[...] Special Post: The Decline of Male Homosexuality The Evolution of Female Bisexuality A Gay Germ? Is Homophobia a Clue? [...]

[...] in sex with females is always evolutionary maladaptive. Even if homosexuals do reproduce (which they do), the reduced reproductive fitness they incur would have selected the trait out long ago. As well, [...]

I think THIS IS THE REASON FOR LADY GAGA HAVE BEEN TARGETED BY PSYCHIATRIST SOCIAL CONTROL GROUP.
She is right under mind programming, behavior modification, drug. I thought she has been labeled 'mental illness' in some way or the other. Any way, individual sexuality is under government medicalization of control, even fantasy can be labelled 'deviant'. It is the hardest truth we human had never been encount during the whole human history. Please visit my blog if got time, or if your want looking into psychiatrist mind programming, brainwashing, behavior modification, madicalization of sin, etc. My blog minddefensecoach.wordpress.com

[...] As promised, here is my post on this fascinating, and rather mysterious topic. [...]

Blanchard's transsexualism typology (also Blanchard autogynephilia theory (BAT) and Blanchard's taxonomy) is a psychological typology of male-to-female transsexualism created by Ray Blanchard through the 1980s and 1990s, building on the work of his colleague, Kurt Freund. Blanchard divides male-to-female (MtF or M2F) transsexuals into two different groups: "homosexual transsexuals", who are attracted to men, and "non-homosexual transsexuals", who are "autogynephilic" (sexually attracted to the thought or image of themselves as a woman). The typology does not purport to identify the cause of transsexualism in natal males, but it has some implications for the cause—specifically, that the cause of transsexualism may not be the same for both groups.

…it's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men."

Oh, get real. When I think of the black fags that hit on me in college…ugh..

NARTH data shows that blacks are much higher in both homosexuality, and bisexuality, than whites. You could explain away the "bisexual" figures by prison –eg (dominant) gay on the inside, straight on the street — but not the exclusive homosexuality. There are a LOT of gay blacks (and Mexicans) out there.

Without intervention from the prison authorities Aryan Nations could hold *entire prisons* with just a dozen guys. The bulk of the white guys couldn't do it but the toughest white guys in an *organized* group could – easily

I think you mean Aryan Brotherhood. Aryan Nations is a white supremacist group on the outside, the Brotherhood was founded in prison… originally for self-defense against the homosexual attacks of blacks.

Of course, since all the founding members were criminals, they soon became a criminal gang in their own right… one of the most dangerous of all time.

Hypothesis for reasons for male homosexuality:

I was not aware gays were more frequent for mothers or aunts with many children.

The reason, IMHO, is pretty simple:

1) Mother with few children or one having one gay child will have a much lower fertility in the long run. 1:2, 1:3 is a severe reduction of fertility.

2) Mothers with many children will have a lower reduction of fertility if one male child is gay.

What could be the advantage to have a gay male over many children (of various sex) for the mother or the aunts?
Gays would stay in the family (until 100 years ago, the majority of people lived in farms) and lend their work to keeping the family or, if they worked out, they would leave inheritances to their family members.
This is simply a way to indirectly increase the K factor. This would not be only true for gays but also for disinterested in sex males. They would be the ox of the family.
There was a tradition in the past in Italy, where every good family would have at least one uncle going to seminar and becoming a priest (or a noun for the female). Often, from this position, they would relieve the family from the need to keep them feed, educated, etc. and when they become priests or higher, they would be in position to help their brothers/sisters sons to obtain a good job, access cheaper education, care for the older parents, uncle/aunts, etc.

So, I expect, a reduction of women fertility will result in lot less homosexuals men and more female homosexuality.

—
Male are attracted by just matured or near to maturation girls over mature women or too young babes for other simple reasons:

1) If they are the first male having sex with them, there is a larger probability they bond with them forever and give them children.
2) Younger need care and this is expensive (and then become difficult to bond with them for psychological mechanisms preventing inbreeding)
3) Older female (having already know other men or probable to have know other men) are more difficult to bond with the male long term, they could have offspring the male don't want (and causing their death or other damage will not make easier for the woman to bond with the male)

–
Women are rarely attracted by younger men because they usually lack the ability to provide for her children. They prefer mature men for this.

My two cents

It would be interesting to see if the data show any similar trend in male homosexuality in Denmark, where legal gay partnerships have been around a while and where gays were out earlier than American gays were.

Denmark keeps great records. If the same holds true there, then maybe there actually is a decline.

If Blacks engage in predatory dominant role homosexuality (ie using men as a substitute for women) in prison, when they are locked up for years without women that means they are robustly taking the mans active role. Yes that does make sense. And a very high proportion of black men have been in prison. That might explain why black men are more likely to report engaging in 'homosexuality'. Homosexuality can mean very different things. As for Hispanics, the (prison gang) Mexican Mafia's rule number 1 is that a gang member can't be homosexual, but they make use of 'punks'

Hmmm. Interesting.

We find out astronaut Sally Ride was lesbian, more interestingly, that her sister is too.

Research of female sexuality, esp. of families in which more than one sibling is lesbian, is esp. rare, is it not?

Male homosexuals are more common among north Europeans than other populations. North European men are possibly more likely to be exclusively gay than bisexual.

Not in California. There's a huge gay Mexican population, and among the whites, the Mediterranean (eg Italian, Jewish) predominate. And many, many, many gay blacks.

North Europeans, and East Asians, seem to have the LOWEST rates of homosexuality. Yes, there are some gay blonds and gay Asians, but in my experience, they are rare.

My understanding is that same-sex practices in the Western world involved primarily frottage and oral sex, not anal sex. Only since "gay liberation" has anal sex become "acceptable."

My understanding is that AIDS spread *more* rapidly among gay men because sexual diseases transmitted through the blood stream transfer more easily through anal sex.

It also spread rapidly among some heterosexual populations with very high promiscuity who tend to have a lot of other sexual illnesses so the anal sex thing may be a red herring. I just mention it as a possibility.

If not, then if the bug exists and what you say is correct then the number of exclusively homosexual men would have gone up since the switch in behavior.

(As would the number of lesbian and / or bisexual women with the recent mainstreaming of young female promiscuity through education and the media and hetero anal sex via porn.)

.
If you think the bug spread through sexual means, that would mean it succeeded through other means as well.

Sexual means is a form of physical contact. As sex is a particularly intimate form of physical contact i imagine it's a particularly effective means of transmission but any physical contact may be the absolute, if low odds, minimum.

.
You have to account for how the small child/infant contracted the bug. It's clear that most gay men were little boys whose homosexual orientation was established when they were very, very young, either children, toddlers, infants, or even fetuses.

I don't think there is a single explanation. I think some of it is chimera / conditions in the womb and that lies behind Sailer's observation that lesbians aren't gay except i think lesbians and a percentage of gay men are gay for birth reasons and (if the germ theory is correct) there's another percentage of gay men and lesbian (or imo more likely bisexual) women who have the bug.

.
It seems just as likely the damage is a side effect of a non-sexually transmitted disease, doesn't it?

Could be. I should say what i tend to do is take an idea, assume it's true, and then run it into a wall to test it. So i don't *believe* in the germ theory as such but so far it is interesting to me as a possibility, not specifically because of homosexuality but more because, if it's true, i think there may be a connection to rape.

.
After all, Dulac found that mice have dual circuits, male and female, and that knocking out a gene that processed olfactory cues in the VNO switched the female's "search image" (I guess in this case we can call it the mouse's "search scent") to male and the females began behaving both in sexual ways and in overall aggression just like males.

Perhaps homosexuality in homo sapiens occurs in the processing of cues; that is, the brain itself has no damage, but the brain can only respond to what has been sent its way and maybe receptors for visual and/or auditory cues are damaged or turned "on"/"off" in some way. I wouldn't leave out tacile cues either.

Yes. Very interesting stuff.

Another variation on that theme could be if males physically feminized over time then the search image could remain the same but particularly feminine males could begin to match the cues.

"I also think it's a strategy of the gay version of the bug. I think originally (if it exists) it was a compulsive promiscuity / rape bug i.e. the sort of thing you could easily imagine being loose in the recent wars in the Congo and the gay variant arose (if it exists) because it spreads easier through anal sex."

My understanding is that same-sex practices in the Western world involved primarily frottage and oral sex, not anal sex. Only since "gay liberation" has anal sex become "acceptable."

If you think the bug spread through sexual means, that would mean it succeeded through other means as well.

You have to account for how the small child/infant contracted the bug. It's clear that most gay men were little boys whose homosexual orientation was established when they were very, very young, either children, toddlers, infants, or even fetuses.

Thus, they may have contracted in in the womb, during the birth, or shortly thereafter.

From Mom? Did Mom get it from Dad? Previous lovers? Through sex? Passed to the fetus, child?

Does this STD make the mother/female sexually promiscuous as it does the male? Any research that establishes that mothers of gay sons had more sexual partners than mothers of hetero sons? In ticking off quickly in my head a few mothers I know of gay men, I'd say, "No, the moms aren't promiscuous at all."

It seems just as likely the damage is a side effect of a non-sexually transmitted disease, doesn't it?

I wonder if the damage is actually to the brain or if it's damage to receptors that process sensory cues.

After all, Dulac found that mice have dual circuits, male and female, and that knocking out a gene that processed olfactory cues in the VNO switched the female's "search image" (I guess in this case we can call it the mouse's "search scent") to male and the females began behaving both in sexual ways and in overall aggression just like males.

Perhaps homosexuality in homo sapiens occurs in the processing of cues; that is, the brain itself has no damage, but the brain can only respond to what has been sent its way and maybe receptors for visual and/or auditory cues are damaged or turned "on"/"off" in some way. I wouldn't leave out tacile cues either.

We can see who gets turned out. Homosexual behaviour does not mean taking turns playing the passive receptive role. Going by prison it's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men.

Blacks engage in homosexuality in prison, therefore they're more "robustly heterosexual"? That makes no sense.

Predatory heterosexuality seems to be mainly a black thing. White men are outnumbered and targeted in prisons, and are less inclined to engage in predatory homosexuality or homosexuality in general. I don't see how from these facts you infer that white men are "less robustly heterosexual".

The extreme, sadistic, predatory violence and homosexuality seems to be mainly a black phenomenon. White prisons are not known for it.

Here is an article about an American man who was locked up in a South Korean prison. He notes that the predatory violence and homosexuality rampant in black dominated prisons are absent in South Korean prisons:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/books/28grim.html

"Nothing much happens in prison, but the details are fascinating. As Mr. Thomas describes it, violence is limited to occasional scuffles, and the atmosphere of terror and intimidation in American prisons is absent. Although consensual sex occurs, usually for pay, rape is unknown. It’s no “Midnight Express.” In an unspoken arrangement, gangs keep order in exchange for privileges."

(2/2)
3) female homosexuality less hardwired: it could be so, but this could be that basic female sexuality is indeed hardwired (after all, many lesbians do absolutely look like lesbians, just as the average gay man is less masculine than the average straight man), but women exhibit sexual fluidity (basically straight, in their hard-wiring, women can, when in appropriate context, express some sexual tendencies towards women, while basically lesbian women can express some sexual tendencies towards men; the fact that men, gay or straight, get aroused by pornography specific to their sexuality, while women, gay or straight, get aroused, if mildly, by any action pornography, is in accordance, not disagreement, with the whole idea of female sexual fluidity). Some women will indeed engage in dirty behavior to excite men (I have met and known such women who seem to believe that men are just about kinky, and seem to believe that men function by a simple rule of thumb “the dirtier, the better”; these women are usually insecure and low self-esteem), but I don’t believe that this can account for a lot of the increase in female homosexual behavior; after all, while the idea of two pretty women touching eachother and inviting a passerby to join the fun might be exciting, in real life rather than porn, the idea of fairly masculine women in private moments with anyone is rather repelling (I mean from a straight man’s sexual excitement POV, nothing against anybody).
4) male and female sexuality inversely correlated: it could indeed be true that more masculine populations will tend to produce more lesbians and less gays, while more feminine ones would do the opposite (after all, on average, gays are less masculine than other men, and lesbians are less feminine than other women), but part of this correlation must be that less fertile populations (fewer gays because of fewer younger sons) are also the more developed and permissive (more female homosexual behavior when permitted by virtue of female sexual fluidity alone).
5) are Mediterraneans more masculine (hotter males, less hot females) than Nordics, anybody? It seems to me that Meditteranean guys with Nordic girls are more common than vice versa.
6) I don’t think good looking men should be gay more often than others, though the rest of us are certainly eager to believe it; I, for one, will always heed to any rumors about any pretty guy I find dumb and despicable, especially when I perceive female excitement about him.

To sum up and respond:
1) the idea of “weak heterosexuality” (in Peter Frost’s older posts): gays are derived from a subpopulation of “weak heterosexuals” (preference for less feminine women) who are near a threshold for being gay, those actually being gay just move somewhat more (because of whatever), passing the threshold; nice idea, though it doesn’t account for the ugly fact that your average gay isn’t anywhere near such a threshold; he’s not a “weak homosexual” preferring less masculine men. Shouldn’t gays then tend to be near the threshold, albeit on the other side?
2) male homosexuality is very hardwired: gayness (cinaidosyne) is hardwired; indeed, it seems to be congenital, or, at any rate, it’s there since early childhood. Yet, we need to distinguish cinaidosyne from the, perhaps much less hardwired, non-gay homosexuality that can appear in situations of great need (prison), or as an imprinted preference coexisting with the preference for women (in cultures distinguishing the two homosexualities, looking down at the one, but permitting the other). Note that in such cultures and needy situations, men don’t become gay (effeminate, willing to be penetrated). It is very difficult to picture the 300 as fashion designers with helmets. Prisoners strongly prefer to rape than be raped. Contemporary “bisexuals”, when not gays in (some) denial or PC people that would like believing everybody must indeed be bisexual, must be such non-gay part-time homosexuals (if many men can become like that in certain cultures that encourage it, why can’t at least a few become like that in our culture? If indeed bisexuals were instead simply somewhere between gay and straight, you’d expect them to more than gays-unless of course there’s a reason to expect a u rather than a bell curve here-any ideas?).
(1/2)

"This would only be true IF"

Yes, i should specify i'm operating on the premise that the base bug, if it exists, is designed to spread sexually and does so by inducing compulsive promiscuity.

I also think it's a strategy of the gay version of the bug. I think originally (if it exists) it was a compulsive promiscuity / rape bug i.e. the sort of thing you could easily imagine being loose in the recent wars in the Congo and the gay variant arose (if it exists) because it spreads easier through anal sex.

"It is pretty clear that male and female homosexuality are indeed inversely correlated"

It's not remotely clear. I think a more likely explanation is the relationship between male and female promiscuity e.g. male promiscuity may have been higher than female in most cultures over most time periods but that has changed very recently which also fits.

If places like the Phillipines and Thailand were outliers then it could be the result of an unusually large percentage of women who'd dabbled in prostitution due to sex tourism.

#

"We can see who gets turned out…it's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men."

1) Without intervention from the prison authorities Aryan Nations could hold *entire prisons* with just a dozen guys. The bulk of the white guys couldn't do it but the toughest white guys in an *organized* group could – easily. It's brains and brawn, not just brawn.

2) Apart from that tangential point the truth is the exact opposite. The big difference between "straight" black and white men is black men have a much lower threshold for having sex with men.

It's the thing that makes me wonder most about the germ theory. However i don't think it's actually anything to do with homosexuality per se. At least in my experience it seems more to do with an almost compulsive kind of promiscuity which if you look at places like the Congo could easily be imagined as a kind of terrible virus. If a woman isn't available a group of black men will attack a man far more readily than a group of White men, Hollywood as always not withstanding..

(This is relatively speaking. The absolute number of men who'd do it in both cases is low.)

It's also why i wonder if female bisexuality isn't actually more to do with hyper promiscuity than homosexuality as that seems to fit the bill much more closely from my (limited) experience.

It seems to me the germ theory makes more sense if originally it was less to do with homosexuality and more to do with compulsive promiscuity. If so then the exclusively gay version would be a mutation.

Why?

I don't know but AIDS spread so much faster among gay men and Africans because of anal sex and promiscuity and if you have a bug that wants to spread itself sexually then it makes sense for it to incline the carrier to the types of behavior most likely to spread it.

#

"Female sexual fluidity: it has been shown experimentally that straight men get aroused by straight porn…gay men by gay porn…while both straight and lesbian women seem to be aroused by…etc"

If i recall correctly the research showed that men got *very* aroused by porn specific to their sexuality whereas women got *mildly* aroused by everything so i don't think that argument holds too well.

I don't think female sexuality is more fluid at all. If anything women engaging in lesbian activity to please men shows just how heterosexual they are.

We can see who gets turned out.

If whites vastly outnumbered blacks in prison, had large gangs while blacks were isolated, and had institutional state bias in their favor, they might not "turn out" the blacks, because they're not as gay as the blacks. But they might wipe them all out. That's a hell of a lot more "robustly heterosexual" than "turning out".

Going by prison it's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men. Compared to blacks, whites are not physically or mentally equipped for male-male competition.

Whites are vastly outnumbered by blacks in prison. The blacks have large gangs while the whites tend to be isolated. There is also bias against whites in conflicts with blacks.

Judeo-Christian populations on average are less homosexual in either direction if you compare them to other cultures (and it isn't all "suppression") but most of all their men are rather plain looking. Mediterranean and Middle Eastern men seem to be the gayest and they are some of the hottest men on earth. That's why I as a girl never go for hot guys. Most sexy men are gay. Plain guys are straighter in my experience. I don't want an Adonis thank you.

We can see who gets turned out. Homosexual behaviour does not mean taking turns playing the passive receptive role. Going by prison it's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men. Compared to blacks, whites are not physically or mentally equipped for male-male competition. Whites are the result of female-female competition.

To me black Africans of both sexes seem to be the result of intense male-male competition.

The viral causation idea assumes that because it never could pay for a man or woman to be totally homosexual, then both sexes must be under diversifying selection that keeps genes specific to success in sexual selection from being expressed in the 'wrong' sex. But what if the most masculine 10% of males father 90% of the children. Or, if the most feminine 66% of women bear 100% of the children eh?

…and here’s another (less vaguely relevant) idea that just came to me: since one’s chance of being gay is proportional to number of older brothers, percentage of gays in a population must correlate with fertility; and fertility correlates negatively with a population’s living standards (which in turn correlate with permissiveness); thus, you could get less gays (by having fewer second, third, and beyond sons) and more women with some homosexual experience to count (by greater permissiveness allowing true lesbians to be themselves-one can imagine how many would simply be married off in older times-, as well as more fluid non-lesbians experimenting). This could produce an inverse gay/lesbian correlation.

(part 2/2)

Female sexual fluidity: it has been shown experimentally that straight men get aroused by straight porn and plain images of naked women, gay men by gay porn and plain images of naked men, while both straight and lesbian women seem to be aroused by any action porn, and not so aroused by any plain images-they’re more about things going on than who’s involved (or not) in anything. Perhaps women are also more sexual about anything, having less clear a distinction between sexual and non-sexual behavior, their general lovydovyness being susceptible to sexualization beyond their basic sexuality. I happen to know some lesbians-they all have been involved with men (even the quite butch ones) past what would be accounted for by trying to pass for “normal”, and I don’t think the same is true for gays. Lesbians feel threatened by men in a way gays don’t feel threatened by women, and perhaps for a good reason: perhaps that good catch, a really cute, effeminate gal that flowed to a lesbian, is a basically straight girl that will easily flow back to men (and even a basically lesbian gal may be allured by family and the like). In Greece, I have been aware of anecdotal complains that in places with a lot of lesbian tourism (i.e., Lesbos itself), the local women are affected, while I’ve never heard of Myconians believing that all the gays going there are affecting the orientation of local men. Finally, I don’t think that a tenth of women in my population are lesbians, though I now realize that I certainly have met more lesbians than gays. You think us meds have hotter males than females? I think there seems to be a gender imbalance in Nordic/Mediterranean matings, paralleling the White/Black one. Of course I, though quite unchauvinistic and rather left leaning, prefer women of my own ethnic group (and of those more resembling physically), but this can be imprinting (don’t get me wrong, I’m all for genetic explanations, but there still must be some going on), or the weak heterosexuality of someone somewhat more into books and less into sports than the next guy, if this whole weak heterosexuality thing is true.

So, populations with hotter males than females have more lesbians, while those with hotter females than males have more gays? This is in accordance with your earlier ideas about weak heterosexuals near a threshold, yet there is still an ugly fact here: in direction and strength of drive, the average gay ain’t a “weak homosexual” still located near the threshold he passed getting somewhat further than the rest-he’s rather anything but. Anyways, here are some (vaguely) relevant ideas:

Homosexuality vs. cinaidosyne: I’m coining a term to refer to the sexuality of gays (anatomical men with a drive to play the part of a woman) from ancient Greek (where such men were called cinaidi), to avoid identifying it with all homosexuality, which technically may include more attitudes. While basic (anatomical) male sexuality (being straight or gay) is strongly fixed (and certainly congenital or nearly so), what about cultures and places (the prison, ancient Greece, the Levant in the-anthropological-present) where a drive to play the part of a man with other men exists in many men who also have the drive to play the part of a man with women, and no drive to play the part of a woman? I think that basic straightness is the drive to play the part of a man. This drive can get directed towards other men in situations of great need, and perhaps, in cultures encouraging it, it can develop in most men, through some imprinting mechanism, to be generally directed at men as well as women. Note that such cultures sharply distinguish the two homosexualities, and are anything but gay-friendly. Note also that the pederastai of ancient Greece were looking for effeminacy in young boys, facial hair making a boy too old for a pederast (so the drive isn’t completely removed from its basic straight origin; I think that in Islamic cultures, men willing to play the part of men with other men preferred these other men to be effeminate too; anybody, any ideas about what kinds of other men do dominant prisoners prefer to sodomize?), and that there were closet cinaidi trying to pass for pederasts, as there are nowdays “bisexuals” (the 11th and 12th books of the Greek Anthology will offer interesting insights). Bisexuals, which had ought to be more than gays if they were for real(=if there was a scale rather than a divide), might be a collection of the few basically straight men still developing the urge to play the part of men with other men in cultures generally discouraging it, gays with a degree of denial, and PC straights and gays thinking that everybody must be bisexual, since nature must be PC.

(part 1/2)

"However also, if there's any truth in the germ theory then it should spread itself by inducing both promiscuity and risky sexual practises"

This would only be true IF

1.) IF the pathogen seeks to spread itself through sexual contact (after all many pathogens spread through less sexy means such as sneezing/ coughing, etc.)

OR

2) IF homosexuality is the result of ANY strategy imployed by the bug rather than simply a side effect of having contracted the bug

'The incidence of cervical cancer in Danish women is among the highest worldwide (14.5 per 100000 women)' We know that is caused by a virus (that's sexually transmitted). So Danish women get around. Yet Danish women are very rarely bisexual or lesbian. So the most heterosexual women in the world actually get a lot of sexual contacts.

It is pretty clear that male and female homosexuality are indeed inversely correlated. If either male or female homosexuality (or both) are caused by a bug(s), or a different bug(s) why would male and female homosexuality be inversely correlated eh?

About r/K selection, European women are the most fertile and least likely to be lesbians. Rushton's theory would not predict that.

Germ theory? Female promiscuity has only relatively recently been mainstreamed among the young by the media and schools. If the germ theory is at least partly correct then this ought to have increased the incidence of at least bisexuality as bisexual women tend to have had the most male partners.

"I would argue that ironically natural male sexual behavior is to prefer very underdeveloped females who are barely passed puberty. Males are innately driven to youth."

Die in excruciating pain.

.
On-topic:
I'd say partly a rise in adopted female bisexuality as a result of male sexual arousal i.e. on one hand lesbian sex as a form of heterosexual behavior (counter intuitive though that may sound) and on the other hand an increase in experimentation induced by the prevalence of male fantasies as expressed in both porn and the mainstream media.

However also, if there's any truth in the germ theory then it should spread itself by inducing both promiscuity and risky sexual practises. This fits for male homosexuals but not lesbians.

However it does fit for bisexual women so…i'd say the other big factor in the rise, if the germ theory is at least partly true, is the mainstreaming of anal sex and promiscuity among young girls by the media.

[...] measured heritability estimate is pretty low.  One such example is the heavily discussed issue of sexual orientation. Here, heritability estimates can be as low 0.22. The low heritability, it has been suggested, may [...]

I never said anything about latitude. Lesbians are more commom than male homosexuals in those from Sweden and Greece. If you start at Denmark lesbianism becomes more common in any direction while male homsexuality seems to decline somewhat. I mentioned HERE individuals' 2D:4D being associated with lesbian but not male homosexual orientation.

Masculine men go for feminine women. Bare in mind that alleles most beneficial to success for females under sexual selection are the ones making her more feminine. Sexual selection (which works on either males or females, but not both) men can affect the both sexes over generations. Female-female competition (with the corollary of relaxed male-male competition) can alter the gene pool. Hence the whole population becomes more feminine over many generations. And Vice versa for strong male-male sexual selection. Populations are not all equally balanced between masculinity and femininity, due to some populations having had periods of sexual selection, there were a range of focuses and intensities in various times and locations. A corollary of one sex being especially easily tipped into homosexual orientation is that the hetrosexualty of the opposite sex in that population will be robust, in relation to the opposite sex in the same population at least.

Marriages in Walden Mass in the early colonial period averaged almost 10 children. Women from New France who married before 15 years old averaged 12 childen. Europeans are more fertile The oldest natural mother was English. African American women have twice the odds of infertility compared to white women.

The rate of excusive preferential male homosexuality among American blacks is apparently not low relative to whites though I expect that passive role homosexuality is less common among blacks than among Europeans. I still think that black women have high rates of lesbian orientation. . In my opinion the country where the population is most biologically optimized for sexual selection of males is Senegal (it has got the most polygyny) .Wikipedia says "According to the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, a strong 96% of Senegal residents said that homosexuality should be rejected by society, making it one of the highest rejection of homosexuality in the 44 countries surveyed."
Being a lesbian in Senegal is dangerous dangerous so I think there are far more than anyone knows, in orientation at least.

Jason Malloy,

Thanks for the link to the meta-analysis about digit ratio. I've often wondered if previous sampling was strong enough to make the assertion that digit ratio in males was a marker of homosexuality.

Same with the claims about clockwise and counter-clockwise hair whorls. I wonder…anecdotally, on several occasions, we've checked the hair whorls on a bunch of gay guys we work with. We seem to get no difference in ratio between the gay guys and the straight guys, FWIW.

Sean,

Your theory doesn't fit the data. As I noted in the last thread, both female and male homosexuality are inversely correlated with latitude.

According to the GSS, 2.5% of white men are exclusively homosexual while 3.3% of black men are exclusively homosexual. And if black gays are "keeping a lower profile" even this is an underestimate.

A recent meta-analysis pretty much killed the idea that digit ratio is related to male homosexuality, although it still might help explain population differences in female homosexuality, including the relatively low rate in Denmark.

Sean said,

"…the highly polygynous, agricultural peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are … physically robust. They and their African American descendants outclass European-descended subjects for weight, chest size, arm girth, leg girth, muscle fiber properties, and bone density". Here Black women have higher rates of infertility."

Yeah, "higher rates of infertility" caused by ….ready? Pathogens.

Non-hygenic conditions, poor or lacking medical services, sexual practices, and just plain all around ignorance let those pathogens have their way.

Doesn't take much to scar fallopian tubes.

Stacey, maybe you work somewhere with a higher percentage of gay males than most places?

Not really. It's just that attractive men strike me as having higher percentage of gays. I don't like goodlooking guys and the fact that they show them so much on ads, TV, movies and other places makes me sick. Average looking guys are typically less gay. Whenever they show an Adonis type of guy it just makes me roll my eyes. Hot guys can just touch other guys for all I care.

The point I was trying to make is that populations are not all equally balanced between masculinity and femininity. Consequently the women of some populations are more feminine thereby making them less easily tipped into lesbian orientation by some virus, fetal stress or whatever.

Relative to other Europeans The total population of Danes is biologically optimized for conditions of sexual selection of females. That is why Danish men have low fertility, and Danish women are rated as highly attractive. I is also why Danish women are so rarely lesbians. Europeans in general are biologically optimized for conditions of sexual selection of females. Danes are just the most extreme example.

Relative to other peoples black Africans of both sexes are masculinized as a result of the tight sexual selection of men in Africa,(a corollary of polygyny). Kanazawa in his infamous blog post about the relative unattractiveness of black women (based on a large data set) said that black men are rated more physically attractive. Lewis, M.B. (2012). the study A Facial Attractiveness Account of Gender Asymmetries in Interracial Marriage found that Black men are rated as more attractive than White men. In physique blacks are more masculine " the highly polygynous, agricultural peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are … physically robust. They and their African American descendants outclass European-descended subjects for weight, chest size, arm girth, leg girth, muscle fiber properties, and bone density". Here Black women have higher rates of infertility. I think Black men have lower rates of preferential and exclusive homosexuality and Black women have higher rates of lesbian orientation. Unfortunately it is difficult to prove this because communities with a masculine biologic reproductive bias (like Jamaica) are extremely opposed to social acceptance of homosexuals or lesbians, and make them keep a low profile.

Stacey said, "As a young woman I feel weird chasing after a goodlooking Adonis type of guy. I think most handsome guys are gay so I just stick to the average looking guys."

Stacey, maybe you work somewhere with a higher percentage of gay males than most places?

I say this because I've never found it hard to quickly distinguish between gay and straight men. Body language and movement + noting whom HE is observing (gay men, closeted or not steal glances or stare openly at attractive men) and, all that failing, you can almost always tell with a very short conversation.

If you don't find a guy admiring attractive women, he's gay.

Sorry I meant "male looks".

Interesting point on make looks Anon. As a young woman I feel weird chasing after a goodlooking Adonis type of guy. I think most handsome guys are gay so I just stick to the average looking guys. I'm very happy so far. Very few average looking guys are homosexual. On the other hand good looking girls are usually always straight so that's why a lot of guys are confident going after hot girls, even if they get shot down. Goodlooking guys have this distant, etheral beauty. Like I can't catch them or something as a girl.

"Aren't male homosexuals better looking than heterosexual men?"

No, that notion is probably the result of gays gravitating to certain fields in which it helps to be attractive, acting and modeling, for example. However, the straight guys in acting and modeling are good looking also.

A walk through the Castro in SF or the Village in NY shows you the full range of looks.

Male homosexuals have a "gay face" that people recognize:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=something-queer-about-that-face

I don't think women find it attractive. People generally find it odd and freakish.

Aren't male homosexuals better looking than heterosexual men? Male homosexuals typically have nice faces and skinny bodies, contrasting the ugly faces and fat bodies of heterosexual men. Lesbians on the other hand are typically average or ugly-average in the face.

Right? Any input here?

Apparently many lesbians don't have sex:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/07/you-were-lied-to-by-your-penthouse.html

This contrasts with the general view that male homosexuals are promiscuous.

I decided to Google Scholar/Books some national prevalence rates to see how they compare to the GSS numbers. You would think that, say, 0% for Danish women is an absurd number, right?

But here's one 1988 survey from Denmark. The interviewer asked 625 women if they had had any homosexual experiences. Of those 625 women, only one said yes (0.16%)!

Example of big nose mating with big nose (and skinny pole with skinny pole)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/re_erection_campaign_Gppuedd8V87J5NCUQGHRoO

Weiner's got one of the ugliest noses I've seen on a guy. (In fact, recalling the pics, his male organ was the only thing about him that was average, not simply ugly).

Sean, a quick scan of those at a Saturday Little League game or soccer gathering tells me the ugly mate with the ugly, the averages with the averages, and the beautiful with the beautiful.

Do we have evidence that the uglies produce opposite-sex beautiful children? My eyes tell me "no."

How about number of offspring? Any difference among the three groups I mentioned?

I don't see any evidence (beyond, say, the very wealthy, where the old rich geezer gets a hot chick) that the beautiful breed with those that have a trait that marks them as unattractive.

Think about it. A bottle nose on a guy is as unattractive to a woman as a bottle nose on a woman is to a guy. Same for a pear-shaped body.

Chris, Look at the figures for Denmark. In Denmark homosexuality was legalised in 1933, the age of consent is 15, and it was the first country to legalize same sex unions. Nobody leaves Denmark to get away from homophobia Chris. Girly digit ratio = liberal permissive societies, but few lesbians. Your argument would have merit in relation to illiberal Jamaica (Beany Man sang “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the Gays”) where I would expect male homosexuals to be considerably less common than lesbians.

Denmark has a full share of male homosexuality but so few lesbians because Denmark has least masculine digit ratios and the lowest male fertility in Europe. Other countries with high digit ratios are Spain and Poland.

The 2nd:4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population
differences, and reproductive success:
evidence for sexually antagonistic genes?

Steve Sailor spotted this Why Doesn't Evolution Get Rid of …
"effects on males than in females. Extrapolating to humans (and oversimplifying, sorry) you might imagine that a particular shape of the nose or turn of the chin would look drop-dead hunky on a male, but horsey on a woman; dad got to mate because his looks attracted a female, but the result of their togetherness produced daughters whose pulchritude was less than obvious. Traits that evolutionary psychologists tell us make women unfit for mating (having the “wrong” shape) remain abundant in the human race because the DNA for the traits, when inherited by sons, confers a selective advantage; when those sons have daughters, presto—more females with less-than-hourglass shapes. Or as the Edinburgh biologists put it, “optimal genotypes differ between male and female red deer, because a genotype that produces a male phenotype with relatively high fitness will, on average, produce a phenotype with lower fitness when expressed in a female.”"

Sexual selection and ancestral Europeans

Perhaps any genetic factor is either oriented towards females or males. That's why you may end with more heterosexual women and gay men versus more heterosexual men and lesbian women. The genes either like men or women and these show up in both sexes.

The Chinese (and Japanese) sample size in the GSS really sucks… It's not really useful for anything.

This guy Arthur Hu seems to find a low homosexuality rate in East Asians, although I'm not sure I find his methodology sound -

http://www.arthurhu.com/index/agay.htm

Inductivist

http://inductivist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/racialethnic-differences-in.html

"Percent gay or bisexual

Males (sample size = 7,753)
Whites 3.4
Blacks 4.4
Mex-Ams 4.5

Females (sample size = 8,694)
Whites 2.7
Blacks 3.0
Mex-Ams 1.8"

http://inductivist.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/stop-hatin-start-participatin-not-all.html

"I told him that the prevalence of homosexuals is at least as high among blacks and Hispanics. According to the General Social Survey, it's 3.0% of white men, 5.4% of Hispanics, and 3.8% of blacks. I suggested that non-white homosexuals are more invisible since their ethnic groups are small, and there is less acceptance of the orientation among these groups.

According to The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 7.0% of white adolescent boys say that they have been romantically attracted to another boy. The corresponding number for blacks is 8.2% and 9.0% for Hispanics (N = 3,101). Interesting how the ranking is the same for the two surveys."

Jason:
The explanation seems straightforward.

Low male permissiveness means hostility to male homosexuals revealing themselves.

High female permissiveness means extramarital sex, and therefore less need to turn to lesbianism for companionship.

If I was forced to make a prediction I would’ve thought that liberal cultures facilitated more female homosexual behavior and had little to no effect on male homosexuality (which is caused by early biological factors).

But according to these numbers anyway, my suppositions could be wrong. Sexual permissiveness has a weakly positive association with male homosexuality (0.11) and a moderately negative association with female homosexuality (-0.28). Sexually conservative cultures have more lesbians, and sexually liberal cultures have fewer lesbians. I'm not sure how well this fits with the secular trends.

I also looked at the sexes separately:

Male permissiveness
0.27 gays
-0.13 lesbians

Female permissiveness
-0.08 gays
-0.36 lesbians

Male and female permissiveness has surprisingly little effect on the opposite sex, but a moderate-sized effect on own-sex. Male permissiveness is associated with more gays/bisexuals and female permissiveness is associated with less lesbians/bisexuals. It's possible that causality is running either way (e.g. do sexually liberal male cultures create more gays, or do gays generate more liberal standards for straight men).

In my original post I did underline that American ethnic groups might be atypical of their national forebears. And at least according to the GSS sample there is no skewed sex ratio for Chinese Americans.

Not surprisingly, he found that different national origins have different rates of homosexuality, given their different levels of sexual permissiveness

I did not mention sexual permissiveness, and didn't suspect is was related to (male) homosexuality. But since you've mentioned it I decided to test the theory.

I've given the ethnic groups a composite sexual permissiveness score by adding up responses to four questions: HOMOSEX (how wrong is homosexuality?), PREMARSX (premarital sex), TEENSEX (sex among 14-16 year olds), XMARSEX1 (extramarital sex). The questions are ranked on a four point scale: always wrong to never wrong. So higher scores = more permissive. I only included the responses of straight people, since the point is to see how cultural values might influence the rate of homosexuality.

Sexual Permissiveness (Max 12)
Russia 9.83
Italy 8.87
China 8.75
Poland 8.59
Czech 8.58
Fr. Can 8.29
Denmark 8.23
Puerto Rico 8.15
Greece 8.13
France 8.06
Mexico 8.04
Sweden 8.04
Ireland 7.97
Spain 7.95
Scotland 7.89
Norway 7.75
Germany 7.73
England 7.65
Philippines 7.46
India 7.43
Africa 7.39
Netherlands 7.24
Amerindian 7.21

A quick Excel calculation provided a correlation of -0.24 between male and female homosexuality, which is not significant on the 5%-level, if my computing was right. So if not reverse related both phenomena seem to be completely untight, which is interesting enough. Furthermore there is no relation to genetic distance: European values span from top to bottom of the table, while Filipinos cluster with Germans and Greeks. That hints to environmental factors. I had the vague suspicion before, that there could be an correspondence between occurrence of homosexuality and r/K-continuum (it is said that Jews and Japanese have a special affinity to male homosexuality while it is nearly unknown between Africans). But these figures don’t lend any support.

Anonymous, you might wish to consult the Wikipedia article on abortion in China, as well as its many references, to disabuse yourself of the notion that gender-selective abortion is not an important factor there. They cite a 2001 birthrate of 117 boys to 100 girls.

I believe this is because Chinese has aborted a lot of female babies and so you get an overbalance of males (e.g. 130 males for every 100 girls)

Do you have any real evidence of this?

I know lots of Chinese people, including in China, and I have seen no evidence of aborting of female babies.

In any event, in looking at the masculinity of different groups, we find the following:

Chinese < Caucasians < Sub-Saharan Africans

When we look at femininity, we see:

Sub-Saharan Africans < Caucasian < Chinese.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the obvious (to me, at least) selection effect at work here. These are all American residents with different national origins. These are the ones who, for one reason or another, broke with the mother country and went to America. Such people cannot be representative of their mother countries — if they were, they'd be back home! They're bold or driven or fugitive or ostracized or something else. Because their nation of origin strongly affects their reason for coming to the USA, I cannot imagine what useful inferences can be drawn from this data.

For instance, Chinese Americans may be highly susceptible to male homosexuality but only weakly susceptible to female homosexuality.

I believe this is because Chinese has aborted a lot of female babies and so you get an overbalance of males (e.g. 130 males for every 100 girls). Who will these men turn to companionship for? Not all of them will become priests or monks. Most of them will become single or celibate. Others will turn towards the same sex.

Little childish fascists out of horror movies. Strangely Orwellian in some cases with PC words…

Male homosexuals are little fascists in my experience. Ditto about lesbians…

I don't think the word for male homosexual should be "effimacy". It's more akin to being childish and throwing tantrums if they don't get their way (ever got the word bigot or homophobic innaccurately thrown at you?). Male homosexuals in their mannerisms remind me of children. They are like little fascists who cry, kick and scream.

Greece, cradle of Western civilization where pederasty was tolerated and adult male homosexual okay as long as the man wasn't penetrated, has more females homosexuals than male homosexuals?!? 11% for female homosexuality and 2.4% for male homosexuality? With all of those Greek male nude statues? I think I just fainted of disbelief.

I think this was deleted from the OK Cupid blog, but they put up a chart one time showing that very short and very tall men are more likely to be homosexual.

http://www.akawilliam.com/study-very-short-very-tall-men-more-likely-to-be-gay

As for women's rates increasing–that may simply be a reflection of the increase in a woman's economic self-sufficiency. Perhaps the rate of women attracted to men as sexual partners was never as high as we thought. Women may have married to have kids. The desire to have sex is simply not the driver of female "orientation" as it is for men. A lot of women who had kids may not have actually gone ahead and had them out of any maternal drive to procreate and the kids they had may not have been the result of the women's sexual lust for men but rather because they were conforming to societal norms.

As for the male homosexual–well, it's not really clear, is it, that the rate has really declined; it seems just as likely to be, as you suggested, "stable."

Drawing conclusions between data on male homosexuality and female homosexuality is tricky, like mixing apples and oranges.

Even straight Chinese men are rather effeminate. Seems like that should be relevant, though I'm not sure how to expand on that thought in a way that makes sense of the rest of the table.

"The interesting question, to me, is whether a major reduction in the reputational cost to men for same-sex sex will allow many more men to experience same-sex sex, or whether the vast majority of guys will still be stuck with compulsory heterosexuality even if they'd like to be bisexual or gay."

"Major reduction in the reputional cost to men"?

Honey, there IS no such "reduction." It's gone underground.

That men don't go around yelling "hey, faggot" and "look at the fairy boy," that women don't say outloud, "he's queer as a three dollar bill" or "ach, typical homo," or that gays aren't busted in the chops regularly on the streets does not mean there's been a "reduction in the reputational cost."

There's been an adoption of kinder language, a recognition among many(but certainly not all) that atypical biology doesn't make one a "perv," but make no mistake, every straight guy thinks, "God, I'm glad that's not me" and evey woman thinks, "God, I hope my son won't be gay," and men and women still look at one another after the limp-wristed and the gay couple walk off hand in hand and they say, "Uh…oh, well. They can't help it."

Just as attitudes about individuals and race have changed over the decades, you still don't find white men saying, "I wish I were black" and you don't find white women saying, "I wish I was black" and you don't find black males wishing to be white although I do know black females who wish they were.

So, no, no "reduction in reputational cost" much less a "major reduction in reputational cost."

And why would you expect it? After all, who would want to be less fit any more than they'd want to lose an arm or a leg?

The sentiment that if same-sex female sexuality happens for social reasons, it's somehow fake (and, often implied, to be despised or mocked). However, consistent with the findings on the non-specificity of female sexuality (e.g., turned on by monkey sex, all females turned on by naked women regardless of stated orientation, etc.), it seems that same-sex sexuality can be enjoyed by most women, even if the motivation is partially social (as with bonobos).

The cost of same-sex sex for females has always been low reproductively, and now it is also low reputationally as well – in fact, it may be beneficial to one's reputation.

Men, on the other hand, demonstrate more orientation-specific arousal patterns, and there's still a reputational cost. The interesting question, to me, is whether a major reduction in the reputational cost to men for same-sex sex will allow many more men to experience same-sex sex, or whether the vast majority of guys will still be stuck with compulsory heterosexuality even if they'd like to be bisexual or gay.

Jason Malloy, the assertion was similar to one Peter made: ""facultative male homosexuality seems to have been overtaken by the exclusive kind throughout northern Europe and North America. "Although Peter was suggesting environmental estrogens were responsible.

Homosexuality in Africa is often a expression of dominance. Symbol of Unhealed Congo: Male Rape Victims

The accelerating permissiveness of western countries should have produced a considerable increase in reported homosexual behaviour among males and females, but while female homosexualty has increased, male homosexuality has clearly declined significantly. If the population of the north European plain has been selected to optimise females' reproduction (as their appearance, biological fertility and 2D:4D seems to indicate) then the incidence of homosexuality among males ought to be particularly high, and the incidence of female homosexuality ought to be particularly low (all other things being equal). Of course all other things are not equal as the worlds lowest level of masculinity is found in the the least homophobic countries eg (previous post." Miller (2000) speculates that if a typical man inherits only a few of the alleles partially preventing androgenization, he would express more kindness, sensitivity, tendermindedness, and empathy.").

A corollary of the tender-mindedness of N. European societies is that they now have significant numbers of young who are NonEuropean. The observed decline in male homosexuality in Western countries fits rather well with NonEuropeans having lower rates of homosexuality. No conclusion can be drawn from the increase in female homosexuality as the ever increasing permissiveness of western society would account for that. In theory the widespread practice of polygyny could relax selection against females being preferentially and exclusively lesbian.

@Sean
Did you ever consider perhaps the higher rates of male homosexuality in european cultures reflects the fact that open homosexuality results in MURDER in many third world countries?

Or is that getting in the way of your "blacks on blondes" fantasy? A hypermasculine minimally human brown brute taking all of your nubile young blonde girls? YOur superior intellect and slow puberty can't compete with them and their fertility and aggression and masculinity. Then we devolve and it's over. Isn't that how your delusion goes?

Anecdotally, in america, where no one is murdered for being gay, it seems that black men are disporportionately homosexual to their rates in the population. Of course, this is just an armchair observation, I don't know if it is correct or not, but I strongly doubt european men, or northern european men, are more homosexual than are non-europeans. This likely reflects cultural pressures and nothing at all biological (i.e. the non-european men are on the DL, but just as gay as everyone else).

I never argued men like prepubertal girls, my argument was that if fertility exists (i.e. there are breasts and hips and a butt) men prefer the youngest possible female even if older, more fertile ones are available. So if given a choice between a 16 year old and a 21 year old, the man will prefer the 16 year old, if he has not been exposed to any social brainwashing or shaming to inhibit his natural sexual impulse.

This clearly suggests a youth preference exists for men, a preference SPECIFICALLY for youth, which is not related to fertility, as stated over and over again fertility is lower for an early or mid teenage girl.

So many people here forget that IVF started out as something fascistic and racist. Look at all of these modern liberal couples who have designer babies: rich whites. White liberals are perhaps the biggest hypocrites. They say they love blacks and hispanics but in their little gated communities there’s a lot of whites (and Jews) and little to no diversity. Look at all of the rich liberal classes that didn’t get affirmative action: white. The lower classes have much more diversity.

Daniel Latta – You are retarded. Even if gay men DO donate to sperm banks how many women out there want their children to be gay? I’m not a feminist. I’m not even a liberal chick. Lots of girls who go to sperm banks are racist and they want “perfect babies”. If I ever went there I would not have a gay sperm. I would terminate every and all children that were shown to be gay before birth. Got it?

Bisexuality is less common in North Europe.

So no shame whatever just making assertions backed up with no data?

At the time I made those posts I checked both the exclusively gay and gay+bi numbers. As noted above, though, I don't think bisexuality is a meaningfully different orientation for men (i.e. bisexuals are mostly gay). So I trust the numbers more when the two categories are combined.

But to address your assertion more directly, the ethnic ordering was very similar for exclusively male partners; groups with more gays tend to have more bisexuals.

It is not obvious to me that you have contradicted my suggestion that preferential exclusive homosexuality is more common in the north of Europe. Finland is an outlier.

Bisexuality is less common in North Europe.

"Male homosexuals are more common among north Europeans than other populations… Non-European men are less likely to be homosexual…"

Or, as I showed last week by comparing ethnic groups in the GSS, Northern European men averaged lower rates of male homosexuality, while non-white groups averaged higher rates.

The correlation of latitude with homosexuality was -.27 for men, and -.40 for women. Temperate ancestry is associated with less homosexuality.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/sexual-liberation-in-fish-is-nothing-to-celebrate/259739/

"Despite ongoing health concerns about the endocrine-disrupting chemical known as BPA — that it may promote breast cancer growth, for instance, harm sperm quality, or cause erectile dysfunction — the Food and Drug Administration has yet to come down hard on the use of the substance in consumer products. It's still regularly found in our water bottles, soda cans, and even receipts.

But while we might look past threats to our own health, a new study published yesterday in the journal Evolutionary Applications linking BPA to inter-species mating in fish may be troubling enough to make the issue worth revisiting."

"The study, which looked at the mating behavior between blacktail shiners and red shiners that spent two weeks in BPA-contaminated tanks, found that the substance messed with the fishes' hormones enough to cause changes in both appearance and behavior, culminating in an all-out cross-species lovefest."

Male homosexuals are more common among north Europeans than other populations. North European men are possibly more likely to be exclusively gay than bisexual.

Non-European men are less likely to be homosexual, but Non-European women are more likely to be lesbians.

Given than North European culture is the most liberal on earth and getting more permissive by the year, it is surely true that North Europeans are more likely to self identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than people in non North European culture. So how explain a fall in self reported male homosexuality and an increase in self reported lesbians, eh?

The ethnic composition of the population of western countries has altered since 1980. That explains a fall in men with same sex sexual experiences and an increase in women with same sex sexual experiences, if we accept that north European men are less likely to be hetrosexual and north European women more likely to be hetrosexual

Anonymous, in Britain the most read newspaper formerly featured huge photos of barely 16 year old models, topless. Samantha Fox was by far the most popular, and she was far from underdeveloped.

Anon at 4:45,

I can't tell if your message is to me or to another person as you have screwed up the message times, but I'll say this one more time and then let it die because for the most part, I can't figure out what you're arguing about.

Yes, for the last time, men are attracted to 15 year old females, or 13 or 14 *if* they possess certain secondary sexual characterisitics. That's not news! No one has been arguing against that point!

The disagreement is whether the young men in the cruise ad are 1)masculine-looking (since the comment was made that gay men like "masculinity" in the general sense of the word, a comment I felt too broad a statement to be accurate); 2) whether those young men in the ad are analogous physically in their "masculinity" to young females in their "femininity."

Conventional wisdom has said that gay men like boys because evolutionarily they are no different from straight men who like girlish females. (Of course there are many now who deny this and claim, "No, gay men overwhelmingly prefer manish men." Can have it both ways. )

I posited that it might be that those gay men who prefer the type of male like those in the ad do so because they like the female-type characteristics they display coupled with the fact they have the male body part. You say it's only the "youth" that they like and that "youth" and "female" are synonymous.

Until we know what a human's sexual circuits look like (as Dulac of Harvard has learned about the dual circuits that exist in the mouse, showing that the female mouse brain has both male and female circuits and that its male circuit is silenced by a gene controlling the VNO pheromone processing) we don't know what's controlling the attraction patterns, how the cues are processed, or how the circuit(s) work. Heck, we might find out that there are dual circuits and that in some people both of the circuits or parts of two circuits are flipped to the "on" position, flipped "on" for certain traits but not others. That could explain the "attracted to young but non-masculine" even more than "attracted to young period."

Several stimuli forming a kind of typical package may provoke a typical male sexual response while in a small percentage of other males sensory cues are processed differently. Receptors for both the typical and atypical responses leave a lot of room for mixed responses to certain traits.

In other words, in the homosexual male, we already have an atypical response in selecting a mate. It doesn't tax credulity to think it possible that in some who are already atypical there might not just be "youth + masculine" but also "youth + boyish-girlish."

Simply saying "youth = feminine" may not be what's going on.

When it comes to human sexual attraction, conventional wisdom has been wrong lots of times.

I'm done.

@anon 11:04
By your own admission the WHR of a 15 year old girl is more childish than a 25 or 21 year old woman. However, men go crazy for the 15 year old face. That is the IDEAL.

It's almost as if you don't want to believe this: men PREFER teenagers. It's not just about boobs/hips/waist. Something in a masculine brain is sexually aroused by youth. Not prepuberty, but youth…as young as possible while being minimally fertile (and that is approximately 15 yrs old).

What utility could a youth preference have for men? It can't be fertility as fertility is crap for a 15 yr old compared to a 21 year old.

Virginity. It also nicely explains human social behavior to sell and trade female virginity, and this practice exists in all human cultures. Men value virginity and this is a genetic imperative, so male sexual behavior exhibits this youth seeking preference unique to males.

(and, i believe pedophilia and "twinks" culture among gay men may be a male specific phenomena related to this youth preference, being expressed maladaptively).

Men will do a 30 year old, but would they PREFER the 15 year old. That is the issue here. We are speaking preference and it is overwhelmingly clear the male preference is pretty much a female at the earliest fertility (even though this is inferior fertility compared to older women).

Regarding your argument that "girls mature faster"…this is true but irrelevant because women still do not prefer youth. Women do not ideally prefer an 18 or 20 year old man even though this is his peak testosterone and sexual drive. Most women value status and accomplishment in their male partners and prefer men with some signs of age (not being aged, but slightly older). The utility of this preference is equally obvious: slightly older dominant men likely possess good genes for your children.

Finally, male/female sexual dynamics always suggest inequity in age, where a sexually successful man is implied as older and a sexually desired female is implied as younger. Men are called "daddy" and attractive women are called "girls". We don't call attractive women "women", the word "woman" is reserved for older females who are not attractive to men. Men call hot girls "girls". Women do not call attractive men "boys", although gay men will (if they are into twinks).

It seems most females have a hard time accepting that men prefer very young females and only are interested in older ones as an afterthought, if they can't do better, or if they are too moral/social to chase the teenagers. I suppose it is like asking one to accept that their sexual value is uber low.

I take it neither of you have heard of gay men donating to sperm banks?

"This has to be explained better than "OMG I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!!".

HUH? Who suggested that?

"15 year old girls have less secondary sexual characteristics than 25 year olds but men prefer the 15 year olds."

Such as? I know that on average their pelvic/uterine area is not as developed as females who are a bit older, but I'm interested in knowing what exterior secondary sexual characteristics they have fewer of.

I know 15 year old American girls well, having taught sophomores for 25 years.

Bottom line: a female of 15 is more mature looking than a male of 15. Go into any high school class and you can observe it. Most of the 15 year old boys haven't had the growth spurt that will occur in another year or two nor do they shave nor have their brows ridges formed as those of the mature male nor have their eyebrows grown bushy…..

@anon 9:47

15 year old girls have less secondary sexual characteristics than 25 year olds but men prefer the 15 year olds. Nothing you say can undo the studies proving this over and over, and natural male human behavior in times of war (to murder women older than the very early 20s, and to preference the young daughters who have just started puberty) This has to be explained better than "OMG I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!!".

No one is arguing that men prefer undeveloped children. I am arguing that men prefer children who have entered puberty.

Women do not prefer men who have just entered puberty. THis is a very real innate biological difference that needs to be explained.

The ironic thing is we have such difficulty seperating youth from feminity, that my arguments seem almost insane. Youth and feminity are synonymous.

@anon whether or not the gay men in the ads are masculine (or not) is irrelevant, the point is masculinity has a high sexual value to gay men. This is as fat women describe themselves as "athletic ".

Perhaps the reason gay men seem attracted to "small" men is because "small" men are usually gay, so it only seems this way? From whta I can tell, gay men prefer masculine/larger men: actors like the rock, and fassbender, and mannegelio, and chris hemmsworth (I murdered the spelling of a few of these names I'm sure).

I don't argue gay men are feminine inherently, I only argue that they prefer small feminine men most of the time. It only seems this way because their sexual opions are limited to men who like men, and this usually turns out to be feminine men.

A large buff gay man is the ideal from a gay male perspective…it's just rare to occur

Similar to how a femmie lesbian is super rare, so lesbians tend to pair up with very masculine looking partners. This doesn't necessarily mean lesbians prefer masculine women, it only means that most lesbians are very masculine, and hyperfeminine lesbians are extremely rare outside of straight male porn (as testosterone excess prenatally usually translates postnatally, so most strict lesbians look more or less like men).

Similarly if a fat unattractive woman pairs up with a fat unattractive man, it doesn't mean she prefers him to brad pitt, it only means she can't do better.

"Did I not SAY that men are attracted to such females? Yes, I did? Can you read?

However, she is not flat-chested with sticks for legs; she does not have unarched brows and thin lips nor is her hip to waist ratio 1:1. These are the characteristics of the physically immature girl."

Men exhibit a preference for 15 year olds even if the body is hidden from view.

An estrogen mediated body shape is a prerequisite for male attraction, but it is the youthfulness of the face and markers of extreme youth (like coyness and naivete and blonde hair that many older women fake) that determines the extent of his attraction; men prefer signs of extreme youth, this is true INDEPENDENT of boobs/butt/waist being equal. Needs to be explained better than all of the squirming here.

"Again, heritability is not a measure of trait stability over time, it is the proportion of phenotypic variance accounted for by genetic relatedness."

I agree, but that wasn't my point. I also agree that male homosexuality seems to involve a weak genetic predisposition interacting with an environmental agent that acts either in utero or very early in life.

All this being said, if a trait shows much variability among individuals of a single population, the likelihood of high heritability is reduced.

Conversely, if a trait shows little variability within a single population, the likelihood of high heritability is greater. I'm not saying that this pattern is without exceptions. But the pattern is definitely there.

In the case of twin studies, higher heritability for lesbianism, may simply mean that women are exposed to a more restricted range of environmental variability than men are.

"When males are shown unadorned female faces of varying ages the consensus is that the childish female of 15 years old is the most beautiful. She is more beautiful than the 21 year old, more beautiful than the 23 year old."

Did I not SAY that men are attracted to such females? Yes, I did? Can you read?

However, she is not flat-chested with sticks for legs; she does not have unarched brows and thin lips nor is her hip to waist ratio 1:1. These are the characteristics of the physically immature girl.

"Most gay ads seeking gay hookups will advertise that they are masculine and 'straight looking'."

Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, we all know about the ads. I've read Bailey's work on gay men who put up ads …because we all know that gay men love masculinity and they themselves are masculine…. yet twinks abound and lots of gay men with facial hair call themselves bears to demonstrate their masculinity, yet when they open their mouths….the proverbial purse falls out.

Seriously. I live around a lot of gays and they come in all types and shapes, yes, but MOST have a great deal in common with one another–an inherent femininity and an attraction for many feminine/female characteristics in other men, including an attraction to smallish men.

"I would argue that ironically natural male sexual behavior is to prefer very underdeveloped females who are barely passed puberty. Males are innately driven to youth."

Give me a break. "A natural male sexual behavior" is to prefer young females (easy to please, easy to impress, inexperienced, easy to manipulate, yada, yada, yada) whose secondary sexual characteristics are right there in front of him–firm and young breasts, thighs, buttocks, nice waist to hip ratio, full lips, etc.

"Young" and "Underdevelottidped"? Yeah, right.

@Ben10
Basically if all the hot 12 year old white girls get with the brutish but rapidly mature brown guys, we will devolve and humanity is fucked and you won't get any poon.

Thumbs up!

@Sean It doesn't stand to reason that prenatal testosterone can be reflected in the face, as postnatal testosterone is responsible for secondary sexual characteristics (i.e. the sexual dimorphic face).

What DOES stand to reason is that prenatal testosterone excess is predicative of postnatal testosterone excess (e.g. an adrenal gland that pours out testosteorne) so it only incidentally is true that masculine faced women are also masculine brained lesbians.

Heterosexual anal sex is a trend, mostly amongst heterosexual men. Women are not encouraging anal sex, this is a phenomenon men heard about from interent porn and encourage their partners to do it. The person saying anal sex is feministic: you are a crazy moron.

Non-european groups are very unaccepting of homosexuality so I find it hard to believe there are more homosexual identified people in non-europeans. There may be actually MORE true homosexuals in non-europeans but this would be purely a biological phenomenon (perhaps because insulin resistance is more common in non-europeans, resulting in more lesbian/bisexual orientation as stated there is a relationship between testosterone excess and insulin resistance in adrenal gland).

I would also argue your face chart doesn't demonstrate masculine faces but non-european faces, such as wide almond shaped eyes and a wide nose. Testosterone does not widen the nostrils and eyes, these are ethnic features unrelated to sex steroids. IMO much of your argument is thinly veiled racism/eurocentricity.

I would also point out that gay men who prefer "twinks" are in the minority. Most gay ads seeking gay hookups will advertise that they are masculine and "straight looking".

Most gay men prefer masculinity.
Those gay men who are twink oriented are very rare, probably about as rare as true pedophiles (which, I suspect, is a male brain specific aberration, where youth preference is abnormally dominant to the point where a pre-pubertal preference is manifested as opposed to the adaptive typical "cusp of puberty " or "early puberty" preference of typical males).

I would also note that female biology responded to the male preference for virginal children, by estrogen modulating appearance to enhance youth. Estrogen lightens the skin and puffs up the face and widens the eyes and minimizes the harshness of the jawline, because these are all features of childhood. As one grows and develops the skin will darken, the skin will thin and wrinkle and lose suppleness and this is true regardless of gender.

Many of the things we describe as "feminine" are more accurately described as "juvenile". Light skin is feminine because men evolved to prefer children, so women responded by looking more childish (to enhance their sexual value). It's like a game of supply and demand; men prefer virgins, and children are virgins. Women want to land the fittest reproductive partner, so women who are successful at looking like children are considered the most beautiful by men, who prefer children. On and on and on until we arrive where we are today: women have a sex steroid (estrogen) which modulates the appearance to enhance youth and delay physical signs of age.

Women look younger when they are fertile (ovulating) because the very high estrogen at this time dials back signs of age.

Fertile women are good to enhance their beauty as much as possible (i.e. looking as minimally fertile as possible, as young as possible) because this results in better partners for them.

@anon

"
Yes, as I pointed out above, they do, but such young females are attractive to the male precisely_ because_ they_ exhibit_ the_ physical_ traits_ of_ female maturity (and fertility)."

I would argue that youth preference is intrinsically masculine and male-brained. You are assuming normal heterosexual male behavior is to prefer sexually mature women with curves. I would argue that ironically natural male sexual behavior is to prefer very underdeveloped females who are barely passed puberty. Males are innately driven to youth, and PREFER children to older women in spite of the fact older women are more fertile and have healthier babies.

When males are shown unadorned female faces of varying ages the consensus is that the childish female of 15 years old is the most beautiful. She is more beautiful than the 21 year old, more beautiful than the 23 year old. Your average male brained person loses his shit for children who are at the most minimal level of fertility.

Now, the utility of this masculine brain preference for children is obvious: women can conceal pregnancy and can conceal paternacy of offspring. Males have responded to this by having a preference for sexually inexperienced females, virgins.

In natural human societies, men will occasionally form bands and engage in tribal warfare against other human groups. The spoils of the war are territory, other resources, and above all else: lots and lots of females. It has been observed that these men, engaging in totally unpoliced natural male human behavior, will PREFER the young girls, the teenagers, and will literally murder any woman older than 23 or so. Men want teenagers.

It is only in gentile modern society that men marry 32 year old women; in a natural human society, men pretty much prefer kids, and the reason is obvious: virgins are the best bet if you want to pass on your genes.

Youth preference is totally absent from feminine brained people, as it has no utility, and quite the opposite, may be very disasterous.

So, gay men who prefer masculine people but "Boys", may be expressing a sexual preference unique to some gay men. Jerry Sandusky may be expressing a specific type of hormone situation that can only happen in a man.

It should be noted NOT ALL gay men prefer "twinks" (boys), some gay men are more like women and prefer older men, masculine men, men with hair and roughness about them. Thus the "Twink vs bear" dichotomy in gay culture. I suspect the gay men who prefer "twinks" are more masculine brained, with more male traits, whereas the gay men who prefer "bears" are expressing a more feminine arousal pattern, to prefer dominance and mastery and a slightly older masculine partner.

@anon 12:35 said "
Assuming the hypothesis is correct, what is interfering with typical hormonization in the womb or shortly thereafter? "

It could be any number of things.

In the case of lesbianism, it may be Maternal stress and insulin resistance. Insulin resistance will result in adrenal glands making excessive testosterone (insulin sensitivity in the adrenal is necessary to turn off testosterone synthesis). The adrenal gland is a major source of testosterone for fetus prenatally, and people who are insulin resistant may overproduce adrenal testosterone. This also explains the high rates of weight problems in lesbian women, as there is a relationship between insulin signalling/obesity/adrenal androgens. A very common female reproductive disorder is PCOS, which is caused by an overproduction of androgens from ovaries and in 50% of cases the adrenal glands. Lesbian and bisexualism is much higher in women with PCOS than the general population, probably because this disorder (which causes very high testosterone) also was active and influencing brain development prenatally or early post natally. The woman has a brain that has been influenced by testosterone and so is oriented in a male fashion… just as PCOS also causes secondary sexual characteristics common to males like hair growth on face, loss of hair on head, masculinization of facial features (growth of jaw/nose/forehead) and so on.

There are a number of drugs, toxins, perhaps viruses that may interfere with the delicate balance of hormones shaping the fetal brain, or the early neonatal period. Perhaps the mother was taking estrogenic birth control while she was implanted with a male fetus?
Perhaps an autoimmune reaction to testosterone resulted in insufficient testosterone shaping the male brain to a masculine arousal pattern?

There are probably multiple routes to the hormonal signalling imbalance which causes true bi/homosexuality. Some will be genetic, some won't be at all, but ALL ARE BIOLOGICALLY INNATE AND UNCHANGEABLE.

If I inject an adult female with testosterone, after a few months she will look exactly like a man in terms of face and voice pitch. This is not a genetic disorder, but it is no less biologically real than the natural process of male puberty, where bathing in testosterone from his testes results in those same changes to voice and face.

If this was the case, gay men would have gone extinct thousands of years ago. Your own statistics show that gay men born in the twenties had one fewer child, on average, than straight men, and these men came of age before gay liberation. Gay men have always had significantly fewer children than straight men, because we don’t enjoy straight sex and have it much less often. Even if we marry for social reasons, we aren’t pestering our wives for it. We’re avoiding it.

Vaginal sex is inherently procreational and feminists don't like that so they focus on oral and anal (e.g. sodomy and recreation).

Heterosexual anal sex is a result of birth control and the sexual revolution.

Anal has become the god of recreational sex since vagical intercourse is procreational.

European women are further from the 'cusp'. Look at them. I cited studies showing that lesbian orientation is directly related to prenatal tetosteronization, which can be assessed from the face.

North Europeans are the least testosteronized people on earth. Look at them. I think it follows that European women are less predisposed to be lesbians as a result.

The liberal societies of Europe are increasingly permissive about homosexual experimentation, and increasingly made up of non Europeans. There is an increase in Kinsey scale 5 and 6 (ie exclusively or predominantly lesbian) from non European women. In an increasingly permissive culture it would be expected that women consenting to experimentation with previously taboo sexual activities would become more common. It is not just bisexuality, I cited data showing heterosexual anal sex is rapidly becoming common.

My proposed explanation accounts for a decrease in male homosexuality and bisexuality despite the culture becoming ever more permissive.

Yaeh, maybe maybe maybe. I don't deny the existence of hormones-like chemicals in our environment, starting with out tapwater, but the big picture is that the normal evolution we should expect is a desexualized and or delayed sexualized behavior and body, i.e., neoteny. That has been and should be the NORMAL trend in humankind evolution. So, young individuals who feel insecure or not yet determined fit very well in this trend. The problem is that these young people are preyed by our oversexualized marchandizing environment, which let them believe that if they are delayed in their sexual appetite, they must be gay or lesbian.
Not at all, here, the environment is abnormal. To me, the most counter-natural consequences of living in the occidental environment, with its constant references to sex in the medias in addition to oestrogen pollution, is the advancement of the age of first menstrues and puberty. That is the un-natural effect that runs the most counter to the trend of neoteny in humankind.
And absolutely everything is made to stop this natural evolutionary trend.
For example, in the caucasian populations, it has always been said that boys were slightly delayed (in sexual behavior and/or development) compared to girls of the same age. So when you had a mixed class of caucasian girls and boys in middle school, what hapened? mostly nothing, because girls were not attracted by the boys in their class and everything was OK. Now if you introduce some non-caucasian boys sexually more advanced (sometimes active) in these classes, the girls find their match and, in addition to have out of control classes, this promotes early sexual activities in girls. I even go to say that the presence of more mature males together with the hormonal stimulation accelerate in return the sexual maturation of girls.
At this rate all girls will be mature by ten and we will be back to erectus in 20 years. 800 000 years of human evolution trashed!

Now if the evolutionary trend to neoteny was respected, we would have individuals with late sexual maturation and therefore with a longer 'learning phase', that is, probably smarter, not as sexually active, more aware in general, in short more humans and less animals. Of course it doesn't go very well with our consumerism lifestyle and this could threaten the actual balance of power. Therefore Human Evolution is a threat to 'some' who might find more comfortable the idea of hyperprecocious girls and gay men, who are by the way, both a pillar of consumerism. Everything makes sense.

Anon at 12:35 said,

"When a MAN says he is gay, you know what you are getting. You are getting a man who has a brain which gets reflexively physically aroused by muscles, masculine faces, height, deep voices, male pheromones, etc. There is no ambiguity with gay men. When a man says he is gay, you know what that means… it means that his brain is sexually interested in masculinity, like a female's brain should be. "

I get your point, but there is something not quite right in what you have described, and it's worth mentioning.

It's not altogether accurate to say that gay men are attracted to "masculinity" as you have said.

Consider that straight males find sexually developed young females attractive. They are attracted to the "adult" form of the female, even if that female is only 15 or a precociously mature 14. As long as she has the developed curvature and other physical characteristics of a sexually mature female, the straight male finds her attractive.

But take a look at this link to gay cruises. (link at bottom of post). The males portrayed in the ad are hardly the masculine model you mentioned. These models may be of legal age, but physically they look like boys entering puberty, "twinks" as gay men call them. You might respond with, "Well, straight guys find young females attractive just as gays find young males attractive."

Yes, as I pointed out above, they do, but such young females are attractive to the male precisely_ because_ they_ exhibit_ the_ physical_ traits_ of_ female maturity (and fertility).

The young males pictured do not suggest "masculinity" at all–they are light, hairless, and posing for the camera in a manner that is associated with femininity, and further, they have an unimposing stature. In short, hey suggest youth and femininity, *not* youth and masculinity.

They are the physical type of male that a fairly substantial portion of the gay population finds attractive. There is a substantial percentage of gay men who find the coquettishness and other traits of young females (soft, hairless, physically smaller than a male) quite attractive and these models for a gay cruise indicate that preference among many.

It's interesting, then, that we don't find their analog in the straight world. We don't find a large percentage of straight men attracted to young women who simply have a vagina (just as these non-masculine models have a penis) but who do not exhibit other traits of feminine sexual maturity.

It's as if many gay men have brains that do indeed want a female mate in that they are attracted to female characteristics….but they want that femaleness/femininity coupled with a penis.

I realize other gay men are indeed attracted to fully masculizined men, but it's interesting to note that large percentage of them prefer what you see in the picture. For these men, I'd not say they were seeking masculinity but rather seeking a female/male combo.

(http://www.passportmagazine.com/destinations/GayCruiseCalendar2012.php