Gay Fitness (And Schizophrenia Genes)

Purely speculative time-waster post follows…

The push by evolutionary scientists to find an explanation for homosexuality is confounded by the seemingly obvious fact that homos don’t naturally reproduce (leaving aside lesbians and turkey basters for the moment). Many theories are then offered which supposedly account for the steady 2-4% rate of male gayness in most (all?) societies that don’t disobey the law of reproductive fitness. The most convincing of these theories that I have read include chimerism, multiple gene influence selecting for creativity that goes haywire, hormonal imbalance in the womb, and parasitical infection of the womb or early infant. The long-standing theory of the “gay uncle” who helps increase the fitness of his nieces and nephews has been debunked, from what I understand.

But what if the premise is wrong in a hairy male ass sort of way? What if gay men actually DO have higher reproductive fitness than straight men? Allow me to probe and unpack the issue. Say that, before the modern age of widely available contraceptives and social tolerance of openly DEDICATED gay men (not just tolerance of straight men getting their low status rocks off in young farmboy butt), gay men entered into relationships with women under heavy social and psychological pressure and bore more children than average with them than did straight men with their women. Say, too, that gay men have naturally tight game and thus attract the attention of more fertile babes than do straight men. Now posit that at some exquisitely sequined level of flaming gayness, the gay becomes so strong that the option to cavort with other men in a subterranean glory hole culture to the exclusion of having sex with women or marrying them as beards renders a certain percentage of gay men evolutionary dead ends.

Would this fitness dynamic not, over eons of selection, result in what we see today: a low, but steady rate of men born with the gay gene(s)?

If I’m right about this, then a gay gene or genes may actually exist and, ironically, the total acceptance of gays by wider society may result in the disappearance of the gay male population by relieving them of the external peer pressure and the internal guilt pressure to be with women, and thus to bear children with them and pass on their snarky DNA. Or: gay pride could mean gay extinction.

Again, just speculating… I happen to think Cochran’s germ theory is the most likely explanation, and if that’s the case, and the germ or parasite remains unidentified, the gay population will go on renewing itself for quite a few more generations. But once it is identified, and barring civilizational collapse it will be, you can bet your bottom dollar that all those right-thinking SWPL moms- and dads-to-be will, as per their usual MO in… ahem… delicate matters that directly impact their lives, hypocritically abort fetuses infected with the germ, or give the antidote to their newborns. Because, push comes to shove, parents want children who will give them grandchildren, or at least have the potential to give them grandchildren. The prime directives of human nature bow to no PC king.

On a semi-related note, is schizophrenia also fitness-increasing? That is, are schizophrenic or borderline schizoid men more attractive to women by dint of their charmingly aloof and intriguingly edgy personalities?

Koanic writes:

I’m skeptical of the whole mental illness thing. I think prolonged stress and depression, combined with dietary intolerances such as gluten common in Thals [ed: neanderthals, or neanderthal admixed Euro-descended peoples], can TOGETHER produce a severely bent mental state. And I think going “insane” in that situation can be partly a deliberate choice, and a worthwhile defense mechanism. E.g., adopting a Joker persona.

But that is not the same as being genetically predestined to “schizophrenia,” something I’m not even sure happens in a normal paleolithic environment.

I think the mainstream psychological consensus is bull. This whole “usual age for onset of schizophrenia thing” just strikes me as the age at which societally induced total despair sets in and people start cracking.

That I can definitely sympathize with. I meet a lot of Thals now that are under sick levels of despair and pressure. And I remember back in my blue pill days getting near cracking territory myself at times, what with health and social failure and threat of career failure, and trying to deal with all the conflicting messages about what I was supposed to be. It’s not a fun place to be, an interesting things start happening to your mind.

Readers may correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought alleles associated with schizophrenia have been found? Some schizoids may not be faking at all; their brains may be genuinely mis-wired, almost subhuman (or suprahuman, depending on your point of view).

An allelic connection to schizophrenia does not necessarily refute what Koanic wrote above; it could be the case that both alleles and societal despair push guys like Holmes to the edge. It could also be true that schizophrenia was not fitness-reducing in the cro-magnon environment (cro-magnons being the ones theorized to have bequeathed modern humans with mental illness genes; you may thank your local witch doctor for his gift) like it is today in the modern one.

Evidence for the latter contention is the DISTURBING fact that schizophrenics, particularly after they have snapped and gone postal, get lots of attention from young, fertile babes. While this is funny from the angle of watching the cognitive dissonance it elicits from feminists, it’s depressing to those white knights who can’t bear the thought that women they desire are apt to make some really horrible choices in mating partners (yes, mating; conjugal visits allow homicidal genes to spread). I mean, how the fuck do you write flowery poetry to the girl of your dreams when you strongly suspect she’d swoon for a mass murderer with orange hair?

So there’s your connection: schizophrenia and homosexuality — two genetic experiments that probably worked in the ancestral environment because men who inherited their characteristics were more attractive to women; but today, in the modern environment, are fitness reducing.

Discuss. And be sure to pepper your comments with lots of gay sex euphemisms. Top comments will get recognition for their creativity. You don’t want to be a bottom comment.

UPDATE

Looks like my theory that a little bit of gayness, not taken too far down the glory hole (i.e., not so gay that it drives the man to exclusive homosexuality), increases male reproductive fitness, has backup. Say hello to science!

Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals.

There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency. One hypothesis proposes that while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals’ reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them. However, it is not clear what such an advantage may be. To investigate this, we examine a data set where a large community-based twin sample (N=4904) anonymously completed a detailed questionnaire examining sexual behaviors and attitudes. We show that psychologically masculine females and feminine men are (a) more likely to be nonheterosexual but (b), when heterosexual, have more opposite-sex sexual partners. With statistical modelling of the twin data, we show that both these relationships are partly due to pleiotropic genetic influences common to each trait. We also find a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than do heterosexual twin pairs. Taken together, these results suggest that genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population.

I do say this is rather fascinating, Watson. A gay gene(s) might persist because heterosexual men who have, presumably, a recessive or single copy version of the butt pirate gene(s) have higher reproductive fitness (chicks dig them). My theory that gays in the past, when there was stronger social and psychological pressure to date women, had a leg up on straight men at attracting women and bearing more children with them because of their higher natural level of game, is buttressed by this study.

Here’s more evidence that a gene may be responsible for rusty star spelunking:

Male and female fruitflies have been engineered to switch courtship roles, through the manipulation of a single gene.

The study, which appears in Cell, shows how a simple genetic adjustment can cause a dramatic change in sexual behaviour. “It was quite something to see,” says Barry Dickson, who is one of the authors and is based at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.

Humans aren’t fruit flies, of course, but these results are suggestive.





Comments


  1. One ape discovered that eating the fresh brain of one’s own kind increases the sexual impulses. He and his descendants became addicted to brains and hunted for them. It was not until later that they noticed that their intelligence increased as a result. The outcome of this process is HOMO SAPIENS.

    — The Beginning was the End, p. 37

    Like


    • That is unlikely. Cannibals tend to contract spongiform encephalopathy which destroys the brain and nervous system. It’s very similar to mad cow disease in cattle which is probably caused by the modern feed they’re fed and may contain grown up cow parts that humans don’t normally eat, like the brain etc. So perhaps eating your own species or something close is dangerous, Humans are basically meat eaters if it’s availible but they generally eat grass eating animals. Modern pigs are kept in pens and fed grain. But free roaming pigs are always hungry and will eat anything including dead humans which may be the reason that some religions banned their eating in the past . Even before modern medicine people were good at observing things and may have made the connexion between eating certain things and disease. Eating locust was OK but the locust is a grain eater and a lot safer to eat than the free roaming pig not kept in a pen(hard to do when you’re nomadic) I doubt if nthe prohibition on pork had anything to do with trichinellosis because even a litle cooking would stop that and we know that people have cooked meat since the “discovery” of fire.

      Like


  2. Are you gay if you like fat chicks?

    Like


  3. If dissemination by insemination is the way, and if “Jurassic Park” has taught us anything about the indefatigability of life, then it stands to reason that super-sperm would be of the fabulous variety. Perhaps being light in the loafers extends to the sack and they possess the barefoot runners of the mating game.

    Like


  4. Gays have the excellent purpose to bring hysteria in catholics and other bigots.

    Like


    • No hysteria at all. They just need to be dealt with firmly and decisively and sent to gulags.

      Like


    • Homo says what?

      Like


    • Lots of priestst are fags. They protect each other as they feast on boys. One thing about fags: Access to boys is essential! All the “gay power” bullshit is,at its core,about that: access to boys.

      Like


      • That’s because the priesthood was infiltrated by homos and they took it over. That is a common tactic with them. Once they get their nose under the tent, they shove the rest right of the camel in and drive out the normal folks.

        Like


      • That’s a common tactic with all ‘dynamic minorities’ in just about every profession or facet of life… get one or two of “your kind” in the door, do what it takes to climb the ladder a bit, and when in position of moderate to major power, make sure the door is open just a little bit wider for “your kind”.

        Funny how they accuse WASPS of the very tactic that they live and breathe by… Lord, if ONLY whites were that ethnocentric!

        Like


  5. Being gay is disadvantageous, but society’s repression and forcing gay men to marry disrupts the normal selection process that would weed gayness out of the population. If you look at it from an engineering point of view, the trick is to ensure that once the sex of a fertilized egg is determined some process kicks off to ensure that the object of sexual attraction be the opposite sex. Homosexuality would be this process failing to work the way it was designed and hooking the subject up with the evolutionarily wrong object of sexual attraction. All things that have a biological function can and do malfunction, including sexual attraction. Although we no longer believe that subjective certainty implies infallibility, we retain this belief in the case of homosexuality for PC reasons.

    Like


  6. The book “Sperm Wars” by Robin Baker claims that, while purist homos might not mate, bi-sexual men do reproduce at a rate comparable to the general population. The observed rate of homos in a population group reflects that success and the genetic equilibrium.

    The reason is, claims Baker, earlier and more effective sexual activity; in other words, game. Earlier is significant both from the knowledge angle but also from the rate effect – having kids at 20 is more effective at spreading genes than having kids at 40, over generations.

    This supports CH’s speculation that social acceptance of the gay lifestyle will ultimately reduce the purist gay lifestyle. Don’t know about bisexuality though.

    Lesbians are a different story though.

    Highly recommended book!

    Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      There aren’t enough genuinely bisexual males to make this work. They exist, but you really have go looking for them.

      Like


      • No thanks on looking for bisexual guys – now bisexual women for our threeways are real finds and worth the effort!

        Most data indicates that there is a spread of gender exclusivity. The purists have been a minority with many more willing to play on the down low. This is similar to CH’s remark about gays marrying women for social cover and similar to female bisexuality and lesbianism.

        When I moved to a job in San Francisco after college, my scientific curiousity was sparked by what I saw in front of me. It remains one of the unresolved issues in evolutionary theory. Note that I move to Marin County within the first month!

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 5:06 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        No thanks on looking for bisexual guys

        The scientists who study sexual orientation have trouble finding genuine bisexuals.

        Most data indicates that there is a spread of gender exclusivity.

        Not in male sexual attraction. You can start with the work of Michael Bailey.

        Now you can thank me, asshole.

        Like


      • I would…if you were more civil.

        Like


      • Weren’t bisexual men a leading cause of HIV infection in women? Couldn’t be that rare if so.

        Like


      • Whitehall is right. The pure homosexuals actually constitute a minority of all gay sexual activity.

        I just read Sperm Wars too, based on a recommendation on this site. A hell of an interesting book.

        The author said that homosexual activity decreases with increased age of the subjects, which led him to conclude that a majority of gay sexual activity is conducted by men experimenting with gay sex when younger but eventually going straight when older.

        Personally, I can’t even begin to imagine crossing that line without losing my cookies, but apparently it happens more often than we think. Outside of prisons, too.

        Like


      • Re: Jason, “eventually going straight when older,” From anecdotal accounts, older gay men more likely become celebate, rather that straight, due to their community’s requisite for youthful physical comeliness.

        Like


      • I’ve heard plenty of stories about the reverse. Guys who dated women/got married for appearance sake, and then went 100% gay in their late 20s/early 30s. In previous generations they probably would have knocked up their women.

        Like


      • No thanks…but you knock yourself out!!

        Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 9:46 pm drunicusveritas

      I personally hooked up with two “confirmed lesbians,” though obviously they were wavering a bit, and I have had the somewhat nauseating experience of discovering two masculine, married, non-femmy men pirating each others’ swords.
      Conclusion: many people are on the down low, whether it’s rangy jocky Title Nine carpet cleaners cheating on Lady MacButch with a man, or the buzz cut Scoutmaster pitching tents with an Eagle Scout while his wife leafs through a copy of “Fifty Shades of Game.”
      Everyone’s a little bit queer, at least. The ones who are crazed with homophobic hate are probably the ones who most desperately want to open up that closet door, strap on a bra and go butt plundering, rusty tromboning it from P-town to the Castro.
      As far as game goes, there’s usually a streak of female in the best seducers, inhabiting the incomprehensible female mind at least enough to navigate through it.
      Whether that also translates to trying the old tan tailpipe, I do nit know, but it might be a bit of variety if one gets enough HB notches.

      Like


      • So is this a confession?

        Like


      • Heh, heh… “crazed with homophobic hate“. Newspeak.

        I sense a far greater level of hate against Christians who won’t condone homosexuality, though they themselves wouldn’t hurt a fly and prefer to remain aloof from any overt political fray on that and other “controversial” issues.

        Indeed, they’re likely to welcome repentant people of any persuasion into their very homes and treat them with civility… something you sure as hell couldn’t say for “the other side”.

        Like


  7. How does this explain homosexuality in just about every other sexually reproducing species?

    Like


    • That’s just plain hornocity, eh, horniness… not the darling true and gentle love the queers tell us they have for their life partners.

      Like


  8. “The long-standing theory of the “gay uncle” who helps increase the fitness of his nieces and nephews has been debunked, from what I understand.”

    Only because it’s advantageous to deny that it may be behavioral. The gay lobby is desperately trying to find the “gay gene”, with no luck. If they have to admit that yes, homosexuality is caused by external factors after birth, most of their arguments for preferential treatment go up in smoke.

    Like


    • the gay mafia cares not for the validity of their arguments. I wonder though about how long the liberals can keep the gays and their precious minorities in the same stable without imploding like gay dynamite.

      Like


    • I think there’s something to the ‘imprinting’ theory… and the influence of whatever an impressionable youngster is exposed to affecting his/her orientation long into life.

      It would explain how homosexuality seems to perpetuate sans genetic evidence of the proclivity… and also why a large part of the homosexual mafia’s agenda is their being allowed unrestricted access to children (e.g., scout counselors, openly queer teachers and curricula, adoption, etc., etc.)

      Like


      • As far as the gay gene theory goes, I heard that where there is one gay identical twin, the other twin is 50% likely to be gay as well. Of course the gays claim this “proves” there must be a genetic cause. But I think it might “disprove” the hypothesis.

        Like


      • That would also help to explain the germ theory however.

        For some reason I thought this issue was put to rest long ago?
        http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050531/full/news050531-9.html

        I guess fruit fly studies don’t correlate to humans, but the presence of a genetic link to homosexuality in them tells me it’s highly likely that there is at least the same in humans. It might not be the only cause however.

        Like


    • I wonder if pedophiles will be the next group to claim they are “born that way” and that criminal penalties should be done away with.

      Like


      • they’ve already started

        Like


      • Ever notice how when men molest boys, the word “gay” is never mentioned?

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 7:11 pm Dan Fletcher

        Gays are slowly displacing blacks as the new protected, untouchable minority class.

        Like


      • Dan Fletcher,

        How the fuck can blacks be considered “protected and untouchable” when a full third of their men either are or have been in U.S. prison? When they experience horrific living conditions (partly their own doing, of course)?

        Do yourself and your family a favor. Stop grumbling about affirmative action (a favorite rightie bogeyman, which becomes less relevant with every passing year) to the REAL story of the black experience. That story is one of broken families, shitty schools, emotional despair, drug addiction, all forms of violence, and crushing poverty.

        You can point fingers at a lot of different groups for this condition, including blacks themselves, but only a blithering bigot would announce that their lives are even remotely “protected and untouchable”.

        Like


      • He’s talking about telling any sort of truth (or even semi-serious joke) about them in the media, you shabbaz goy dipshit… let alone any self-defense scenario.

        Say one unflattering thing about Negroes and you’re out of a job…

        Call one a “nigger” the decade before and your testimony is rendered null and void and a double-murderer of two whites goes free…

        Shoot one in self-defense, your life becomes a nightmare of media feeding frenzy and civil suits…

        etc., etc., etc.

        Geez, you’re a tedious little self-loathing white twerp.

        Like


      • on July 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm Ed the Department Head

        True Pedos (interested in prepubescent people) probably are born that way just as murderers and criminals are probably predisposed to their activities. Nevertheless, non of these people can be tolerated in a sane society.

        Like


  9. Despite what delusional people tell you, IVF will never be high enough for all gays to sustain a replacement level fertility (only a minority of them). IVF is expensive, it’s messy, rights for biological mothers and fathers weak (e.g. trad surrogacy) and a host of other ills.

    Lower and middle class gays will disappear completely since they won’t be able to afford it and all gays in the future will concentrate in the liberal/SWPL upper-classes, crying their homoish hysteria as usual. That’s why gay lobbies are getting crazier and richer. That’s where they are at. They are protected by the decandent rich SWPL.

    IVF is also swarmmed with feminists and women beyond 30 who are single, white/Jewish and rich and didn’t get married to the ever decreasing number of rich men gutted by affirmative action for stupid women’s rights. But they’re losing. About 30-50% of strong independent college-educated liberal girls don’t reproduce once in their lives. In the last generation alone 40% didn’t reproduce.

    If feminists can’t even use IVF properly and their eggs are rotten beyond repair, with their feminist utopian IVF fantasies falling off a cliff how on earth do gays expect to do any better?

    The only people who are using IVF properly are racists. They’re the only ones thinking about eugenics and other things.

    Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 3:58 pm anononononno

      missing from this is what I’ve observed is ghey adoption of the babies of the less, shall we say risk adverse straights out there. Also, lower income gheys are kept as pets by the rich ones. But the SWPL gay class and their straight guilt swpl supporters also forget that their wish casting of the % of the population as teh ghey is way overblown. They only make up less than .1% of the population. That they flock together in cities makes it seem like there’s more. But damn, the gay class is definitely going full tilt now, trying to make it a crime to criticize them. Eat chik fil A!

      Like


  10. Remember that relatives share genes. If a gay guy helps the rest of his family’s fitness by supporting them in some ways, he is helping his genes spread. The idea that the only way he can spread his genes is by having children is false.

    Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 7:19 pm Dan Fletcher

      True. We must remember to look at things from the “gene-eye” view.

      Every male child born is more likely to be gay than the male child born before him.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-173878/Boys-big-brothers-likely-gay.html

      This could play into the Gay Uncle theory. Back in the caveman days, if you were the 5th brother born there was liklely a shortage of mates/resources at that point. The best bet in terms of passing on genes would involve supporting your brothers and their children rather than trying to start a family of your own.

      No clue but more fodder for the discussion.

      Like


      • Great comment, and a hell of a link.

        I’d always thought that a woman’s womb flooded her third or fourth boy with female hormones … a “mistake” intended to balance the gender ratio. But your caveman hypothesis makes lots more sense.

        We can’t have too much virile competition in one family, can we? Because that would lead to brothers clubbing brothers to death, and nobody’s genes get passed on that way.

        Like


      • Not a bad hypothesis, but from Cain to the US Civil War to what some historians have termed the Second (Thirty Years) War (aka WWs I & II), etc., etc., etc., history shows that brothers are only too happy to kill their own brothers… even when there aren’t a surfeit of ’em within a given family.

        Like


      • On a side note, this Blanchard fellow who did the study seems to have a bit of an axe to grind… and has angered the GLTB community with some of his methods… in addition to being “coy about his own private life.”

        Call it ad hominem if you will, but I take any writings cum grano salis when it’s obvious the author(s) could very well be agenda driven… because so many invariably are…. especially the ones touted by fishwraps such as the Daily Mail.

        Like


  11. Seems like evolution doesn’t mean what it’s used for in this context. If the gene can perpetuate under its own power (i.e., its sperms end up wasted if used according to plan) and it has to rely on straights to force it to work properly (us bigoted religious types forcing them to marry icky women), then it’s like corn, a product that is engineered to rely on humans to grow.
    IDK, the proper question is…is there any real genetic trait for the gayness, maybe if there is a genetic component that comes with increased male charisma traits (flamboyant genes?) that forcing these people to procreate leads to better straight men? So, what’s in it for the gay gene? Their kids end up straight and bigoted against gays because their arranged marriage was forced upon them by society in the first place. OTH, since society allows this defect to survive, then it’s really just a poison that society creates because it’s too structured? Like instead of throwing retards off a bridge, it lets the hypothetical retard gene get mixed in with the non-retard gene in some sort of societal quest for universal marriage?
    But it’s not genetic, is it? So, then it’s not an evolution question. It’s either a “poison” or what someone else pointed out a while ago, wayyyyyy tooo much testosterone in the womb.

    Like


  12. Donkey riders only have “tight game” because they are naturally outcome-neutral when it comes to women. I wonder what percentage of them demonstrate game when an object of lust is in sight? Or a glory hole for that matter…

    Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 7:21 pm Dan Fletcher

      An overlooked point.

      What do gays and alphas have in common? They don’t give a fuck what women think.

      Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 10:31 pm drunicusveritas

        Many of them, both gays and alphas, seem to have the talent to make themselves the center of attention, albeit in different ways.

        Like


  13. Ah, another person who has read Gregory Cochran’s germ theory of homosexuality, which he formulated while working with sheep; the only other species that evidences a similar rate to ours. His hypothesis makes sense, and given our current PC limits on research, it’s likely to stay a hypothesis for a while.

    As far as schizophrenia goes, there’s some evidence that it runs along with intelligence and creativity. I’ve never met a stupid schizophreniac, have you?

    Like


  14. on July 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    Koanic’s “theory” is non-scientific bunk. The brain patterns of schizophrenics show up markedly different than that of “normal” people in MRIs. Google it (if I place a link I’ll get caught up in moderation). Schizophrenia is a breakdown of the brain like alzheimers. It can definitely go hand in hand with depression, but it’s not depression per se.

    And it’s probably about as “evolutionary” as appendixes bursting or gangrene setting in. Meaning, things go wrong in some people.

    Quoting someone who doesn’t “believe” in science is no different than the feminists with their anti-scientific “gender is a construct” bullshit. Society has been largely re-ordered and wrecked because feminist relied on crackpot theories. This blog can do better.

    Like


    • Wow, different brain patterns. I can get different brain patterns by praying in tongues. Much less enduring long term stress and eating a poisonous diet.

      Like the scientists you retardedly respect, you lack basic logic. Genetics is a sufficient cause of schizophrenia if it appears in paleolithic tribes. If it doesn’t, it’s not. Scanning brains proves nothing.

      Like


      • on July 26, 2012 at 12:32 pm Mr. Pointyface

        Who is this guy, the local rep for the Flat Earth society. Science is logical thought based on mutually confirmable observations of the real, physical world. It’s why you can sit there typing your amazing, Dark-Ages drivel on this board.

        And I really like your neologism “retardedly”; in respect to admiring science. You’re like those women who sit on the male-invented computer, complaining about men, except you’re just dim-witted.

        “Brain scans mean nothing.” Yeah, right. Let’s hope you don’t need one to help treat a neoplasm someday. You’ll be screaming like a little bitch for those “retarded scientists” to help you.

        Like


  15. Holmes has schizophrenia? I didn’t know. And I feel so sorry for everything that’s happening in US … 😦 Guns should be banned already …

    “Many theories are then offered which supposedly account for the steady 2-4% rate of male gayness in most (all?) societies …”

    So how can you find out who is gay and who is straight in more conservative societies? I thought that Muslims, for example, always claim that there are no gay people in their countries.

    “… gay men entered into relationships with women under heavy social and psychological pressure and bore more children than average with them than did straight men with their women.”

    Gay men had MORE children? How do you know that?

    “I happen to think Cochran’s germ theory is the most likely explanation …”

    Could you please post a link to this study/theory? I find it extremely ridiculous and would love to read it. Thanks.

    Like


    • “Guns should be banned already ”

      Explain why you think it’s ok to leave citizens unarmed at the mercy of criminals, cunt.

      A part of me hopes you stupid liberal shits get your way. Maybe when mass killers start using improvised explosives instead of guns and get kill scores in the hundreds rather than a dozen or so we can finally Nuremberg you fucks.

      Like


      • If just one other person in that theatre had carried a gun, the dead and wounded might only have numbered in single digits.

        Like


      • So why these shooting incidents almost always happen in US? There has to be a reason for that.

        Like


      • They don’t, you just live in an information cocoon.

        Like


      • The US has more guns per capita than any other nation, and we’re becoming a mixed-multitude of a banana republic, but without bananas… always a recipe for violence.

        And for the record, the vast majority of gun crime occurs by users who, by current law, weren’t allowed to have guns in the first place.

        So all more restrictive laws will do is disarm the solid citizen… who is already pretty much dissuaded from defending himself by criminal and civil lawsuits, even when the self-defense is justified.

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm drunicusveritas

        Australia and Norway, despite tight as a drum gun laws, had similar incidents. Mass murderers (Tamarlane, Jack the Ripper, several well known midevil figures) murdered quite effectively before modern guns were even invented. The Romans, the Crusaders, the Mongols, and most tribal cultures in Asia, South America, and Africa were extremely violent.
        Overall murder rates are quite low, lower than they’ve been since the 60’s. Probably a combination of aggressive law enforcement,ccontraception, abortion, and right to carry laws either removed much of the threat or discouraged it.

        Like


      • You missed an important point. The shootings always happen in gun free zones, where the shooters don’t have to worry about being stopped. Cinemark’s gun free policy kind of underlines the idiocy: the only one with a gun was the criminal….

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 4:56 pm Days of Broken Arrows

        A blanket statement like “guns should be banned” is unrealistic and unconstitutional.

        Rather, sales of assault rifles and massive amounts of ammo should be limited, which they’re not. If we can limit how much Robitussin someone buys, we can limit their bullet count.

        Like


      • How are you going to implement a reasonable ammunition ban? People who use their guns for target practice will likely buy hundreds of rounds, no different from someone like Holmes.

        As for assault rifles, it’s just a scare term used by liberal pussies who largely can’t tell a gun from their ass. Holmes’s AR jammed, the shooting was largely done with his handguns and a shotgun:

        http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-assault-rifle-jammed-colo-attack-121634899.html

        Like


      • And “assault rifle” by definition means automatic. Unless modified, the legal AR-15s sold in the US are not automatic and therefore not “assault rifles.” Just like the ban that expired on “light assault weapons”, it’s a paper tiger used to create fear in the uneducated masses. If you actually look to see what was covered in that ban, you’ll find that it was an attempted stepping-stone toward eliminating semi-automatic weapons. Your “friendly neighborhood liberal” wants you to be limited to single-shot, air-propelled guns (bb guns).

        Like


      • on July 25, 2012 at 7:25 pm Dan Fletcher

        Fuck that. We keep our straps and our ammo.

        Most of the gun crimes are committed by you-know-who. Besdies that, a certain amount of craziness is expected. Shit happens and will continue to unless you would rather live in a 1984 style police state.

        Like


      • I think not. I think you should get the fuck out my country.

        Like


      • on July 26, 2012 at 3:09 pm Laconophile

        I bet you think the 2nd amendment is about hunting.

        And the 1st amendment is about saying inoffensive things.

        Like


  16. on July 25, 2012 at 3:44 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    Iain McGilchrist argues that schizophrenia is a disease that only appears in modern societies. He argues, that, as opposed to most other mental illnesses, we don’t seem have pre-modern descriptions of symptoms that fit schizophrenia and it seems to be vastly less prevalent today outside of developed countries. Furthermore, schizophrenia seems to have a lot of symptoms that are similar to the autism spectrum.

    His book The Master and His Emissary is well worth reading. Here is a bit of a taste, though he doesn’t talk much about schizophrenia here:
    http://ww3.tvo.org/video/176966/dr-iain-mcgilchrist-divided-brain

    Like


  17. On homosexuals, I like the concept that they were forced to act straight, which until the last few generations meant getting married and having kids. I also think that there may be some whose urges to fuck the same sex are submerged by their submissiveness to social convention, which leads them to marriage while wondering why they have the strange urges for same sex sex. I also think the lesser cases will propagate the gene almost forever.

    If it is disease born, maybe it is cat box virus and the current generation of single mom landwhales will bring forth a generation of gay bad boys.

    ~ ~ ~

    Another thing to look for in schizos is fructose consumption. The Twinkie Defense may be real. Fructose, which makes up 50% of white sugar and 55%+ of high fructose corn syrup, and is added in crystal form to packaged food these days because of its high sweetness and low glycemic index, has several bad effects. It reduces the levels of homocystine which is used to synthesize serotonin and melatonin, meaning eat lots of sugar and you will be sleepless and depressed. Good way to jump start the your inner psycho killer. Second, metabolizing lots of fructose uses lots of nitric oxide, which means you may not be able to get it up, and women have subliminal hard dick radar which means they may pass on you despite your being an otherwise lovable psycho. Add semi-auto weapons, large magazines, mail order ammo, and some orange hair dye, and the rest is history.

    Like


  18. on July 25, 2012 at 3:44 pm The Shocker

    nice dude, I feel like this is the exact post I would have written had my common sense awareness of microbiology, developmental psychology, evolutionary inheritance and eugenics been replaced by being beaten over the back of the head with a wooden board.

    Bacteria-induced gayness? Right so then like the prevalence of homosexuality in the wild across species means this heretofore unidentified organism must induce the same symptom on the fetuses of a wide number of different animals who are geographically isolated. Allow me to propose the name for this one-of-a-kind, undiscovered, scientifically impossible bug- Bigotus Imaginatia.

    Like


  19. O/T but you see how the Olympics is making criticizing open borders nuttiness and the left’s importation of africa into the first world a cause for disqualification? Then again, most of the leftists out there have done all they can to make any criticism of mass importation of these people into previously homogeneous nations a hate-crime.

    Like


  20. Are gays who do reproduce more likely to have gay offspring? Whenever they say something is genetic (and thus could be “selected for”) that’s the first thing to look at.

    As to the schizophrenia thing (which does have a definite genetic component even if there are no alleles always associated with it – after all, even for autism they’re having trouble finding obvious genetic underpinnings, with any gene/combination explaining a very small percentage of the variance), the actual affliction is not necessarily going to be attractive to females, much more commonly being like “crazy man on street corner”. Negative symptoms of the disorder (not always present, but often) keeps those who have them away from, well, most things, behavior in response to delusions or hallucinations comes across as quite creepy, and disorganized thought/speech is creepy in its own right (you will notice that Holmes didn’t have any of those, perhaps just the negative symptoms – schizophrenia has some association with social anhedonia, but that’s an entirely different thing from social ineptness). So, in most cases an actual schizophrenic would be the “end of the line” genetically. However, if you think about it on a spectrum, the genes that in extreme cases would produce schizophrenia, in less extreme cases might produce increased creativity and the likes (Einstein’s son had schizophrenia, Einstein himself was a lady-killer), so that’s why they’d be selected for. Like any mental disorder, the genes only give you a predisposition, environmental stressors are indeed required to push one “over the edge”, so that interaction makes the entire analysis of why such genes have not been selected against much more complex (due to “at low levels of stress->good, at high levels of stress->bad” sort of thing).

    BTW, schizophrenic brains are different, not in an entirely obvious way that allows you to look at a brain and tell but on average they have larger ventricles, for example (i.e. less brain matter). You could see different in activation under various conditions, but that’s true for pretty much any cognitive or behavioral difference. There is no good understanding of the “wiring” involved just yet, but even once it is figured out, it’s likely to be a case of a very subtle difference leading to the effect.

    Like


    • Gayness seems to be passed on in the material line, not the paternal.

      The gay uncle on the mother’s side is correlated with gay sons.

      How do we explain the fairly constant portion of males with gayness across cultures and races? Genetic equilibrium has been established, but why?

      Like


    • Right, James Joyce’s daughter suffered from schizophrenia also – so in milder forms it seems to enhance creativity.

      I’ve read that one feature of brains affected with it, is that there is a reduction in the Corpus Callosum – the “bridge” between the hemispheres – and so to some extent each hemisphere is more thought independent than normal. This can lead to there being no hierarchy or overall structure to thoughts, as there are competing drivers. So the execute function of the brain is compromised. This results in greater creativity and also greater chaos/confusion.

      It’s also well known that Blacks have a much higher rate of schizophrenia, and are also more creative on average than Whites/Asians – after controlling for IQ.

      Like


      • There was an interesting book related to this:
        “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Jaynes.

        Humans were pretty schizo until around 2000 BC (?) when the bridge completed and the visions of the Gods left and civilization began. Hypnosis is a similar effect.

        Another good read.

        Like


      • That’s recent human history so it can’t be correct.

        Like


      • @Whitehall,

        Yeah, I mentioned that very book as a modern classic a month or more ago – at least for anyone who can think, that is.

        That’s also why you have in the Hebrew Classic “Old Testament” incidents where people hear voices and apparitions and all that schizophrenic stuff – it’s because by today’s standards they were actually schizophrenic…

        Same for lots of Greek Classics, they only make sense if you assume the principals are schizophrenic?!

        So that’s why I recommend that for every 1 OLD Classic you read, read 2 NEW Classics.

        Look, I have 2 versions of the oldest fable ever recorded – on cuneiform tablets a few thousands of years ago – The Epic of Gilgamesh, and it’s reading should not be for how to live you life or anything like that, but rather to catch a glimpse into a primitive mind, one that many moderns have evolved past.

        Now, OTOH, if you are prone to schizophrenia, you might be completely at home with the Bible and stuff like that, and might find it reassuring that it exactly mirrors your experience of hearing voices and being “told” what to do, by some ethereal force…

        Like


      • So Moses and Mohammed were merely schizophrenic? I think you’re blinded by your hatred of the church in your upbringing. Its very tempting to claim one is brighter than God or those primitives who wrote the classics because its a huge ego stroke. Sorry, but you don’t hold a candle to Tacitus or Caeser.

        Like


      • Claptrap of the basest pseudo-intellectual kind… less attendance at the Comedy Central school of thought might be in order.

        As droll as the George Carlins of the world might have been, they make for poor instructors of actual history, religion, and philosophy.

        Like


      • yes, and the other implication of limited communication between the hemispheres was limited instrospection The older writings (Old Testament, Epic of Gilgamesh, older Greek stories) not only have lots of gods talking to people, but the people rarely contemplate their own actions very deeply. The gods (the Right hemispheres) run the show and the people (Left) do what they’re told.

        Later writings have much less god-talking and much more introspection. The New Testament replaces a controlling, highly involved God the Father with Jesus the Son – a teacher, a friend, someone who counseled self-awareness and the need to choose.

        The New Testament was written for a different sort of man than was the Old.

        Like


      • It was merely the difference between “living by nature” and “living by grace”, as it was so aptly termed in that Tree Of Life movie. Life by law of the jungle and life in at-one-ment with God… Mankind’s fate and ultimate decision on an individual level.

        Like


      • You’ve just described the female brain according to current theory. Don’t they claim that in the female the right and left sides communiccate more efficiently? I never thought that this was a good thing.

        Like


  21. on July 25, 2012 at 3:50 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    gay men entered into relationships with women under heavy social and psychological pressure

    For this to work, social pressure would have to have less than a 1% difference in reproductive fitness compared to social pressure + desire to fuck. Even with gay men’s supposedly better game, that isn’t plausible, because 1. at most they would be using it to aquire one partner to fulfill their social obligations, and 2. there were many ways to wiggle out of those obligations, which gay men would be more likely to take advantage of. Any way you look at it, being gay just reduces reproductive fitness too much to make it work.

    Like


  22. The misfortunes of Eve, rather than the study of evo, are best able to account for homosexuality. Ever since the Fall, things have not been quite right.

    Like


  23. on July 25, 2012 at 4:00 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    get lots of attention from young, fertile babes.

    I agree that many women find violence attractive, but would this happen absent modern media induced fame combined with social atomization. A girl who went after a madman who had gone on a rampage in her local community would have been shamed or worse. I think this is an accidental modern highjacking of female tastes for attention getting and violent men, combined with lack of social control due to the dissolving of community bonds, kind of like cheesecake for the female hindbrain.

    Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 7:42 pm Dan Fletcher

      Good points.

      In ye olden times, the thugs and law-breakers would have been subjucted to severe public humiliation. In addition to providing punishment and discouraging other wrong-doers, it helped decrease gina-tingles for thugs by putting them in a humiliating low-status position.

      More lost ancient wisdom…

      Like


    • Yes and no. A rampaging madman in the old days wouldn’t be a chick magnet — but a tough guy who gets into fistfights at the barn raising or wins loot and glory on a cattle raid certainly would be. Violent assholes with an acceptable outlet for violence would prosper and sire many children.

      Like


  24. CH, what do you think about Kristen Stewart?

    Like


    • I mean, can you comment her affair? Do you think Rob will be single soon?

      Like


      • She’s a 6/10, and that’s with the hollywood make-up on. If he stays with her he’s borderline omega.

        Like


    • I remember reading about pattinson saying that he doesn’t understand why people are unfaithful. Only betas ask that kind of stupid questions.

      So he’s a beta, she’s a hollywood slut. She cheated. Nothing new.

      She also cheated with an older man who is not particularly good-looking. Confirms a lot of the chateau teachings, not that further confirmation was needed.

      Like


    • Even elvis presley got cheated on.
      Women are all whores, that’s what you wanna hear?

      Like


  25. on July 25, 2012 at 4:07 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    McGilchrist also suggests that anorexia is a disease that only appears in modern societies.

    Do check out his book.

    Like


    • @TheMan,

      Simon Baron-Cohen, one of the world’s leading researchers on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), has concluded that anorexia, bulimia and other “eating disorders” common in girls, are just the female symptoms of suffering from ASD – which are different than male ones.

      Like


  26. on July 25, 2012 at 4:08 pm Anti Blue pill

    I’LL take the position of a Power Bottom.

    Like


  27. I have my own theory that I think derives from The Selfish Gene and its observations about suicide. (I do not believe the theory in Sperm Wars that gay sex teaches men about how to be better lovers when they finally can attract women. Gay sex lowers status, stigmatizes men and turns off women.)

    So suicide can be a sign of genetic fitness — contrary to popular belief — because if you think that all you are doing is using up resources and will not reproduce or create wealth for your extended family, you can off yourself so that your clan (carrying your genes) will not waste energy keeping your sorry ass alive.

    Homosexuality could be similar. If a guy feels low status, low testosterone and that he can’t compete for resources he should not be having kids he can’t support. This would be bad. So instead certain triggers in his brain go off and voila! — attraction to men. You stay alive, form alliances, help your family but do not create offspring you cannot support.

    Different men have different propensities for the gay trigger. Some are born without any chance of being straight. But the moral of the story is that it can be a sign of genetic fitness to turn yourself off — or not reproduce — if it will benefit the group around you whose genes you share.

    Phenomenon as common as gayness, suicide, etc. must serve some purpose because they would have been bred out if they were mere mutations. I don’t buy viral agents.

    I think lesbianism comes in multiple forms and might be unrelated.

    Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      The loss of fitness from killing yourself, or being gay, is so great that you’d notice a the massive compensatory increase in fitness on the other end. It’d have to be like mother love. You don’t see that, so your theory is nonsense.

      Like


  28. It’s possible that there is a dynamic similar to the autosomal recessive traits like sickle cell anemia, where the “recessive/recessive” pairing leads to expression of the disease while “Dominant/recessive” pairing leads to increased fitness (malaria resistance, in the case of the anemia gene). So despite the decreased fitness of 25% of the offspring with anemia, the gene doesn’t die out of the population because the 50% of the offspring who are carriers are more successful than the 25% who don’t pass on the gene.

    I suspect it’s not that simple for gays, or else we’d have probably discovered hereditary patterns by now.

    Like


  29. Along the same lines, I sometimes think that Western women are turning their wombs off due to increased population density and their own abnormally high stress levels.

    Like


  30. You’ve come to the same conclusion as I, now these many years old.

    It also go double for Lesbos.

    ===

    Unexplored: the era of the l o n g hunt…

    The days of Caesar and Alexander and even Wooden Ships and Iron Men.

    ===

    Major props…

    Like


  31. Randolph Nesse has an interesting theory of why certain mental illness, which on the face of it is deleterious (I think schizophrenics have 50% less descendants than the average) are still found throughout populations at a steady rate. Its a cliff effect: Certain behaviors, talents, etc are advantageous so the evolutionary arms race pushes the genes associated with them farther and farther up the hill and a few % fall off the cliff, and because natural selection isn’t perfect and these genes are so advantageous to those that have them, a few % falling off the cliff is an acceptable cost.

    In light of game, perhaps there’s something similar going on with gay men.

    Like


  32. I have a theory ( probed) that gayness depend on the father-mother dynamics. If the mother dominate too much her husband (if any) or son , if she is seems by hers sons in the earliest years as a dominant figure then they can become gay or pussy( like their father). I made a mental list of some couple or women who may have gay sons 16 years ago. Until now this theory have not fail. In case of lesbians, i have seen they hate his mother o father(feminist) for some reason, but i haven’t probed that. When they are not completely emasculated for this situation in their childhood then they will be omega, white knights, pussy, fat lovers, or married with a feminist. I know my English sucks.

    Like


  33. Speaking of gayness, Is Jack Lauterberg gay?

    Like


  34. on July 25, 2012 at 5:26 pm Corporal Hicks

    Sorry to inform everyone, but ALL of the U.S. is homo.
    Our women all look like lesbians.
    Our men are for the most part betas and omegas.
    ALL porn is gay because it focuses too much on the male member.
    ALL masturbation is gay for the same reason.

    Think of it another way.

    If homosexual sex is sterile, then the U.S. is 99% gay.
    Condom sex is gay. Sterile.
    Porn is gay. Sterile.
    Masturbation is gay. Sterile.
    Fornication is gay. Sterile. (the goal is to avoid pregnancy)
    Divorced sex is gay. Sterile.
    Oral sex is gay. Sterile.

    An important distinction. Someone may whine, “Well, what about infertile couples who can’t conceive, how can you call THEM gay?”

    Figure it out, numbnuts. An infertile couple is not INTENTIONALLY sterile. They’re not CHOOSING to have sterile sex.

    Only 99% of the U.S. is doing that.
    Yes, homo sex is NOT 2-4% of the population. The entire CULTURE is gay.

    My take on what to do? GET OUT OF THE U.S.

    Like


  35. Time, Sex and Power by Leonard Shlain.

    Like


  36. Gay, mental sicks, rebels et caterva pass the message that they are not ruled by any explicit or implicit law. This is the ultimate sexy message a male can pass: “I´m above the law. Laws are not for me.” A gay man has simply broken a law of nature! What a bold rebel! Very sexy in a female mind.

    Like


  37. I have a friend who made a career out of weed,welfare,thinking he’s Kurt Cobain, generally being an unreliable,lazy,deluded ne’erdowell. Never been without at least average poon, often better than average….ah well ta dollars at work subsidising his decent lifestyle.

    Like


  38. “What if gay men actually DO have higher reproductive fitness than straight men? ”

    I’m inclined to believe this, but I have a different take than yours. I won’t speculate on paleolithic behavior, but let’s just consider ancient humans. With the advent of agriculture, landowners tended to marry in order to have children. Sexual “orientation” had nothing to do with it and wasn’t even a concept. Consider Socrates: he had a wife and was a flaming faggot. Lotsa hairy-butt butt-sex didn’t prevent high-status hairy-butt butt-sexers from reproducing.

    & what’s the argument the hairy-butt butt-sexers today use for wanting to marry? To have FAMILIES. So there’s prima facie evidence that many hairy-butt butt-sexers WANT to reproduce. In the old days, they just took a female wife and fucked her when needed while continuing to have lotsa hairy-butt butt-sex on the side. The point being: having lotsa hairy-butt butt-sex doesn’t really matter as long as some of the seed finds a fertile hole.

    The notion of “gay-lifestyle” is an invention of the past few decades. For most of history, high-status hairy-butt butt-sexers were probably more likely to reproduce than low-status wannabe “breeders”. The question: “Why homosexuals?” is framed by contemporary culture, which falsely equates homos as “non-breeders”. It’s almost like contemplating: “Why do men like to cum on a chick’s tits? That doesn’t seem reproductively fit! Look at that video again! He completely missed her vagina! How will science ever explain this?”

    Like


  39. on July 25, 2012 at 6:52 pm Johnycomelately

    The presence of a recurring (non biological) behavior in all societies would indicate a social component to that behavior, not genetic.

    Theft, sex with animals, murder, sorcery etc. occur in all societies and yet no one would attribute a genetic reason for that behaviour.

    Anyone that has been around gays long enough will obviously note that there are three paths to homesexuality, forced grouping of boys (boarding schools, strict cultures dissalowing female contact), pedastry by older males and poor socialization by hyper masculine fathers or absent male parenting.

    Like


  40. Does this leave us with the assumption that desire and behavior are genetic? If so, then we cannot make any judgements against any desire or behavior whatsoever, lest we be vilified for being a racist or bigot.

    Like


  41. Mild gayness may increase fitness, just as mild sickle cell provides immunity to malaria. There is scientific evidence supporting “Feminine Game.”
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/masculine-game-vs-feminine-game/

    Zietsch, B. P., Morley, K. I., Shekar, S. N., Verweij, K. J. H., Keller, M. C., Macgregor, S., Wright, M. J., Bailey, J. M., and Martin, N. G. (2008). Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 29, 424-433.

    http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/~zietsch/Zietsch_et_al_2008_Evolution_of_homosexuality.pdf

    Like


  42. on July 25, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Reply Contrary
    I wonder if pedophiles will be the next group to claim they are “born that way” and that criminal penalties should be done away with.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Yeah, and if we are supposed to accept fags because “they were born that way”; we should accept white supremacists too, because they were born that way, right?

    well why not?

    why are anustronauts born that way, but racists hafta be taught how to practice racism?

    Try that on the next jiberal you run into, Its funny watching people contradict themselve when they attempt to get around the logic.

    Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 7:47 pm Dan Fletcher

      Dumbest post I’ve read in a while.

      Like


    • Love of one’s own kind is a natural and proper trait… it’s only you anti-white dimwits that twist the noble concept of loving one’s own wife above all other women the equivalent of hating all other women.

      Like


  43. Schizophrenia is age dependant.
    It is clearly genetically inherited, although it needs enviormental triggers for onset, for example, if both parents are schizophrenic, there’s a 50% that their kids will also be, same rate with monozygote twins, and with less relatedness – lower odds.

    Also, the reason schizophrenia occurs in puberty is that during that time, there are large changes in brain structure, and a lot of “useless” neurons go to waste, especially around the ventricals and the pre-frontal cortex.

    In schizophraniacs (is that the name?) the PFC suffers bigger lesions, and it disrupts a circle that includes the meso-limbic circuit and the meso-cortical circuit.

    Like


  44. The sex determination system for mammals is badly dysfunctional. The Y chromosome is degenerating due to Muller’s ratchet. This is sufficient to explain the fact that not only are about four percent of all human males gay, about four percent of all placental male mammals are also gay.

    The Y chromosome needs to be fixed up to reverse the degeneration caused by Muller’s ratchet, and restore its capacity to undergo full recombination with the X chromosome.

    Should genetic engineering fix up this problem, the likely result would be that all males would be markedly more masculine, and all females markedly more feminine.

    Like


  45. So why is there nearly universal disdain for homos amongst straights in most cultures most of the time?

    Competitive mating strategies? Disease vectors? Externalities of the behavior?

    Like


    • I believe that societies — maybe not so much ours anymore — promote behaviors that lead to stable family formation. Homosexuality does not do that.

      Like


    • Disdain for homosexuality – that’s very variable between societies and within societies. The Greeks and Romans only had a problem with being an adult man on the receiving end – and that because it was seen as being childish or inferior; there was nothing wrong with buggering your slaves.

      Christianity, which was (initially) much more egalitarian than Classical society rejected “lording it over people” (by buggering them).

      If you measure sexuality objectively (blood-flow changes to the penis when looking at pictures), something in the range 20%-40% of men have some sexual reaction to anal sex with other men. This seems to be expressed emotionally as disgust in many cases, rather than as attraction.

      Anyone who’s ever seen a male feminist fat-acceptance beta react with disgust to an attractive skinny chick knows that social conditioning can express sexual attraction as disgust.

      Like


      • You need to read more classical history. This is revisionist and grossly inaccurate.

        Like


      • yeah, but if the men in that study are turned on by pictures of gay sex, how do you know they’re responding to the gay and not just to the sex?

        “Hey, cool, a guy getting some.. oh, wait, with another guy. nevermind”

        Men – especially when their young and pumping lots of testosterone – are wired to respond quickly to sexual situations. Your blood flow study may just be showing that 20%-40% (minus 2%-4% actual gay) of men have Johnsons that respond to sexual images faster than their brain process what the image actually shows

        [heartiste: the blood flow studies i’ve read (and one was in the NYbetatimes) showed pretty conclusively that straight men have NO penile response to erotic gay male pics. this guy is full of shit.]

        Like


  46. The Cro Magnon hypothesis is an interesting one; I’m sure you’re alluding to something I should like to read.

    I still prefer the food intolerance hypothesis, having first-hand experience that I can easily extrapolate to understand how long term exposure can lead to eventual mental illness… with all the attendant markers and indicators of a gradual descent into madness, punctuated by sharper episodes.

    It’s hard to separate food from environment, since the food incapacitation leads to poor performance and a harsher environment. Stack that on top of the usual Thal issues, and you’ve got a recipe that could break anyone.

    Like


    • Unless you’re alergic to something what you eat is almost irrelevant. Humans are so successful because they can survive on almost anything and also learned to cook foods that could not normally be digested.

      Like


  47. Schizophrenia is not just depression and despair. Its seeing things that are not there, and hearing the neighbor’s dog urge you to kill. Or strangers looking out at you from the mirror. That’s real mental illness, not being able to separate fantasy from fact, thinking vampires are real and out to get you.

    It might be that this tendency if only one gene copy is inherited allows better cognitive ability or concentration on abstract tasks (like making fishing nets or boats), but with two you get disaster. As long as one copy promotes fitness, like the gene that gives enhanced malaria resistance with one but Tay Sachs or Sickle Cell anemia with two, on balance the mutation will be adaptive and selected.

    Like


    • That is schizotypal disorder. More common than schizophrenia, around 3% instead of 1%, and more common in direct relatives of schizophrenics.
      http://schizotypaldisorder.webs.com/schizotypaldisorder.htm

      This is why schizophrenia hasn’t disappeared from humanity: because “mild” schizophrenics (schizotypals) are often highly creative, successful and respected members of society who often breed and spread their genes. Their children have an immediate 50% chance of being schizophrenic.

      Hope this helps.
      -ODK

      Like


  48. on July 25, 2012 at 9:16 pm DevastatinglyFemale

    i wanted to object yesterday since i see nothing beta about holmes [aside from his super nerdy school pics].
    he ended up having some alfa attributes: committed to science, probably always busy [i don’t care that in some circles bar hopping means having a life and staying home and playing video games doesn’t], imaginative, mysterious, even funny we hear; tall, good looking [yes, in a borderline gay kinda way. no wonder he liked k. ledger].

    his problem was connecting with people in general, not just women.

    [heartiste: an inability to connect with people, and especially with women, is a classic beta trait. it’s called charmlessness.]

    but i don’t think there was an obvious sense of desperation, so typical for betas. being disconnected from the world is very much a part of the illness. but there is a good reason why heroes in fiction are often loners.

    his mental illness was unavoidable and no woman could have changed it.

    [we actually don’t know if he has a mental illness. this is all conjecture based on a short window in time of available evidence. nor do we know if his mental illness was evident to women in the months and years before this shooting, when he was a loser with women. look, you just gotta face the facts here and stop apologizing for your sisters: holmes was a niceguy beta who, despite his halfway decent looks, struck out with women because he had no game, no vibe, no jerkishness, no ATTITUDE. now that he has exhibited the dark triad traits and gotten infamous, chicks are lining up outside his prison door for the chance to fuck AND love him.
    now that’s gotta hurt!]

    …would there be less dead people? maybe.

    [omega and beta losers don’t *deserve* women, but they sure do deserve to have the freedom to learn how to attract women. entre vous: me!]

    the truth is – our society has no solution for mentally ill.

    [i do. quarantine the violent and pedophilic ones until a cure is discovered that will rewire their brains.]

    Like


    • on July 25, 2012 at 10:56 pm DevastatinglyFemale

      i wanted to object yesterday since i see nothing beta about holmes [aside from his super nerdy school pics].
he ended up having some alfa attributes: committed to science, probably always busy [i don’t care that in some circles bar hopping means having a life and staying home and playing video games doesn’t], imaginative, mysterious, even funny we hear; tall, good looking [yes, in a borderline gay kinda way. no wonder he liked k. ledger].
his problem was connecting with people in general, not just women.

      [heartiste: an inability to connect with people, and especially with women, is a classic beta trait. it’s called charmlessness.]

      [um, i know you’re all about charm[s], but this is different. it’s not being able to connect on a very basic level, since social cognition, behavior and communication is so restricted.]

      but i don’t think there was an obvious sense of desperation, so typical for betas. being disconnected from the world is very much a part of the illness. but there is a good reason why heroes in fiction are often loners.
his mental illness was unavoidable and no woman could have changed it.

      [we actually don’t know if he has a mental illness.

      [oh, we don’t know many things but we are allowing ourselves to speculate on this and many other matters.
      he’s more then likely to have paranoid schizophrenia.]

      this is all conjecture based on a short window in time of available evidence. nor do we know if his mental illness was evident to women in the months and years before this shooting, when he was a loser with women. look, you just gotta face the facts here and stop apologizing for your sisters
      [apologizing? sisters? what is this? some hippie forum? :))]

      holmes was a niceguy beta who, despite his halfway decent looks [there, there], struck out with women because he had no game, no vibe, no jerkishness, no ATTITUDE.
      [hmm, but we don’t know that. i say he has so much more favor than your usual beta]
      now that he has exhibited the dark triad traits and gotten infamous, chicks are lining up outside his prison door for the chance to fuck AND love him.
now that’s gotta hurt!]
      [i don’t think you realize; he’s not there to understand his popularity. he’s in a limbo, much more concern about the ending of the movie, which ever movie that is today]

      
…would there be less dead people? maybe.
      
[omega and beta losers don’t *deserve* women, but they sure do deserve to have the freedom to learn how to attract women. entre vous: me!]
      [um, ok, charming]

      
the truth is – our society has no solution for mentally ill.

      [i do. quarantine the violent and pedophilic ones until a cure is discovered that will rewire their brains.]

      you think you do. quarantining is costly. that’s exactly the reason why so many untreated schizophrenic patients are walking around free.

      pedophiles are in a different group and it’s quite obvious that they belong to prison.

      Like


    • Charm facilitates depressingly hollow interpersonal connections.

      Like


  49. on July 25, 2012 at 10:16 pm Ben Gayford Buttram

    Manhole metaphorical mayhem.
    Polyp palpating probulation.

    Do I win first runner up for alliteration at a bear convention?


    “You suck!”
    “I’m not gay!”

    Like


  50. A few points:

    -By the time they have come to understand the concept of a “closet” that they need to “come out of”, chances are that they were already agonizing over their sexual condition with no comprehension of the terminology- in the lap of nubile young girls who ate that drama UP. Fitness harming? I think not.

    -If gayness is a fitness strategy for reproduction, doesn’t it make sense that their entire personality is meant to disarm, confuse, or obfuscate the very truth? Like a hunter’s decoy, the gay man seems to subconsciously cultivate a girl’s image of an ideal man. He is obsessed with how hot he looks, he white-knights to an extreme level, and he craves emotional drama. Alpha competitors accept it else they ruin their own gravy-train. How many times have you heard gay guys say, “oh yes, i’ve *experimented* with having sex with girls before.” BOOM. Done deal, if it were hunter-gatherer times. Genes passed.

    -Shouldn’t gays have run off to a big male orgy in the woods by now? The gay guys I know seem to not stray far from cell range with their girl posse- which almost always has hot girls in it. Normal men don’t get that kind of backdoor access- pun intended. I think it’s a disservice to yourself if you think homosexuality is completely and entirely and only about penis-in-ass. If it were, they would be away in their own world by now, instead of lambasting moral society from the parapets.

    http://gritartisan.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/thoughts-on-homosexuality/

    Like


  51. Even if you believe that homosexuals could more easily get married because of the attractiveness of outcome indifference, AND that societal pressures were strong enough to make them do so, it’s still a huge leap to think that such closeted men would have more children (the test of fitness) than straight men. How often is a guy who’s not attracted to women going to bed his wife? I’d expect that most “beard” marriages would be virtually sexless, especially after one or two kids had been produced to complete the picture. In the meantime, throughout much of history, the guys who were actually turned on by T&A were churning out a kid every year or two.

    It’s one thing to think a homosexual might get married and put one bun in the oven out of peer pressure, but when you see a guy with a half-dozen kids running around, do you have any doubt at all that he’s straight?

    By the way, I don’t remember the details, but Cochran gives a good explanation of why the sickle-cell/malaria paradigm probably doesn’t work for this, and he also explains why “gay uncles helping the family prosper” theories aren’t enough either. The math just doesn’t work.

    Like


  52. on July 25, 2012 at 11:30 pm collapseofman

    Sperm wars

    Like


  53. It is possible that schizophrenia is a disease but I happen to agree with Thomas Szasz that it is most likely a way to stigmatize the powerless and hopeless. Read The Myth of Mental Illness as well as Cruel Compassion. The funniest story I can come up with to refute the theory of mental illness was when I was at the ER for something stupid that frightened others that brought the attention of the authorities and happened to be intoxicated on something other than alcohol. I was still with it and when the doctor asked me if I hear voices I told him “I hear voices telling me I have a 15 inch penis dont talk to me like I am one of your idiot patients”.

    The ideas that describe the phenomenon of schizophrenia are known as non-aristolean logic and are described in polish nobleman’s book
    alfred korzybski general semantics.

    Like


  54. on July 26, 2012 at 1:51 am cocksucking faggot

    All of these theories are the result of a mistake, the post-Christian idea that sex can be explained by the homosexual/heterosexual distinction, when before the 19th century these words didn’t even exist. Through most of history it was understood that the sexual instinct is indiscriminate as to object and if you doubt that then go to most of the Arab world today or much of the third world where especially working class men are bisexual mostly and if you’re “on top” it’s not considered bad. These men will fuck women or other men indiscriminately, as do a lot of black guys in the US by the way.

    That’s the thing the real distinction is between active/passive, the fact that men in the West today prefer to fuck exclusively women has a lot more to do with the Jewish and Christian moral code, in ancient Europe bisexuality was as widespread as it still is in the Arab world, Afghanistan, the third world, and so on.

    Like


    • Not true. More revisionist history with a kernel of truth. Are you attracted to women at all? Does that mean homosexuality is indeed a choice and that you’re a deviant?

      Like


  55. It’s actually rather obvious how “gay genes”, if they exist, maintain a robust presence in the general population: humans do not selectively breed out their recessive genes like hemophilia and cystic fibrosis. We don’t even stop people with those diseases from breeding with others who have that disease, even though that’s a 50/50 chance of having a child with the disease. Heck, some deaf people think it a matter of pride to deliberately attempt to bear deaf babies.

    While it is in principle possible to breed such genes out of the population (as some breeders have tried to do with dogs and their diseases), I believe it is irresponsible to do so. Why? Because individuals do not just have a hemophilia gene, they have numerous other genes, many of which may be tremendously beneficial to have. Consider Aaron Piersol. Tall, handsome, and a world-class swimmer. With Athsma. Breed out the asthma, maybe you lose the good stuff too. The species is better off with more Einsteins rather than fewer athsmatics.

    Like


  56. Homosexuality may be the result of antagonistic pleiotropy.

    http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~zietsch/Zietsch_et_al_2008_Evolution_of_homosexuality.pdf

    Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase
    mating success in heterosexuals

    “Abstract
    There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency. One hypothesis proposes that while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals’ reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them. However, it is not clear what such an advantage may be. To investigate this, we examine a data set where a large community-based twin sample (N=4904) anonymously completed a detailed questionnaire examining sexual behaviors and attitudes. We show that psychologically masculine females and feminine men are (a) more likely to be nonheterosexual but (b), when heterosexual, have more opposite-sex sexual partners. With statistical modelling of the twin data, we show that both these relationships are partly due to pleiotropic genetic influences common to each trait. We also find a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than do heterosexual twin pairs. Taken together, these results suggest that genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population.”

    Like


  57. Just a couple of simple comments..first..the percentage of gay men is within the same range of as major birth defects(about 3% without prenatal screening). And there is at least one indication there is something gone wrong. There is a correlation between being gay and the number of older brothers you have (older sisters don’t make a difference). Could there be some immune response in the womb or something that damages the mother for future male babies?
    I think the malaria model is probably the best explanation for the majority of homosexuality- there is an advantage to being bisexual, but a disadvantage to being gay. One gene=bisexual success, two genes= gay failure to breed. And the theory makes a simple prediction..that one of the main limiting factors is STDs. Bisexual men have early practice and as much sexual activity as gay men. Heterosexual men have to figure it out by trial an error and will have a tiny percentage of the total lifetime partners that gay or bisexual men will have(One thing you never hear about in the news media is how exactly how many partners gay men have in their lifetime). Looking at a few different statistics it appears that the average gay man has somewhere around 500 lifetime partners(Im sure living in a city or small town makes a huge difference) This means that in areas that didnt have STDs like many native populations you would expect to find a higher rate of homosexuality. And that is exactly what you find.
    Looking closer at the STD side the statistics in San Francisco is thatn25% of gay men have aids, and baltimore its 40%. Those are gay gene killing statistics if I ever saw them. I wouldnt be surprised if the percentage of gay and bisexual men declines greatly in the future. The same goes for the rape gene if there is one for the simple reason that many women take the morning after pill or get an abortion after being raped so those genes are no longer as successful as they were long ago—and they also harbor the negative possibilities of infection or incarceration.

    Like


    • There’s also the data in “Sperm Wars” that maternal stress during gestation can increase the risk of homosexuality in boys. I think the data was from the German experience at the end of WWII. The boys conceived in the last few, horrific years or just afterwards had a significantly higher chance of being queer.

      Like


  58. “Cochran’s germ theory is the most likely explanation”

    But your immune system is inherited which would make some people more predisposed to this virus that causes homosexuality so in effect there is a strong genetic component to this (assuming the theory is correct)
    Schizophrenia is just a general tern for various brain dysfunctions that can sort of be classified under together . The term itself if I remember correctly was coined by Dr. Blueler and the German means like the splitting up of the brain where the various senses like hearing, sensory etc. become completely disorganised. The reason that it mat occur in the late teens may have nothing to do with stress but some error in the final developement of the brain.
    The extreme depression or anxiety that you mentioned of the late teens may cause a psychosis but this is not schizophrenia. A schizophrenic may become depressed but it’s usually a result of his disease much like a person with a brain tumour may become depressed over it. And btw, the rate of violence with people with schizophrenia is lower than in the general population even without drugs. There is definately a genetic component here whether due to an error of developement or prone to a virus because the chance of contracting the disease randomly is 1 in 100 in the general pop. but if both parents have the disease it’s 1 in 8.
    You mentioned twins, and I assume you mean identical twins who are clones and are identical genetically but environmental factors in the womb which may be slightly different can effect them. Fingerprints are a good example of these different environmental factors between twins and the ridges on their fingertips are different;it’s not genetic but due to the environment of the womb where each twin is exposed differently.

    Like


  59. By the way, the whole introduction and discussion in the study I linked above is worth reading as it relates to your post but if you don’t want to read them, here are some interesting parts.

    From the introduction
    “Our hypothesis is that a number of pleiotropic (more than one effect) genes predispose to homosexuality but also contribute to reproductive fitness in heterosexuals. In the case of males, there are a number of alleles that promote femininity; if only a few of these alleles are inherited, reproductive success is enhanced via increased levels of attractive but typically feminine traits such as kindness, sensitivity, empathy, and tenderness. However, if a large
    number of alleles are inherited, even the feminine characteristic of attraction to males is produced. In females, the converse explanation could be used—a low gene dose could lead to advantageous typically masculine characteristics such
    as sexual assertiveness or competitiveness, and a large dose could further lead to attraction to females. This hypothesis was proposed in detail by Miller (2000), but it has not been tested. Here we empirically test the hypothesis using questionnaire responses from a large (N=4904) communitybased twin sample. Before doing so, though, we need to clarify how we conceptualize the major variables involved: sexual orientation, gender identity, and mating success.”

    From the discussion
    “With regard to our initial hypothesis, we have presented three lines of evidence: (a) sex-atypical gender identity is associated both with nonheterosexuality and, in heterosexuals, with an elevated number of opposite-sex partners; (b) these traits are genetically influenced, and the relationship of gender identity to both nonheterosexuality and number of
    opposite-sex partners is partly due to common genes; and (c) there is a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than twin pairs where both are heterosexual, and the trend is the same when the same comparison is made for exclusive homosexuality as
    opposed to nonheterosexuality. It should be noted that (c) reveals primarily nonsignificant trends in the direction hypothesized and so should be regarded only as tentative support for the main results (a) and (b). Our evidence is consistent with a mechanism whereby some genetic variation underlying homosexuality could have been maintained over evolutionary time. The genes influencing homosexuality have two effects. First, and most obviously, these genes increase the risk for homosexuality,which ostensibly has decreased Darwinian fitness. Countervailing this, however, these same genes appear to increase sex-atypical gender identity, which our results suggest may increase mating success in heterosexuals. This mechanism, called antagonistic pleiotropy, might maintain genes that increase the risk for homosexuality because they increase the number of sex partners in the relatives of homosexuals.”

    Again the study can be found here:
    http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~zietsch/Zietsch_et_al_2008_Evolution_of_homosexuality.pdf

    Like


  60. So is honoseuality genetic, environmental, or due to some unknown cause?
    The incidence of homosexuality is actually 1 % and we don’t know if it was higher in the past so perhaps it is being bred out of the gene pool IF it is genetic.
    I can tell you this, according to the WHO the incidence of bisexuality in Africa is like 50% (which may account for the high incidence of AIDS). Perhaps more primitive people used to have sex with anything including animals and heterosexuality is more the norm in higher IQ civilisations and what we see today with gays in the advanced cultures is just a remnant leftover from our primitive past.

    Like


    • It depends on how far back you go into the past. The Romans and the ancient Greek states widely practiced homosexuality and pederasty, yet they built prosperous and advanced civilizations. Of the first 15 Roman emperors, only the first Claudius stuck entirely to women. This leads me to believe that it was greater–at least in the ancient Mediterranean–in the past.

      Like


  61. A gay gene(s) might persist because heterosexual men who have, presumably, a recessive or single copy version of the butt pirate gene(s) have higher reproductive fitness (chicks dig them)

    If there was a single gene for homosexuality, then geneticists would have found it by now. Every single-gene trait has been studied – that was the whole point of the human genome project.

    Far more likely is that there are a collection of genes, where if you have none or too few of them you’re heterosexual but unattractive to women (beta), if you have some but not too many, you’re heterosexual or bisexual and attractive to women (alpha) and if you have all or nearly all of them then you’re exclusively homosexual (gay).

    Like


  62. From the report: “reproductive success [for men] is enhanced via increased levels of attractive but typically feminine traits such as kindness, sensitivity, empathy, and tenderness.”

    Do they have any actual evidence that these traits improve reproductive success, or are they just making that assumption? I suspect the latter. Mainstream thinking would agree that kindness and tenderness will help a man get a woman, and that’s probably what your mom told you too. But Game theorists would say most guys (even straight guys) exhibit too much of those kinds of traits, not too little. The problem for most betas is being too kind and sensitive, to the point where it turns women off.

    Like


  63. on July 26, 2012 at 7:56 am Rock Throwing Peasant

    If this were the case, there would be more widespread same-sex relationships in animals with quicker generation-turnover. They would have advanced this principle to a greater degree over the centuries and we would be slowly catching up, since it takes us 15-20 years to start healthy reproduction.

    Like


  64. on July 26, 2012 at 9:29 am the_alpha_male

    where’s Malloy when you need him? Ah……he wouldn’t associate himself with this riff raff anyways.

    Like


  65. Failure to experience strong sexual attraction to men is common in unattractive women – because alpha men never try to game unattractive women, so they never experience the pleasure of being gamed.

    Unattractive women who have the capacity for same sex attraction end up becoming lesbians; attractive women with that ability get gamed by men and end up as bisexual.

    That’s why lesbians are ugly and bis are hot.

    Like


  66. I am a graduate student in Psychology, and while clinical disorders are not my area of specialization, here is what some of the research says about schizophrenia: schizophrenics have REAL differences in brain structure. Specifically, schizophrenics have smaller brains as compared to normal brains. What appears to be the case is the ventricles are enlarged. Larger ventricles (spaces in the brain filled with fluid) means smaller brains.

    Regarding why the disorder may not appear in the paleolithic record, people with visions and who heard voices as recently as only a few hundred years ago were sometimes viewed not as those with mental problems, but as seers or spiritual guides. Your local witch doctor 5000 years ago may have been what we consider schizophrenic today.

    Like


  67. Barry Dickson

    Noted without comment.

    Like


  68. Historically, reproductive success was much more closely related by economic success than it is today. So, evolutionarily speaking, gay genes would have to had worked through that pathway; iow gay genes makes one more able to see offspring grow up.

    Were it about “attractiveness” to females i the contemporary game sense, gay prevalence should wary inversely with restrictions on female sexual choice in a culture. Perhaps it does, but I haven’t seen anyone claiming it does.

    Anecdotally, all the natural alphas I know, other than fabulously rich and/or famous guys, are all unusually feminine psychologically; taking a much more genuine interest in conversations about beauty products, Paris Hilton gossip, who is hooking up with who and who is hot and who is gross than most men could ever hope to.

    Like


  69. Your new addendum explains Style, Mystery, and Savoy.

    Like


  70. So… what’s the latest on schizophrenic homosexuals?

    (or is the preferred nomenclature homosexual schizophrenics?)

    Like


  71. on July 26, 2012 at 6:51 pm College Grad

    The problem with the question here is that you assume people with schizophrenia present similarly. Hallucinations, delusions, yes. Reproductive fitness? Probably no more than chance if not less.

    From what I’ve seen and read, premorbid schizophrenics don’t share any features on a consistent enough level to make a sound conclusion. Once they have developed the condition, their musings into government conspiracies or conversations with God and other spirits are far from attractive. In fact, a lot of them are less interested with sex in general. As some commentors have pointed out, the religious stuff may have elevated them to higher social status thousands of years ago, but times have changed. So too has the stigma associated with the disease.

    It’s also important to note that this illness has about <1% prevalence…not very good for a condition that boosts your reproductive fitness (Betaness has been documented higher). Also, the link between schizophrenia and antisocial behavior (criminals) is HIGHLY overplayed in the media. Schizophrenics are no more likely to be murderers than by chance. Additionally, most of them lack the frontal lobe ability to plan and execute elaborate shooting sprees, serial killings, etc. You can't confuse psychopathy with schizophrenia, the former having associated reproductive advantages.

    Like


  72. could be natural selections’ response to fixing male approach anxiety and ability to entertain women. You’ve expressed in the past how amazing it is that men just can’t ‘get’ game in many cases. How they can’t banter as well as women, we have to practice and learn these methods instead of being born with them.

    Like


  73. During the Spanish conquest of Peru, it came to light that the Inca priests were transvestites who practiced holy sex in the temples. The Spanish did not know this until the local women ratted them out. They did not like their men getting holy blow jobs and holy anal in the temple. The Spanish had the priests set upon by huge mastiffs and torn to pieces. Pretty much their DNA ended at that time. Homosexuality was not a term used in those days, but they knew what sodomy was.

    Like


  74. If homosexuality is genetically influenced, then social acceptance of homosexuality will lead to its natural eradication over time. Whereas forcing homosexuals into heterosexual relationships will keep the genes in the pool. Kind of interesting.

    Like


  75. I’m a faggot and I have several children. I like to bust in straight guys’ asses and when they’re home with their wives at night some of my jizz transfers from their asses to their wives’ cunts. Dead serious.

    Like


  76. “On a semi-related note, is schizophrenia also fitness-increasing? That is, are schizophrenic or borderline schizoid men more attractive to women by dint of their charmingly aloof and intriguingly edgy personalities?”

    I really doubt it. There are of course a few who will manage to reproduce because their symptoms are not so bad that they are unable to function in society, but most schizophrenics take anti-psychotic medications which cause impotence. A woman can be attracted to a schizophrenic all she likes, but she can’t be impregnated by a guy who can’t get a hard on. That sure seems unfit to me. Schizophrenics are not intriguingly edgy, they are batshit crazy. They also have high rates of drug use, which makes their symptoms worse; prolonged use of some drugs such as crystal meth can actually cause psychosis.

    Like


  77. How the hell am I supposed to win top comment when you’ve already gone and quoted Barry Dickson in the post?

    Anway, something to keep in mind is that not every genetic manifestation is related to fitness. Mother Nature constructing people by coding molecular instruction in DNA is about like the average web dev building a website. Cut n paste code from a bunch of different sites that do things you like, write some code to string it all together, and you get a functional website. But all those fragments of javascript, html and whatever semi-obsolete content management framework come with lots of baggage. Crap the web dev doesn’t really understand, doesn’t know what it does. Maybe it has some occasional quirks the client would like to get rid of, but crap, the last time you tried to delete that wierd header the shopping cart stopped working, so better to just leave it in for now…

    Bottom line is, Mother Nature is not an Engineer. She doesn’t really know what she’s doing, she just knows what she likes, but has no real idea how she got it. if there is a gay gene, it might not convey any evolutionary advantage at all. It may just be too closely intertwinned with a useful gene to be weeded out.

    Like


  78. Lots of great comments, but perhaps you guys are “overthinking” this.

    Maybe faggotry is nothing more than opportunistic, slightly parasitic behavior in men?

    1. Guys are naturally horny, that means gay sex is easy to get/have.

    2. For most of recorded history, males ran everything; presenting yourself as female makes you non threatening, clearly submissive… (house niggers, uncle toms, manginas…)

    And as a sidebar, despite the alliance between gay men and feminists; homosexuals have got to have some serious contempt for women; they hide it well, but its got to be there.

    Think about it, but for their sexual attraction, most women would be more annoying than a nigger in front of a liquor store.

    *just sayin*

    Like


  79. there’s one glaring problem with your theory… james holmes bought all his weapons/gear months before he ever made advancements to these women on the internet. there are too many factors that could have led to this. i don’t think we’ll get a clear picture of what set him off until his life and psyche has been studied for many years.

    Like


  80. This discussion of why we have gays is just so, well, gay. Why don’t you apply the same arguments to explain undescended testicles, ambiguous genitalia or or hypospadias? Would you argue for the genetic fitness of the testicular feminization syndrome?

    Your brain is just a piece of meat, very complicated, and can go wrong in many ways, not just in sexual behavior. Schizophrenia, for example, is not a social construct. It is a brain misfunctioning. It is an organic disease. The sufferer is not just strange, he is not functional. Like Vonnegut said, then, you need bad ideas to give your madness form and direction.

    Now, about gays. Nobody is totally defined by his sexual behavior or orientation. There are straight men who are twisted as can be internally. And, gay men who seem quite normal. Sex doesn’t define who or what you are.

    Exclusive gay sex is obviously a developmental defect. It surely has both genetic and environmental determinates. Since the sufferer does not die prematurely, we might not call it a disease. However, when you consider the incredible poor judgement many gay men have (think HIV and other unpleasant things, which spread via poor judgement, not sex per se) and their eagerness in the past to inflict their diseases on others with the help of the American Red Cross (extremely sociopathic), male gayness is often one sign of a serious character disorder. That is, a central nervous system dysfunction. No different from depression, mania, or stuttering. Deal with it.

    Like


  81. …Or it could just be something that’s Y linked, and partially recessive in the mothers of homosexual men.

    Like


  82. […] Obedience To Authority Game, Holmes Another Lovelorn Beta Male Rampage, Middle Class Quiet Riot, Gay Fitness And Schizophrenia Genes, Reader Mailbag: First Things […]

    Like


  83. Anonymous: “I am a graduate student in Psychology, and while clinical disorders are not my area of specialization, here is what some of the research says about schizophrenia: schizophrenics have REAL differences in brain structure. Specifically, schizophrenics have smaller brains as compared to normal brains. What appears to be the case is the ventricles are enlarged. Larger ventricles (spaces in the brain filled with fluid) means smaller brains.”

    That’s a common post hoc justification for the mental illness concept. An objectively identifiable brain abnormality or constellation thereof, which causes predictable cognitive, emotional, or behavioural patterns or disturbances is a neurological problem and a physical illness.

    There is no such thing as mental health. “Mental health” is a misnomer, a metaphor that is taken and meant literally by both psychiatrists and the general public. Brains are diseased — behavior and cognition can be symptoms but if they’re caused by e. g. an astrocytoma, there would almost always be complete agreement on the diagnosis among any three neurologists, neurosurgeons or neuropathologists and the cognitive and behavioral changes associated with such brain tumors, often continuing as sequelae after remission, would not constitute the “disease” itself and would never under any circumstances be the sole basis for the diagnosis. You’re talking above about ventriculotrophy (or whatever they call it), not a “mental illness”.

    What is considered mental illness (and what is not, i. e, Pathological Authority Trust Personality Disorder, Wealth Acquisition Disorder (or WAD) or Power Acquisition Disorder) is often politically, culturally (and lately economically) influenced. A majority or plurality of Icelanders to this day believe that their ancestors communicate with them and they with their ancestors. and/or that landmarks and rivers, etc. have spirits. Until 1972, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. At the APA convention, by democratic vote, without any evidence or research, it was delisted from the DSM. Neurologists would never have voted, merely because sufferers were being ridiculed and discriminated against, to no longer consider cerebral palsy a pathological condition and remove it from the neuropathology texts.

    Like


  84. read “androphilia” by jack donova

    Like


  85. […] and effete man, obsessed with superficial style/flash, who avoids aggression/competing, and as Heartiste pointed out here, exhibits exactly the type of less desirous/more aloof attitude r-type women crave in their short […]

    Like


  86. Someone said HIV will eventually make gays

    ” go away” ( paraphrasing here)

    …well… wrong because modern science is finding drugs that keep them alive longer and longer

    and the longer they are alive the higher the odds they may impregnate a woman – as some of them do occasionally have sex with women – and transmit their gay genes ( IF such a thing exists – which is definitely plausible)

    and this is a problem of modern science/medecine that affects us all in many bad ways,

    we keep alive people who should have died and we help them reproduce and transmit their bad genes

    we are thus increasing the number of people with bad genes ( not talking about gayness just anything bad health wise )

    we have reversed survival of the fittest

    I can appreciate modern science and modern medecine advances and I am thankfull for a lot of it, but we are reversing evolution, we are reversing survival of the fittest by keeping everyone alive for a long time and helping them have babies that will have bad genes

    This is simply one more way Western Civilization is commiting suicide ( mass immigration from third world is another dangerous/serious factor contributing to this suicide but that is another ball game )

    PS: sorry for the simple – unsophisticated English – but French is my first language
    Don’t bother learning French it is a gay language…

    Like