feel better than most guys, appear unthreatening, but have intense sex drives. (Metrosexuals and a fair number of effeminate-looking rock stars are archetypal examples.) In fact, the Romans thought that men who think about women and sex too much were unmanly, because virtuous masculinity means having skills and interests that are rational or at least technical in nature, which is different from scheming how to get in women's pants all day.

In short, gay men are different from low-t, high-e men in critical ways. There's likely another factor which brings about homosexuality in men.

Feryl said...

There's a spectrum of masculinity and conscientiousness. Charlie Manson was an effete loser, but he still got lots of tail and convinced others to do dirty work for him because he was smart, charismatic, and quite straight. But not the least bit interested in doing good for society. His main thug was a big dumb Texan. Charlie's always been quick to remind people that he himself never got his hands dirty. If prosecutor Bugliosi is to be believed, the LAPD nearly botched the case because they had to connect the dots back to Manson and the effort to do so almost didn't take off. David Koresh and Kurt Cobain also come to mind; self-centered scumbags who didn't like sports or brawls, weren't very studious or hard working, and presented as downtrodden/misunderstood to gain the favor of women while alienating any self-respecting male in the vicinity.

I'm sure we all can remember how in high school/college, there were "sensitive" guys who spent a lot of time around girls. Some were fags, but some were Johnny Depp types. Better at wooing girls than inspiring loyalty or confidence in male acquaintances. Going back to music, the lead singer is most often of this type, but to varying degrees. I think the "pretty boy" insult has always been reserved for hetero betas whose loyalty is not to be trusted and who might take your girlfriend away; gays are called fags and homos, and straight guys tend to find them more annoying than threatening. BTW, how much bullying is based on alpha males trying to intimidate betas from getting too confident? Alpha males may have rivaries with other alphas, but the thing is, alphas understand that at some point in the future they can unite for some common purpose, so at least there's a bit of respect from that. Beta pretty boys, though, are never to be trusted.

Come to think of it, betas came (still come?) in 3 flavors: the above mentioned homos and pretty boys, but there's also the nerd. Nerds got the least abuse, since, after all, they're not gross like fags but they also are not considered competition like pretty boys are. Plus in some ways nerds are indeed quite masculine; they just prefer their minds, not their hands or their mouths.

The above mentioned pretty boys did a lot damage to society, certainly proving that alpha males are hardly the only group of men responsible for evil. That being said, most hetero thugs including rapists/serial killers are alpha types, since physically dominating others comes most easily to macho guys, Sheldon associated meso-morphs with criminality because of that. Nevertheless, the form of damage may change but ultimately the amount of damage is based on how conscientious you are. It's just that alphas and nerds have a particular disdain for pretty boys because their tendency to charm women and avoid most guys seems very suspect and selfish (get pussy AND never bother to form an effective and large male team? That's cheating!) Ya know, guys like Cobain "who wished they were gay" . Can ya think of a better way to get naive girls to let their guard down? Alphas and nerds can NEVER, and I mean never, pass for gay. So why try?

Feryl said...

There's a pretty common story type, in which two alphas come to compete against each other but ultimately find respect for each other and at times end up becoming allies. Like the early Rocky movies, where Stallone and Creed grow more fond of each other with each passing movie, even though they fight each other at the end of the first two movies ! This wouldn't work if either character was a pretty boy type; those guys never have the desire to take a sincere oath of duty and friendship. Besides, they're pussies. They'd be worthless in a situation calling for courage and toughness. A pretty boy wouldn't get in a boxing ring, in the first place.

Even the Jackass guys might not exactly seem like jock types, at first....but think about it. Look it all the time they spend with each other, when they could be chasing girls. Girls, in fact, are almost totally absent from the show/movies, the only apparent exception being the mother of one of the guys. I've heard people say that they're trying to get girls. Maybe, but all those stunts are also about bonding with other guys. A Cobain type would deride the whole thing as a stupid waste of time, then go sulk around to 'til he found a girl to screw.

If groups of alpha friends were committed to getting tail...well. That doesn't really add up, since it would just lead to fighting over who gets which girl, and insecurity about your girl being stolen by one of your "friends". Alpha/nerd camaraderie is deriving from bonding for the sake of proving your mettle in current and future team endeavors. The pretty boy disinterest in male bonding is what provokes disdain from other types of guys.

Feryl said...

C'mon, who'd you rather be friends with? Fred Reed, Bill Gates, or Mick Jagger? Bill Gates could design and build a mortar, Fred Reed could put it to use, but Mick Jagger? He'd be a pussy and whine about how terrible violence is to some cute girl.

Sid said...

The Iliad has Hector and Paris. Hector is a quintessential leader of men, a true man's man: he's a heroic fighter, can rally his soldiers in battle, and even in the midst of a siege and against hopeless odds still successfully takes the fight to the enemy. He's happily and faithfully married and has a son.

Then there's Hector's brother, Paris, who seduced Helen and whisked her away to Troy, bringing the wrath of the Greeks upon his civilization. Even so, he hardly ever gets his hands dirty in combat, and just sleeps around with Helen while countless numbers of countrymen are dying because of him.

I think a lot of the pretty boys you (Feryl) described are indeed betas, and women usually end up placing them in the friend zone, but a certain number of them are strikingly successful with women. Helen in Greek mythology was the most beautiful woman on Earth, and a feckless pretty boy like Paris still wound up with her. I suppose the term "lady's man" applies to people like that. They don't bond well with other men and are too selfish to be team players, but they know how to appeal to and win over women.

"There's a pretty common story type, in which two alphas come to compete against each other but ultimately find respect for each other and at times end up becoming allies."

Right. Gilgamesh has such a relationship in Gilgamesh and Enkidu, where Enkidu was originally recruited and trained to overthrow Gilgamesh. They fight, but they ultimately find that they like and respect each other too much to want the other one dead, so they team up and cheer each other on when the other one is down when they pursue and hunt the monster Humbaba.

Alliumnsk said...

@Anonymous
Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and autism are quite rare compared to homosexuality. Also the latter two often occur late in life, after reproductive activity. ADHD doesn't have as strong reproductive handicap (actually might be preferable in some environments) if it is a real condition at all.