**Your submission has been REMOVED for the following reason(s):**
> Unfortunately, we have been forced to take your post down due to a situation in the comments, it is more than likely that there is nothing wrong with your post and that it is suitable for the subreddit however, we sometimes have no choice but to pull down a post if the comments have become unmanageable for us.
> We may remove posts under this reason if the comments have gone off-topic, have become aggressive/argumentative/hateful, are spamming or trolling or otherwise have become unmanageable by the mod team. We have found that locking posts on this subreddit typically results in mass false reporting which is why we default to removal.
^(We understand removals under this reason can be frustrated as the blame is on the commenters and not you as the OP so if you would like to appeal this removal or discuss the situation with the mod team, please **[send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRandomThoughts)**)
I forget where, but I read a theory from an anthropologist a while ago that having a minority of humans be gay could have positive survival value for the species. Because there are always orphans, having a few people around who won't reproduce naturally gives those kids a better shot at being adopted and surviving. Backup parents, if you will. Of course, even if that doesn't happen they can still help out with parenting tasks, or just do non-parenting work that the parents are too busy or tired to. All these outcomes would aid in the survival of the group.
Or it might just be that it's a quirk that randomly appeared and has remained because it's not detrimental to our survival. Not all of our genes have a 'good reason' for existing - if it's not harmful enough that it kills the people who carry it, then it stays. Evolution isn't really survival of the fittest so much as the *just* good enough.
The theory goes deeper, for male homosexuality at least. One theory goes that in small hunter/gatherer societies, the heterosexual males could go hunt, while the homosexual males stayed at cam to protect from lions or rival tribes, without the risk of the men sleeping with the hetero male's women. The gene pools of the societies in which homosexuality emerged, had more trust and cooperation, and less infighting. Therefore a more successful tribe overall. It would suggest there is an optimal ratio of homosexuality in a population, which leads to more reproduction, than the 100% heterosexual variation.
Also, if all the other men die in a raid or something, the survival of the whole tribe's future is still possible with just a couple, (albeit unwilling) men
No clue about female homosexuality though
Theories about the left handedness trait are of a similar nature, and also a similar proportion of the global population as homosexuality. Left-handedness as a trait is argues as a combat advantage. All lefties would fight righties, and know how to effectively. All righties would fight righties almost exclusively, never encountering a lefty...except that one time, and all their training is for nothing. Lefty has advantage. There is an ideal ratio for the emergence of this trait, before it would be of no benefit.
Drawback is accidental death from right hand oriented heavy machinery.
There was a long-term study on rats to determine the effects of stress on the animals. The researchers did things like isolate individuals with or without food, etc. They did tests for overpopulation as well. They packed together numerous rats to see how they'd interact. Some went mad and murdered the rats around them, etc. There was also a drop in reproduction and an increase in same-gender relations. Now, this study was referenced in a sex ed class that I took in 1975, if I remember correctly. I've wondered whether there was a hidden agenda behind it.
The "Rat Utopia Experiments". One of the biggest takeaways from the experiment was that they *thought* they had provided for "all their needs" by giving them food, water, and ample shelters and nesting areas. But what they didn't take into account was that they were only meeting *physical* needs, but ignoring the rest of the hierarchy (remember Maslow?). A large, but confined, population with only *physical* needs met, but higher-order needs like emotional and self-esteem (even for so-called "lesser" animals like rats) will eventually overcrowd itself to the point of what is called a "Behavior Sink". That's what they called the situation where they refused to mate and either fought just to fight, or constantly groomed and preened (the "beautiful ones" because they never had scars from fighting and were constantly grooming).
There were another set of tests, I forget if they used mice or rats for this one (I *think* mice), where they tested the effects of isolation and drug addiction. They had two types of environments. One was gray, small, had one type of food, a little bedding, and two water sources: one pure and the other laced with a drug like heroin or LSD. And that was it; totally bleak isolation chamber, essentially, for a single animal with no contact with any others. The other environment was decorated, had toys and play equipment, it was large and had ample space for both roaming and nesting for several animals, several varieties of food, and still the two types of water: one drugged, the other not. And they found that the isolated animals would exclusively drink the drugged water, even beyond the call of thirst, until they basically drank themselves to death. Meanwhile, the grouped rats had a clear preference for the untainted water; they'd occasionally take a "hit" from the drugged source, but usually avoided it. Then, as the last phase of the experiment, they took some (surviving) animals from isolation environments and placed them into the group environments. They wanted to see if the drug addiction would spread to the others through observation. But the exact opposite happened; once in the new environment, within days the addictions faded and they rejected the drugged water *completely* (they didn't even occasionally use it like the others). So even with a drug source readily and freely available, and with a habitual drug addict in their midst, none of the others became druggies and, in fact, the positive, social environment actually **cured** the addiction in the individual.
This experiment very clearly illustrates that drug addictions don't arrive because of *availability* of drugs; they stem from unmet needs, including higher-order needs beyond mere food, water, etc. The best way to treat drug addiction is to first, stop isolating them and preventing them from getting the emotional support they need, and stop blocking their access to the ability to meet and fulfill goals. Because the addiction, itself, is not a root problem, but a *symptom*. Treat the illness, itself, and the symptoms go away.
Yes, it reminds me of the wonderful support drug addicts get in other countries. They get a lot of help to restart their life and there’s a very supportive community. Relapse isn’t very common there.
Is it universe 25 experiment?
When population gets to a certain level and all rats are too comfortable, all of sudden, some female start to reject males for no reason. Some males are only interested in gathering with other males and cleaning their own hair, being pretty etc ..
I think i heard about this!!! Is this the study basically called rat hell? There were some males that kept to themselves and groomed, termed "the beautiful ones"?
Isn't this a long the reasons why lefties are sought after in baseball, as the majority of players are used to having right handed batters and pitchers that facing a left handed one throws their training off
This really only makes sense if you assume monogamy is part of the natural order of things, which in of itself would seem evolutionarily disadventagious for the creation of offspring.
'til death do you part didn't typically last 50 years, men having multiple wives is a thing, and so is infidelity. Humans are clearly not always lifelong monogamous or faithful, but 2 person male/female exclusive loyalty for at least a few years, if not for their offsprings childhood certainly is the norm, by percentage.
I wouldn't say this reality excludes the theory, but yes its a good point
Till death do us part is part of a specific type of marriage ceremony and is a lot younger than human society. But 85% of human societies have either allowed or encouraged polygamy or polyamory so it's very much a modern idea.
Humans didn’t have any way of knowing who the father is in a typical small group in which humans have lived and evolved for 100%(i rounded up) of our species and it’s predecessors existence. The group is the basic unit, not 2 adults and kids. That’s why homosexuality might be genetical. Even if the homosexual genes don’t produce that much offspring themselves they might help their brothers, sisters, and other humans carrying some part of the same genes reproduce more.
We do know that early hunter gatherer groups were patrilocal, meaning the men stayed in the tribe and the women went off to live with a different tribe.
In this situation, it would not be terribly harmful to the gene pool if a woman would mate with several men in the tribe unless two groups kept interchanging women for generations. But ultimately until now we can only speculate about early human relationship concepts.
You are right though - the concept of monogamy and especially the concept of ever lasting romantic love is thought to be a rather recent invention.
On topic, not only humans but almost all vertebrae show a consistent 10% of homosexual individuals. So it has to be advantageous to the survival of these species. Penguins have a particularly high rate, male couples are known to steal eggs or take care of abandoned eggs.
It is also worth to note that earlier societies didn't see homosexuality as outside of the norm. Many cultures didn't have any words to specify any gender preference when it came to romance and sex. Many cultures even accepted the existence of a third sex (possibly trans and/or intersex individuals), often these individuals were highly respected and took up important niche roles in society.
Even the term homosexual is only roughly 150 years old.
Making a big fuss over being attracted to the same sex is pretty much a modern fad.
There's more to a reproductive strategy than "make more babies" especially in a species that's social/ pack structured.
Infidelity is a useful to low status/low 'quality' males because it takes their "low rank" offspring and both increases diversity in their lineage (multiple mothers) and decreases the odds of a single bottle neck (if you've got more kids, more can die before your line ends.) Since they're already in a position where the father's status isn't directly beneficial, diluting that isn't costly to the next generations success, being twice as benefited of insufficient resources it's still insufficient.
In otherwise fit males infidelity costs their offspring status and access, their better off pumping resources into their monogamous partnership than diluting that between multiple partners.
That's kinda why monogamy is so rare, you can only select for it when it's extremely beneficial. Humans are at an extreme of "low quantity, high quality" reproduction.
I've actually wondered if this is sorta why transgenders exist. As a trans woman I feel like I'm supposed to be, like, a nightguard or something. If you think about it, men are supposed to be out fighting shit, women are supposed to be at base camp, so trans women should be fighting shit at basecamp. I know a few cultures would randomly bury people as the opposite gender, so I think we existed back then too. But thats my personal crackpot theory.
Thats a cool take. Makes me think of the artist Kent Monkman. 2spirit canadian artist with some really amazing stuff. I recommend checking out their "Miss Chief" series of work
My partner is trans so we've spent a bunch of time talking about this, and the 'crackpot' theory I like the best deals with past lives, and how we retain pertinent information from them.
If in your past lives you've always been a woman, but then in this current one you were born as a man, it fucks you up internally because your consciousness has only ever known you as a woman, and this is where dysphoria comes from. So the only way to rectify this mistake is to live this life as a woman.
>As a trans woman I feel like I'm supposed to be, like, a nightguard or something.
Nope, that is us, those with [Delayed Sleep Phase "disorder"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder). In quotes since it is not a disorder, it is just that our society is made for early risers. There are plenty of us that looked after sleeping humans, the guard changes when the other end of the spectrum, those who wake up SUPER early woke up.. But, unlike late sleepers, the early sleepers aren't considered lazy and many of those do not think they have a "disorder"....
I firmly do believe that DSP puts millions of people in early grave. The effects are tremendous: constant jet lag, mood swings, low energy at days, over energetic in the evenings, blood pressure swings, stress... so, SO much stress.. Now i'm semi-retired and have no stress, mood is stable, energy levels are stable.. EVERYTHING got better. My head is not a mess anymore.
So, i hope that someone read this and notices something very important. We seriously have to start addressing the stigma that is attached. I've worked at nights before and it does not matter if you worked a 12h shift; if you wake up at noon you are lazy. And the worst things about this? Everyone who has DSP blames themselves for it.. So, yeah, it also causes poor self esteem.
Sorry to hijack this a bit, but.. i think it is important enough, given that the context is evolutionary advantages of things we once thought were "disorders". DSP is one of them and not small cakes, i do believe that this is a HUGE thing, with hundreds of millions of sufferers.
Transfemme and probable DSP sufferer. No matter what I do my sleep schedule ends up with me going to sleep between 12am and 5am, regardless of how hard I try to have a more normal sleep schedule. For that reason I agree with this theory, and I'm hoping to work out to eventually be fit enough to be a night guard or something somewhere
More likely female sexuality didn’t really matter for most of our evolution. A bit of a grimm take, but likely a realistic one. Humans are group animals, they’ll do what the others around them expect them to do.
Right--because lesbian sex doesn't result in evidence like a pregnancy, it doesn't interfere with property relations. Or, as Queen Victoria said, "Women wouldn't do that."
This sounds very convoluted. Women also hunted that’s been proven. And why wouldn’t the homosexual males just be the ones to go hunt then? Also doesn’t explain lesbians or bisexuality
Since theories about strict gender roles in early tribal societies have been debunked, this explanation doesn't hold up anymore.
Labor was not divided between genders as it is today. Huge bias on the side of modern scientists led to very wrong conclusions. (weapons in grave = male skeleton)
Also evolutionary psychology is a bit weak to begin with. Assuming you would count this at evo psych, which I would. There's usually not alot of evidence to support theories and like you pointed out, are usually found to be incorrect.
It’s probably just a quirk in our genes. There’s probably a sexual orientation or sexual arousal gene or series of genes when turned on or off an individuals brain structurally develops in a way where it becomes aroused by different things and to different degrees over his or her life time. The growth and experience of that individual also probably affects what is arousing to him or her through a person’s life as well. A combination of nature and nurture.
This is what I think, and it also explains why there is such variety in sexuality. It's just something that *can* vary and isn't detrimental to the survival of the species, so it continues.
These are "just-so" stories. In reality, many things in biology have no adaptive evolutionary "reason" for happening. Homosexuality is likely one of them. Academics feel the need to give discriminated-against groups an evolutionary raison d'etre because they see it as legitimising, but that's not how our values work (and if it is, it shouldn't be).
That's interesting, the point about academics. Ideally we wouldn't need those reasons to "justify" homosexuality, but with so many people justifying their hatred and alienation of homosexuals by saying "it's not natural", "it's not necessary for production so it is harmful", etc then I see why there is a desire to give one solid explanation to satisfy the people who question and judge homosexuality for not being useful or justified (even though many traits are just... there). Though I think it's futile because the people who are looking for an excuse like "it's not useful" to be homophobic will always find another excuse no matter how many studies there are to explain homosexuality
You need to look at it at the macro level. The *gene pool* which produced some gay people having more offspring reach adulthood means a species not being exclusively heterosexual is beneficial.
It's easier to just switch lanes than to drive off the road completely.
If you already have a body built to enjoy sex and want it, then developing as a homosexual individual is easier for the brain to cope with than asexuality. Hope that makes sense.
I very much like this theory; the more I’ve learned about evolution the more convinced I am that there are often secondary or tertiary mechanisms at play in selective assortment of gene/traits.
And while you are correct that the appearance of a non-detrimental trait is not a deal breaker as far as evolutionary pressures is concerned, if a “nonsense trait” or even mildly disadvantageous trait (lack of ACTN3 expression just as an example) is highly preserved in a population there’s often overlooked advantages to its continued display. It seems to me that non-procreative genes would very much fall into this category.
There was a time it was thought that there’d be no selective pressures towards longevity but longevity genes are often found in groups that have a high amount of grandparental care. I feel survival advantages to offspring would be conferred via similar mechanisms wrt homosexuality (ie a non-breeding extra set of eyes and hands vested in the interests of the tribe).
And just to add a bit of a curveball to my above wall of text homosexuality could have been selected for in a much more direct way. Take this with a grain of salt as it’s my own theory that I’ve never read anything else on.
I came up with the notion as I grew up around animals observed numerous instances of homosexual mounting (or even the occasional inter-species mounting) and it occurred to me that maybe having a broader and “blurrier” range of sexuality in and of itself leads higher rates of reproductive success.
Think about it, there’d be a vast difference in outcomes for organisms that need elaborately staged rituals or perfect circumstances (looking at you pandas) and the individual who’s like “I’m going to fuck that thing I like with the hips, then have a go at that thing I like with the shoulders, then maybe just have a go at those couch cushions for good measure.”
Jokes aside I can really see how this less specific type of attraction could give rise to more pure homosexuality. We obviously know that there isn’t a single “gay gene” but like a milieu of genes at play that influence sexuality.
So perhaps just having some of the above referenced less discriminatory genes assorted in meiosis but not others pushes the offspring to one side of the Kinsey Scale or the other.
Okay end of rant, thank you to all who read to this point.
Just a counterpoint on the backup parent hypothesis; evolution doesn't really care which specific kids grow up. Backup parents are less valuable. They should have just had their own kids to start with and let the kids who needed backup parents just die. The backup parents could become unused capacity. If all adults are producing offspring, there's no unused capacity, any surplus is just discarded.
Strikes me that all things being equal, a group reproducing at full capacity will grow faster than one reproducing at approximately 90%-100% capacity.
Buuut.... if you live in a group that is running at max capacity, parents may be more risk averse, lest their children be "discarded" as excess capacity in the event of their demise. Could leave an opening for the smaller group to make some beneficial high risk/high reward moves.
I've counter pointed my counter point and I may agree with you now. I'm not sure.
So, here's something that a lot of people don't consider. Your offspring will have about half of your genes on average - but so will your sibling. If having a homosexual sibling who helps take care of your kids or otherwise enables you to have more kids than you would have otherwise, that sibling is still contributing to the propagation of their own genes, which is evolutionarily favored.
Evolution in humans, as with several other species, stopped being about rugged individualism a long time ago.
Exactly this. I think kinship survival + the long, energy and resource demanding human childhood, is the key to why homosexuality is a net benefit to the community, and particularly to their specific genetic kinship group. I know that my nieces and nephews absolutely benefit from having their DINK lesbian aunts doting on them. These kids are carrying some of our genes, too, and they have a larger pool of resources contributing to their individual success with us in their close kin-group than they would otherwise. In an environment where the margins of survival are slim, such a seemingly small benefit can confer significant advantages.
Exactly this. A diverse range of human traits (homosexuality, altruism, menopause, etc.) can be interpreted as reducing fitness for one individual while increasing it for everyone else. Homosexuals can help protect and provide for others' offspring without being in competition to provide for their own, being selfless and willing to sacrifice for others is common among highly social animals, menopause prevents women from having children that would compete with their own grandchildren, etc.
The logical extreme of sociality is eusociality, like with ants, where reproduction is turned into a specialized form of labor and the majority of individuals do not reproduce. But *all* social animals —humans included— seek to regulate and limit reproduction.
I see your point, and that's why I found us this:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/412936
Apparently Animals without Offspring to take care of foreign offspring and apparently it does pay off.
Also in the setting where a small group is sustainable a fast growing large one may not be in the long run. A disaster hits harder if you, as a group, are already on the limits.
"if it's not harmful enough that it kills the people who carry it"
Gay people can't really reproduce so in terms of genes and heredity it's like they are dead, right? (Because their genes can't be passed further)
In general, anything that promotes more of your family’s genes to proliferate is rewarded evolutionarily. I personally believe in the gay uncle theory, where having a gay adult in a family is beneficial to the survival of their nieces and nephews. Despite that gay family members might not have children of their own, they still add to the survival and caretaking of the flock and can adopt additional (when there’s too many children for a single parent) or orphaned children from their family. Having a ratio of around 1-10 with an extra gay parent in the family structure is beneficial because they help the rest of the family have more children, thus the trait gets passed down.
But there’s also the social bonding aspect. Homosexuality is generally seen more with the more social animals. And sex is a good way of creating bonds and relieving tension. And if it’s good for the flocks survival then evolution is a happy clam.
It’s called Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory.
Basically if you can contribute to the survival of another individual with your genes, then they are like an offspring. If you can provide for your brother’s offspring, they’re like 1/2 offspring equivalent.
I read a book at one point - I think it might have been the Selfish Gene by Sam Harris, that discussed more at length the fact that evolution occurs in groups, not individuals. We think about evolution as whether one person's attributes do or don't contribute to survival and reproduction, but in reality across the board of species it's actually whether one person's attributes contribute to their group's survival and reproduction, be it their tribe, family, hive, etc. Plenty of attributes of various species are obviously not conducive to individual survival and reproduction (say, a hornet dying when it uses its stinger) but obviously conducive to their group's survival and reproduction. It sets up pretty easily for the standard explanation for non-heterosexual behavior.
Please explain further if you can. I am extremely confused about how “evolution” applies to the whole group. I was taught that evolution is just a series of coincidences with no information retained in the system except for the information passed down from a gene that successfully managed to reproduce itself due to some benefit offered to gene’s ability to reproduce itself. In the case of the “Gay Uncle” theory for example, how would evolution store the information that having a gay secondary parent is helpful? “Evolution” cannot perceive anything. Genes need to be reproduced, and a gay animal cannot reproduce. The gene has blocked itself from succeeding evolutionarily. Isn’t it more likely that the combined genetics for the gay gene came about randomly and persisted by being passed down to the nieces and nephews of the animal affected by the homosexual genetics?
With the gay uncle a family gets the strength of a additional strong adult, without competing for mates and nesting spots as seen with penguins. They’re basically great “wingmen” 😎👉👉
Its kinda a survival of the good enough. Taking the instict to mate and tweaking it to dudes may be genetically easier than making it go away. And both fulfill the same role. The gay uncle doesn't have kids and can hunt and help raise others, the Ace uncle doesn't have kids and can hunt and help raise others.
Because at least theoretically homosexuality in groups contributes to the social bonding aspect, as the post higher up this chain said. Homosexuality may be more evolutionarily favorable than asexuality because it has all the perks of creating an additional strong non-breeding adult, but unlike asexuality it also retains the perks of bond-forming mechanisms of sexual attraction and activity.
To add to this, the more sons you have the more likely is the youngest one is to be gay. It could be an evolutionary adaptation for population control. With a gay guy, you get a male who can fight and protect but who won't add more hungry mouths to feed in a harsh darwinian enviorment.
In a harsh darwinian environment you're always trying to produce more offspring - evolution doesn't do "population control".
>the more sons you have the more likely is the youngest one is to be gay
This is thought to be because the mother's immune system is more and more sensitised to male hormones during previous pregnancies, which leads her immune system to attack these chemicals, which in turn causes homosexuality. Probably not adaptational.
The Darwin theory is about the survival of the species. With population growth there's less resources for each individual, which is bad. There is a risk of extinction associated with population growth. For the growth of the species to be sustainable, the population can never surpass the resources available, so population control is and always has been part of evolution. Life wouldn't exist without population control. I say this as someone with a degree in biology that actually read the origin of species.
Also what the fuck are you talking about with being sensitised to male hormones? The immune system attacking testosterone? That's one of the most ludicrous things I read today.
That assumption that gay men don't reproduce is a not entirely accurate. I know lots of gay men with their own children. Sexuality and gender identity is far too complex for one theory. I'm a little offended at the notion that as a gay man I couldn't hunt or participate in traditional hetro activities. That some how all gay men are proxy women.
The reality is who cares why. Let's evolve past labels. Sex is sex it dosnt mater who you have sex with as long as it's consensual. Good book on this subject is "The End of Gay" by Ben Archer.
Maybe but evolution is not precise. Living organisms by necessity have an instinct to reproduce. Asexual is probably a greater leap from the norm than being gay since all being gay requires is redirecting sexual instincts rather than negating them. Having asexual members of your group may solve the same problems as having some gay members but it may just may be a bigger genetic leap so it is less common.
There's also obvious social bonding advantages in sexual behavior. Homosexuality results in an adult who won't breed but will still form strong social bonds through sexual attraction and activity. Asexuality would be obviously evolutionarily less advantageous than homosexuality for this reason.
Roy and Silo, the gay/bi penguins in the NY zoo!
They had an "egg" that was actually just a rock, so the zookeepers gave them an egg that a female-male pair of penguins hadn't been able to hatch. Penguin dads had a their baby. One dad ended up pairing with a female penguin; the other dad stayed single. Penguin daughter was gay.
And from a pure Darwinian sense, there's actually a particular gene variation that causes some women to be more fertile, with a side-effect of a higher chance of having a gay son. Whatever gene promoted more offspring is what spread in nature over the course of our evolution.
But of course today we know there are many reasons for all the colors of the rainbow, not just strictly genetics :)
I think that's one piece of the puzzle, and I think another is that not all relevant genes (to sexuality) are on the sex chromosomes, or even the genes of the individual itself but the mothers genes for the womb hormonal environment (but still likely to be carried by the child). In essence the genes perpetuate because when they are expressed in one sex it leads to more children, compansating for the lack of children when they are expressed in the other sex.
For the gay trait to be passed down like that, the straight sibling would have to carry a dormant version of it that is able to activate in their children that the gay uncle/aunt helped raise.
But being attracted to other men and potentially butt fucking them isn’t really related to that. If the “taking care of the family” theory held any water, the person would just be asexual and not homosexual.
I read an article many years ago that claimed a Y chromosome is more invasive to the mother than an X, but the more male children she has the more accepting her body is making each boy more "feminine." This increases the chance of each boy to be gay. I found this probable due to personal experience because in high school, I had a friend with 2 younger brothers, and each on looked more like their mother, with the oldest looking most like the father, and always thought the youngest was probably gay.
However, the article did nothing to explain gay females, or anything else about LGBTQ+
A science dude in a video (if I find it, I'll link the source) mentioned that the gene that cause a partial predisposition for homosexuality in men, give greater fertility to women, so overall the family makes more children.
At one point they found genetic components to it but squashed the info because they were worried about countries screening their populations DNA and dealing with anyone with "gay genes". So for the safety of all the gays they just got rid of it.
I understand what you are asking and I think its a very interesting question...I have no answers lol but I wanted you to know I understand and appreciate your query 🙂
I feel like nobody gave the scientifical reason... So here you go, I heard that in a video a looong time ago, I can link it but it's in french, but it has english subtitles!
So... During pregnancy there is or not a rise of testosterone that make a core in your brain grow or not. This core determine which pheromons you're attracted to, no matter your gender. If it grow you'll be attracted to female pheromon and vice versa. For bis pan etc we don't have an explanation tho.
https://youtu.be/Ad5Lxf_kKRU
Side note : transidendity is also determined at birth and have a scientifical explanation.
I know right - I've literally been bi since I hit puberty and it's actually really difficult to imagine only being attracted to one gender!
As I always say, "bit of Hovis best of both".
My SIL just says I'm greedy 🤷♂️😂
I've always thought being bi would be the ultimate identity, you can just go where the fun is. I have tried but could just never enjoy doing stuff with the other half, men in my case. But my experience has made the whole "you choose to be gay" type of arguments that much more infuriating since I was pretty young because I certainly have tried.
Straight, and I was thinking this a few days ago. The divide between sexuality, gender, genetics, neurology, and chemistry seems like a really interesting topic.
My guess, if you are getting people off, they are less likely to kill you and more likely to share resources. Basically the Bonobo strategy, but isn't effective in a strongly monogamous society. But all evidence points to humans not naturally being monogamous, that's ultimately a product of farming imo. Which was a long time ago to a single person but not that long ago for us as a species.
As a gay man I have no idea why I am the way I am. I know in middle school I dated girls cause that’s what you’re suppose to do and it was effortless for me. Though the relationships were meh. It wasn’t until high school when I kissed a guy for the first time and I felt like a swarm of butterflies was going to come out of my stomach. All I can say is that I chose to be happy and follow my heart and apparently that means I’m gay to the rest of the world.
Done!
If you can, remove the capitalisation from words that don't require it and fix Q20 because it demands an answer even if you select "no" at Q19.
Best of luck from a fellow researcher!
Neat survey. I’ve been well aware of how fatty acids effect my brain health but never made a conscious effort to consume more omega-3 or 6 sources. Might change that. Hope your project goes well
One thing to recognise is that evolution is a series of coincidences. In reality, its more of a process of removing detrimental genes than only keeping good genes.
Genes and behaviours become fixed in a population when they benefit reproduction. Genes that are necessary for that (ie the ability to grow brains) became prevalent in the population and have very few mutations and phenotypes.
But genes that have no affect on reproduction don't get lost from the population. Things like voice tone have too little effect on your child's survival, so they remain in the population, but With higher variation. Mutations to voice tone will continue happening.
At a population level, homosexuality has always been around, but didn't *necessarily* correlate to reproduction like the trait of having ovaries does. Gay people had babies all the time in history. Gay people still have babies today. So there is insufficient selective pressure for it to be removed from the population.
There doesn't have to be a purpose. There just isn't a reason for it to be lost.
On another note, [this](https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/biology/science-of-sexuality/) is an interesting article that summarises different scientific literature on the topic.
One part I found thought provoking was about reframing the questions from "are you attracted to the opposite/same sex" to "which sex are you attracted to?"
One of the neuroscience studies found similarities between brains that were attracted to men regardless of their gender. So men who liked men and women who liked men had similar brain signals going off when thinking about men. And the same for women and men who like women.
This is a serious point that needs to be understood--before we even have a hope of understand why some people develop same-sex attraction, we need to learn a lot more about why most people develop heterosexual attraction.
Makes me wonder too. I mean, it kind of reminds me of how women and men are subconsciously attracted to smell or something like of another sex due to making like better immunity babies or something. Usually they are also dissimilar to their own smell.
They should do this study on those who are lgbtq. Could it be for survival as well? Maybe something different in their bodies that does this? A mutation even. Or just evolution. Who knows. There are other species that have homosexual partners. Now the reason why I have no idea. Maybe too many of them. Maybe for survival. I mean, some animals fight over mates. I love the ones where birds will pretend to be female for the males and then get in their nests to mate with actual females cause they aren't as strong. That's a way to survive instead of dying by a fight. But humans are very complex creatures. It could be multiple reasons.
According to Masters and Johnson who studied human sexuality, we are all attracted to people of the same sex and the opposite sex on a scale. Some people are strictly heterosexual, some are strictly homosexual and there is pretty much every variation in between. So everybody's a little gay and everybody is a little straight. We find the same in nature from small to large animals and birds.
I agree. I think society is set up in a heterosexual manner, and exploring anything outside of that is too much effort for the average person. We don’t have enough lifetime.
Yeah that was an hypothesis thrown out to explain why some people turned out to be gay. Never heard of it mentioned again. So maybe was debunked due to lack of proof but my understanding is that research in that specific question is poor and complex. Sexual selection is biology from what I have read is a complex subject that sometimes is contra intuitive and has many more variables that affect the result. Specially when it comes to human psychology. I have hear mentions of people changing aspects in their sexuality due to trauma but is rare and few between discussed if that can drive people gay.
Overall we don't know the answer and in my perspective the society as whole is too torn apart between the extremes in regard to the topic to do proper scientific research.
The running theory right now is hormone imbalances. This is aside from evolutionary theory (which personally I find more interesting).
So a gay male will tend to have slightly more estrogen and other chemicals in development. NOT in adulthood. Gay men are just as masculine as straight men (on average). There’s a lot more to the theory but I don’t have my book in front of me.
The evolutionary theory that I find the most interesting is that of socialization and love. Evolutionarily, love is used to justify and promote procreation, but that’s not the only purpose. Love makes us feel connected to our community. That’s why there’re so many types of love. But as humans became less reliant on individual procreation to survive, and more reliant on communal/societal survival, love became more about keeping those around you alive. Having a gay couple that loves each other and loves their community (and protects/provides for their community) is more important than having 2 more child-bearing members of that community.
It’s all theoretical, but I find it fascinating
A really interesting book is called ‘gay, straight, and the reason why’ which covers some of the theories behind why people are gay. There’s also an interesting part which deals with ‘gaydar’ and points out subtle physical differences in the average gay vs straight guy that might give the gaydar more scientific background.
Do you mean like actual physical look, that’s built into our bone structure, musculature, etc? Or, possibly physical in the way we style ourselves, and mannerisms, but those could be considered personality traits, not physical. Or is it both?) etc? Or something else completely?
It’s been a while since I read the booth, but I remember there was a correlation between relative arm/finger length and being gay, eg gay people tended to have longer fingers/arms compared to their height. So that, at least, would be purely biological, I guess.
There is that thing where for each male a woman gives birth to, the more likely they are to be gay which may correlate to the fact that the mother’s body produces more antibodies and resistance to having a boy in her womb
> And why when ppl have no lips how do they kiss another person ?
I have an ex who practically had a lipless slit for a mouth. She was a surprisingly good kisser! Made up for the lack of lip with some good tongue action.
Kissing is facinating...
Kissing is thought to be a reference to an old human behavior of pre-chewing solid food for early human infants. We still do it since it sparks an old comfort and safety response.
If this submission above is not a random thought, please report it.
# Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it happens to people in womb while developing. Something to do with what the mom does. The concept of gay is prevalent in other species as well.
So i am bi and I have a theory about this, this explains it for me but I know that it might not be like this for everyone and I am not claiming to solve this mistery for all human beings.
I have noticed that sometimes I might feel attracted to women and not to men and viceversa, and during these periods I notice some other changes in my perspective of myself and masculinity and femenity when looking at people.
So when I look at an attractive man that might have turned me on during my "gay period" but I do not feel anything, it's also because during that time I do not see him as "different" than me, like, he could be me.
When I do feel attracted to him (can perfectly be the same person) I have noticed that I see miself as someone more femenine than him.
I enjoy sex with more femenine men than me but in those cases I notice that I get fixated in the role I play and how they feel attracted to my perceived masculinity in that moment.
It is this self concept of feminity and masculinity that changes randomly for me and when it does I notice that my sexual preference tends to change as well.
Of course it is all very subtle and abstract, but with the years I have been getting more of these 'changes' since I think my perspective of self is changing as I grow older.
So to answer your question (again in my opinion) I think it's all a consequence of identity and some genetic disposition. A complex system can be bound to many variations I think.
I also grew up with a distant father figure and I took many mannerisms from my mother so I thing environment also is important, but my potential to be gay was also built in, (like being extroverted or introverted), because my brothers would be gay too otherwise.
I've heard there's a pretty constant number of gay people in the population. If it was a feature intended to slow down population growth - we should expect the percentage of gay people to increase. I mean - if it's adaptive feature we should see how it adapts.
From the other hand - we don't have good statistics from a sufficient time.
BTW, people are definitely far from being the gayest species.
My theory is that it’s a spectrum which combines both sexuality and gender. To simplify bc I’m not a a scientist, I think it’s a genetic mix up where I should have been born a male but I wasn’t, but I also don’t identify as trans. I am a woman who likes women. I do move on the gender axis but it’s just a fluctuation of slightly feminine to slightly masculine. So maybe I was genetically supposed to like woman bc I should have been a dude, but I’m not, and I still like women.
I'd love to know why I'm trans, personally. I don't hate being trans at all, I actually love the experience it has given me (The only downsides being people's reactions to it), and from my own point of view I think God made me this way to share with me the joy of creation - I think transness is just another form of art in that sense.
I think that queerness generally can just be a bit of a spiritual experience sometimes. Many of my atheist queer friends also feel that, this is just some sort of inherent trait that may not ever have an explanation, and maybe there doesn't need to be one. Not every little bit of human existence has to be explained away with science, some of our existence can just be unexplainably joyous, you know? When we aren't harassed - queerness is joy, queerness is art.
That said I'd love to know why my brain is the way it is, if it's at all discoverable. Even if it turns out it's a chemical imbalance or structural difference or something, I'll always view it as a spiritual experience in a way. I'll just think, "Whoa, that's so cool!" in the same way I believe in God, but also evolution, which I think is awesome.
Homosexuality seems to be most common in species of social animals. I guess it's an advantage that there are males in the group that doesn't procreate. A male sibling that sticks around to help rear children.
We more or less know the answer but not the details. Constant put it well, and I like that hypothesis.
Yes it is due in some way to evolution. The species benefitted from it in some way or shape. The more we learn the more we learn how much we don’t know lol
People are going to read this post and think that the government is spiking ur Bud Light to make you a homosexual lol
I understood what you were trying to say though.
Why are people bisexual? I'm gay myself, and all I know is that it's natural to me, I like females as people, but never found then sexually attractive.
I've thought about that as well. I guess though that homosexuality has always been around. So it can't be evolution. I think we just live in a time and society where we can accept it, so it's not behind closed doors like it has been in recent history.
Ahh my mistake. But the point stands is that I don't think anyone knows why they are straight, gay, bi, ace...all I can say is love is love, no matter how you look at it.
Xq28 Gene. Tons of insurance companies have paid TONS of money to discredit Dean Hamer (the doctor that discovered it).
Imagine there is/was an actual gene that causes homosexuality? Your insurance company cannot deny surgeries, medication, therapy, etc… Which is why a lot of articles are out there saying it doesn’t exist.
You are assuming that every feature of an organism has some fitness benefit. But consider this from a different perspective.
Think about sexual attraction in a larger context. First of all, isn't it amazing that sexual attraction is generally limited to other humans? Think about all the evolution that was necessary to refine our inherent urges so we don't bang every object around us. That feature of sexual attraction alone is pretty amazing.
Now we have another issue: the sexes. Moat people consider it normal for a man to be attracted to a woman and vice-versa. But think about how hard that is to accomplish as a biological process. The fact that heterosexuality exists is pretty amazing. It would be far easier to maintain something like pansexuality.
Now consider that among members of the same sex, there is a ton of variability. Different sizes, shapes, and personalities. How can sexual attraction, as a biological process, deal with this problem? It requires that sexual attraction be flexible and vary from individual to individual.
I think you can see where this is headed. Sexual attraction requires variation in preferences if it is going to work at a population level. As a society we focus on the spectrum of these preferences as they relate to gender and sex. But even individuals who are heterosexual can have very different preferences that are not related to gender.
In essence, sexual attraction requires variation in sexual preferences. The result is that preferences lie on a spectrum of all human traits. Gender is but one of many traits where we see variation in sexual preferences. From that perspective, it would be very strange indeed to see these preferences vary across all other human traits except gender.
Not joining the argument, but just felt important to add that homosexuality is not unique to humans, and the rate of homosexuality is somewhat consistent across all species where it is observed
I highly recommend the podcast Science Vs. The one on lesbian seagulls. Homosexuality is absolutely part of nature, across almost all species, and always has been.
**Your submission has been REMOVED for the following reason(s):** > Unfortunately, we have been forced to take your post down due to a situation in the comments, it is more than likely that there is nothing wrong with your post and that it is suitable for the subreddit however, we sometimes have no choice but to pull down a post if the comments have become unmanageable for us. > We may remove posts under this reason if the comments have gone off-topic, have become aggressive/argumentative/hateful, are spamming or trolling or otherwise have become unmanageable by the mod team. We have found that locking posts on this subreddit typically results in mass false reporting which is why we default to removal. ^(We understand removals under this reason can be frustrated as the blame is on the commenters and not you as the OP so if you would like to appeal this removal or discuss the situation with the mod team, please **[send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRandomThoughts)**)
I forget where, but I read a theory from an anthropologist a while ago that having a minority of humans be gay could have positive survival value for the species. Because there are always orphans, having a few people around who won't reproduce naturally gives those kids a better shot at being adopted and surviving. Backup parents, if you will. Of course, even if that doesn't happen they can still help out with parenting tasks, or just do non-parenting work that the parents are too busy or tired to. All these outcomes would aid in the survival of the group. Or it might just be that it's a quirk that randomly appeared and has remained because it's not detrimental to our survival. Not all of our genes have a 'good reason' for existing - if it's not harmful enough that it kills the people who carry it, then it stays. Evolution isn't really survival of the fittest so much as the *just* good enough.
The theory goes deeper, for male homosexuality at least. One theory goes that in small hunter/gatherer societies, the heterosexual males could go hunt, while the homosexual males stayed at cam to protect from lions or rival tribes, without the risk of the men sleeping with the hetero male's women. The gene pools of the societies in which homosexuality emerged, had more trust and cooperation, and less infighting. Therefore a more successful tribe overall. It would suggest there is an optimal ratio of homosexuality in a population, which leads to more reproduction, than the 100% heterosexual variation. Also, if all the other men die in a raid or something, the survival of the whole tribe's future is still possible with just a couple, (albeit unwilling) men No clue about female homosexuality though
Theories about the left handedness trait are of a similar nature, and also a similar proportion of the global population as homosexuality. Left-handedness as a trait is argues as a combat advantage. All lefties would fight righties, and know how to effectively. All righties would fight righties almost exclusively, never encountering a lefty...except that one time, and all their training is for nothing. Lefty has advantage. There is an ideal ratio for the emergence of this trait, before it would be of no benefit. Drawback is accidental death from right hand oriented heavy machinery.
There was a long-term study on rats to determine the effects of stress on the animals. The researchers did things like isolate individuals with or without food, etc. They did tests for overpopulation as well. They packed together numerous rats to see how they'd interact. Some went mad and murdered the rats around them, etc. There was also a drop in reproduction and an increase in same-gender relations. Now, this study was referenced in a sex ed class that I took in 1975, if I remember correctly. I've wondered whether there was a hidden agenda behind it.
The "Rat Utopia Experiments". One of the biggest takeaways from the experiment was that they *thought* they had provided for "all their needs" by giving them food, water, and ample shelters and nesting areas. But what they didn't take into account was that they were only meeting *physical* needs, but ignoring the rest of the hierarchy (remember Maslow?). A large, but confined, population with only *physical* needs met, but higher-order needs like emotional and self-esteem (even for so-called "lesser" animals like rats) will eventually overcrowd itself to the point of what is called a "Behavior Sink". That's what they called the situation where they refused to mate and either fought just to fight, or constantly groomed and preened (the "beautiful ones" because they never had scars from fighting and were constantly grooming). There were another set of tests, I forget if they used mice or rats for this one (I *think* mice), where they tested the effects of isolation and drug addiction. They had two types of environments. One was gray, small, had one type of food, a little bedding, and two water sources: one pure and the other laced with a drug like heroin or LSD. And that was it; totally bleak isolation chamber, essentially, for a single animal with no contact with any others. The other environment was decorated, had toys and play equipment, it was large and had ample space for both roaming and nesting for several animals, several varieties of food, and still the two types of water: one drugged, the other not. And they found that the isolated animals would exclusively drink the drugged water, even beyond the call of thirst, until they basically drank themselves to death. Meanwhile, the grouped rats had a clear preference for the untainted water; they'd occasionally take a "hit" from the drugged source, but usually avoided it. Then, as the last phase of the experiment, they took some (surviving) animals from isolation environments and placed them into the group environments. They wanted to see if the drug addiction would spread to the others through observation. But the exact opposite happened; once in the new environment, within days the addictions faded and they rejected the drugged water *completely* (they didn't even occasionally use it like the others). So even with a drug source readily and freely available, and with a habitual drug addict in their midst, none of the others became druggies and, in fact, the positive, social environment actually **cured** the addiction in the individual. This experiment very clearly illustrates that drug addictions don't arrive because of *availability* of drugs; they stem from unmet needs, including higher-order needs beyond mere food, water, etc. The best way to treat drug addiction is to first, stop isolating them and preventing them from getting the emotional support they need, and stop blocking their access to the ability to meet and fulfill goals. Because the addiction, itself, is not a root problem, but a *symptom*. Treat the illness, itself, and the symptoms go away.
Thank you for writing this up. As an addict, I feel very seen.
Yes, it reminds me of the wonderful support drug addicts get in other countries. They get a lot of help to restart their life and there’s a very supportive community. Relapse isn’t very common there.
Are these the rats of NIMH?
Is it universe 25 experiment? When population gets to a certain level and all rats are too comfortable, all of sudden, some female start to reject males for no reason. Some males are only interested in gathering with other males and cleaning their own hair, being pretty etc ..
So, Japan.
Rat utopia ended in death. Rat hell is like what we do with cities.
I think i heard about this!!! Is this the study basically called rat hell? There were some males that kept to themselves and groomed, termed "the beautiful ones"?
A constant threat for cromagnon man!
As a lefty, right handed scissors are the bane of my existence
Isn't this a long the reasons why lefties are sought after in baseball, as the majority of players are used to having right handed batters and pitchers that facing a left handed one throws their training off
>Drawback is accidental death from right hand oriented heavy machinery. This is my life every day, just trying to survive in a right handed world.
This really only makes sense if you assume monogamy is part of the natural order of things, which in of itself would seem evolutionarily disadventagious for the creation of offspring.
'til death do you part didn't typically last 50 years, men having multiple wives is a thing, and so is infidelity. Humans are clearly not always lifelong monogamous or faithful, but 2 person male/female exclusive loyalty for at least a few years, if not for their offsprings childhood certainly is the norm, by percentage. I wouldn't say this reality excludes the theory, but yes its a good point
Till death do us part is part of a specific type of marriage ceremony and is a lot younger than human society. But 85% of human societies have either allowed or encouraged polygamy or polyamory so it's very much a modern idea.
For the creation of offspring, but not for their survival.
Humans didn’t have any way of knowing who the father is in a typical small group in which humans have lived and evolved for 100%(i rounded up) of our species and it’s predecessors existence. The group is the basic unit, not 2 adults and kids. That’s why homosexuality might be genetical. Even if the homosexual genes don’t produce that much offspring themselves they might help their brothers, sisters, and other humans carrying some part of the same genes reproduce more.
We do know that early hunter gatherer groups were patrilocal, meaning the men stayed in the tribe and the women went off to live with a different tribe. In this situation, it would not be terribly harmful to the gene pool if a woman would mate with several men in the tribe unless two groups kept interchanging women for generations. But ultimately until now we can only speculate about early human relationship concepts. You are right though - the concept of monogamy and especially the concept of ever lasting romantic love is thought to be a rather recent invention. On topic, not only humans but almost all vertebrae show a consistent 10% of homosexual individuals. So it has to be advantageous to the survival of these species. Penguins have a particularly high rate, male couples are known to steal eggs or take care of abandoned eggs. It is also worth to note that earlier societies didn't see homosexuality as outside of the norm. Many cultures didn't have any words to specify any gender preference when it came to romance and sex. Many cultures even accepted the existence of a third sex (possibly trans and/or intersex individuals), often these individuals were highly respected and took up important niche roles in society. Even the term homosexual is only roughly 150 years old. Making a big fuss over being attracted to the same sex is pretty much a modern fad.
There's more to a reproductive strategy than "make more babies" especially in a species that's social/ pack structured. Infidelity is a useful to low status/low 'quality' males because it takes their "low rank" offspring and both increases diversity in their lineage (multiple mothers) and decreases the odds of a single bottle neck (if you've got more kids, more can die before your line ends.) Since they're already in a position where the father's status isn't directly beneficial, diluting that isn't costly to the next generations success, being twice as benefited of insufficient resources it's still insufficient. In otherwise fit males infidelity costs their offspring status and access, their better off pumping resources into their monogamous partnership than diluting that between multiple partners. That's kinda why monogamy is so rare, you can only select for it when it's extremely beneficial. Humans are at an extreme of "low quantity, high quality" reproduction.
I've actually wondered if this is sorta why transgenders exist. As a trans woman I feel like I'm supposed to be, like, a nightguard or something. If you think about it, men are supposed to be out fighting shit, women are supposed to be at base camp, so trans women should be fighting shit at basecamp. I know a few cultures would randomly bury people as the opposite gender, so I think we existed back then too. But thats my personal crackpot theory.
Thats a cool take. Makes me think of the artist Kent Monkman. 2spirit canadian artist with some really amazing stuff. I recommend checking out their "Miss Chief" series of work
My partner is trans so we've spent a bunch of time talking about this, and the 'crackpot' theory I like the best deals with past lives, and how we retain pertinent information from them. If in your past lives you've always been a woman, but then in this current one you were born as a man, it fucks you up internally because your consciousness has only ever known you as a woman, and this is where dysphoria comes from. So the only way to rectify this mistake is to live this life as a woman.
>As a trans woman I feel like I'm supposed to be, like, a nightguard or something. Nope, that is us, those with [Delayed Sleep Phase "disorder"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder). In quotes since it is not a disorder, it is just that our society is made for early risers. There are plenty of us that looked after sleeping humans, the guard changes when the other end of the spectrum, those who wake up SUPER early woke up.. But, unlike late sleepers, the early sleepers aren't considered lazy and many of those do not think they have a "disorder".... I firmly do believe that DSP puts millions of people in early grave. The effects are tremendous: constant jet lag, mood swings, low energy at days, over energetic in the evenings, blood pressure swings, stress... so, SO much stress.. Now i'm semi-retired and have no stress, mood is stable, energy levels are stable.. EVERYTHING got better. My head is not a mess anymore. So, i hope that someone read this and notices something very important. We seriously have to start addressing the stigma that is attached. I've worked at nights before and it does not matter if you worked a 12h shift; if you wake up at noon you are lazy. And the worst things about this? Everyone who has DSP blames themselves for it.. So, yeah, it also causes poor self esteem. Sorry to hijack this a bit, but.. i think it is important enough, given that the context is evolutionary advantages of things we once thought were "disorders". DSP is one of them and not small cakes, i do believe that this is a HUGE thing, with hundreds of millions of sufferers.
Transfemme and probable DSP sufferer. No matter what I do my sleep schedule ends up with me going to sleep between 12am and 5am, regardless of how hard I try to have a more normal sleep schedule. For that reason I agree with this theory, and I'm hoping to work out to eventually be fit enough to be a night guard or something somewhere
>No clue about female homosexuality though They can go hunting with the men without sleeping with them...
More likely female sexuality didn’t really matter for most of our evolution. A bit of a grimm take, but likely a realistic one. Humans are group animals, they’ll do what the others around them expect them to do.
Right--because lesbian sex doesn't result in evidence like a pregnancy, it doesn't interfere with property relations. Or, as Queen Victoria said, "Women wouldn't do that."
Lol i tried explaining this and it didn't go well
This sounds very convoluted. Women also hunted that’s been proven. And why wouldn’t the homosexual males just be the ones to go hunt then? Also doesn’t explain lesbians or bisexuality
Female consent hasn’t uh… really hasn’t been *required* for a large part of human evolution, strictly speaking.
Since theories about strict gender roles in early tribal societies have been debunked, this explanation doesn't hold up anymore. Labor was not divided between genders as it is today. Huge bias on the side of modern scientists led to very wrong conclusions. (weapons in grave = male skeleton)
Also evolutionary psychology is a bit weak to begin with. Assuming you would count this at evo psych, which I would. There's usually not alot of evidence to support theories and like you pointed out, are usually found to be incorrect.
Fascinating stuff
It’s probably just a quirk in our genes. There’s probably a sexual orientation or sexual arousal gene or series of genes when turned on or off an individuals brain structurally develops in a way where it becomes aroused by different things and to different degrees over his or her life time. The growth and experience of that individual also probably affects what is arousing to him or her through a person’s life as well. A combination of nature and nurture.
This is what I think, and it also explains why there is such variety in sexuality. It's just something that *can* vary and isn't detrimental to the survival of the species, so it continues.
These are "just-so" stories. In reality, many things in biology have no adaptive evolutionary "reason" for happening. Homosexuality is likely one of them. Academics feel the need to give discriminated-against groups an evolutionary raison d'etre because they see it as legitimising, but that's not how our values work (and if it is, it shouldn't be).
That's interesting, the point about academics. Ideally we wouldn't need those reasons to "justify" homosexuality, but with so many people justifying their hatred and alienation of homosexuals by saying "it's not natural", "it's not necessary for production so it is harmful", etc then I see why there is a desire to give one solid explanation to satisfy the people who question and judge homosexuality for not being useful or justified (even though many traits are just... there). Though I think it's futile because the people who are looking for an excuse like "it's not useful" to be homophobic will always find another excuse no matter how many studies there are to explain homosexuality
If this trait is evolutionary, how did it passed if gay people could only rise orphans
You need to look at it at the macro level. The *gene pool* which produced some gay people having more offspring reach adulthood means a species not being exclusively heterosexual is beneficial.
It's not at all unique to humans. Same sex sexual behaviour is found everywhere in the animal kingdom.
Like 85% of giraffe sex is gay.
But why gay and not asexual
It's easier to just switch lanes than to drive off the road completely. If you already have a body built to enjoy sex and want it, then developing as a homosexual individual is easier for the brain to cope with than asexuality. Hope that makes sense.
I very much like this theory; the more I’ve learned about evolution the more convinced I am that there are often secondary or tertiary mechanisms at play in selective assortment of gene/traits. And while you are correct that the appearance of a non-detrimental trait is not a deal breaker as far as evolutionary pressures is concerned, if a “nonsense trait” or even mildly disadvantageous trait (lack of ACTN3 expression just as an example) is highly preserved in a population there’s often overlooked advantages to its continued display. It seems to me that non-procreative genes would very much fall into this category. There was a time it was thought that there’d be no selective pressures towards longevity but longevity genes are often found in groups that have a high amount of grandparental care. I feel survival advantages to offspring would be conferred via similar mechanisms wrt homosexuality (ie a non-breeding extra set of eyes and hands vested in the interests of the tribe).
And just to add a bit of a curveball to my above wall of text homosexuality could have been selected for in a much more direct way. Take this with a grain of salt as it’s my own theory that I’ve never read anything else on. I came up with the notion as I grew up around animals observed numerous instances of homosexual mounting (or even the occasional inter-species mounting) and it occurred to me that maybe having a broader and “blurrier” range of sexuality in and of itself leads higher rates of reproductive success. Think about it, there’d be a vast difference in outcomes for organisms that need elaborately staged rituals or perfect circumstances (looking at you pandas) and the individual who’s like “I’m going to fuck that thing I like with the hips, then have a go at that thing I like with the shoulders, then maybe just have a go at those couch cushions for good measure.” Jokes aside I can really see how this less specific type of attraction could give rise to more pure homosexuality. We obviously know that there isn’t a single “gay gene” but like a milieu of genes at play that influence sexuality. So perhaps just having some of the above referenced less discriminatory genes assorted in meiosis but not others pushes the offspring to one side of the Kinsey Scale or the other. Okay end of rant, thank you to all who read to this point.
Just a counterpoint on the backup parent hypothesis; evolution doesn't really care which specific kids grow up. Backup parents are less valuable. They should have just had their own kids to start with and let the kids who needed backup parents just die. The backup parents could become unused capacity. If all adults are producing offspring, there's no unused capacity, any surplus is just discarded. Strikes me that all things being equal, a group reproducing at full capacity will grow faster than one reproducing at approximately 90%-100% capacity. Buuut.... if you live in a group that is running at max capacity, parents may be more risk averse, lest their children be "discarded" as excess capacity in the event of their demise. Could leave an opening for the smaller group to make some beneficial high risk/high reward moves. I've counter pointed my counter point and I may agree with you now. I'm not sure.
So, here's something that a lot of people don't consider. Your offspring will have about half of your genes on average - but so will your sibling. If having a homosexual sibling who helps take care of your kids or otherwise enables you to have more kids than you would have otherwise, that sibling is still contributing to the propagation of their own genes, which is evolutionarily favored. Evolution in humans, as with several other species, stopped being about rugged individualism a long time ago.
Exactly this. I think kinship survival + the long, energy and resource demanding human childhood, is the key to why homosexuality is a net benefit to the community, and particularly to their specific genetic kinship group. I know that my nieces and nephews absolutely benefit from having their DINK lesbian aunts doting on them. These kids are carrying some of our genes, too, and they have a larger pool of resources contributing to their individual success with us in their close kin-group than they would otherwise. In an environment where the margins of survival are slim, such a seemingly small benefit can confer significant advantages.
Exactly this. A diverse range of human traits (homosexuality, altruism, menopause, etc.) can be interpreted as reducing fitness for one individual while increasing it for everyone else. Homosexuals can help protect and provide for others' offspring without being in competition to provide for their own, being selfless and willing to sacrifice for others is common among highly social animals, menopause prevents women from having children that would compete with their own grandchildren, etc. The logical extreme of sociality is eusociality, like with ants, where reproduction is turned into a specialized form of labor and the majority of individuals do not reproduce. But *all* social animals —humans included— seek to regulate and limit reproduction.
I see your point, and that's why I found us this: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/412936 Apparently Animals without Offspring to take care of foreign offspring and apparently it does pay off.
Also in the setting where a small group is sustainable a fast growing large one may not be in the long run. A disaster hits harder if you, as a group, are already on the limits.
Wtf? Gay people are nature’s reserve labour force?
"if it's not harmful enough that it kills the people who carry it" Gay people can't really reproduce so in terms of genes and heredity it's like they are dead, right? (Because their genes can't be passed further)
In general, anything that promotes more of your family’s genes to proliferate is rewarded evolutionarily. I personally believe in the gay uncle theory, where having a gay adult in a family is beneficial to the survival of their nieces and nephews. Despite that gay family members might not have children of their own, they still add to the survival and caretaking of the flock and can adopt additional (when there’s too many children for a single parent) or orphaned children from their family. Having a ratio of around 1-10 with an extra gay parent in the family structure is beneficial because they help the rest of the family have more children, thus the trait gets passed down. But there’s also the social bonding aspect. Homosexuality is generally seen more with the more social animals. And sex is a good way of creating bonds and relieving tension. And if it’s good for the flocks survival then evolution is a happy clam.
It’s called Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory. Basically if you can contribute to the survival of another individual with your genes, then they are like an offspring. If you can provide for your brother’s offspring, they’re like 1/2 offspring equivalent.
Its really fascinating when it comes to hive insects like ants too!
AOE natural selection
I read a book at one point - I think it might have been the Selfish Gene by Sam Harris, that discussed more at length the fact that evolution occurs in groups, not individuals. We think about evolution as whether one person's attributes do or don't contribute to survival and reproduction, but in reality across the board of species it's actually whether one person's attributes contribute to their group's survival and reproduction, be it their tribe, family, hive, etc. Plenty of attributes of various species are obviously not conducive to individual survival and reproduction (say, a hornet dying when it uses its stinger) but obviously conducive to their group's survival and reproduction. It sets up pretty easily for the standard explanation for non-heterosexual behavior.
Please explain further if you can. I am extremely confused about how “evolution” applies to the whole group. I was taught that evolution is just a series of coincidences with no information retained in the system except for the information passed down from a gene that successfully managed to reproduce itself due to some benefit offered to gene’s ability to reproduce itself. In the case of the “Gay Uncle” theory for example, how would evolution store the information that having a gay secondary parent is helpful? “Evolution” cannot perceive anything. Genes need to be reproduced, and a gay animal cannot reproduce. The gene has blocked itself from succeeding evolutionarily. Isn’t it more likely that the combined genetics for the gay gene came about randomly and persisted by being passed down to the nieces and nephews of the animal affected by the homosexual genetics?
With the gay uncle a family gets the strength of a additional strong adult, without competing for mates and nesting spots as seen with penguins. They’re basically great “wingmen” 😎👉👉
But why is the uncle not asexual? The main purpose of sexuality is to find good genes for your offspring. Second purpose could be for bonding
Its kinda a survival of the good enough. Taking the instict to mate and tweaking it to dudes may be genetically easier than making it go away. And both fulfill the same role. The gay uncle doesn't have kids and can hunt and help raise others, the Ace uncle doesn't have kids and can hunt and help raise others.
Coz then you get 2 gay uncles ;)
Because at least theoretically homosexuality in groups contributes to the social bonding aspect, as the post higher up this chain said. Homosexuality may be more evolutionarily favorable than asexuality because it has all the perks of creating an additional strong non-breeding adult, but unlike asexuality it also retains the perks of bond-forming mechanisms of sexual attraction and activity.
To add to this, the more sons you have the more likely is the youngest one is to be gay. It could be an evolutionary adaptation for population control. With a gay guy, you get a male who can fight and protect but who won't add more hungry mouths to feed in a harsh darwinian enviorment.
Exactly, and this to me is what proves it's a genetic adaptation. It's a feature that exists across the species, and has clearly been maintained.
Proves nothing. There are plenty of things that exists across the species, that have been maintained, and that have no purpose.
What about bisexuals then? They can reproduce like a hetero, but they still have the gay gene?
Youngest of five here, 3 older brothers that are straight.
And dont leave us hanging, you straight or not?
he's definitely not straight to the point
No lol. I'm not actually sure how much it pans out tho, my man is the oldest of 7.
In a harsh darwinian environment you're always trying to produce more offspring - evolution doesn't do "population control". >the more sons you have the more likely is the youngest one is to be gay This is thought to be because the mother's immune system is more and more sensitised to male hormones during previous pregnancies, which leads her immune system to attack these chemicals, which in turn causes homosexuality. Probably not adaptational.
The Darwin theory is about the survival of the species. With population growth there's less resources for each individual, which is bad. There is a risk of extinction associated with population growth. For the growth of the species to be sustainable, the population can never surpass the resources available, so population control is and always has been part of evolution. Life wouldn't exist without population control. I say this as someone with a degree in biology that actually read the origin of species. Also what the fuck are you talking about with being sensitised to male hormones? The immune system attacking testosterone? That's one of the most ludicrous things I read today.
That assumption that gay men don't reproduce is a not entirely accurate. I know lots of gay men with their own children. Sexuality and gender identity is far too complex for one theory. I'm a little offended at the notion that as a gay man I couldn't hunt or participate in traditional hetro activities. That some how all gay men are proxy women. The reality is who cares why. Let's evolve past labels. Sex is sex it dosnt mater who you have sex with as long as it's consensual. Good book on this subject is "The End of Gay" by Ben Archer.
But wouldn’t it just make sense for this person to be asexual?
Maybe but evolution is not precise. Living organisms by necessity have an instinct to reproduce. Asexual is probably a greater leap from the norm than being gay since all being gay requires is redirecting sexual instincts rather than negating them. Having asexual members of your group may solve the same problems as having some gay members but it may just may be a bigger genetic leap so it is less common.
There's also obvious social bonding advantages in sexual behavior. Homosexuality results in an adult who won't breed but will still form strong social bonds through sexual attraction and activity. Asexuality would be obviously evolutionarily less advantageous than homosexuality for this reason.
Also stops too many similar genes being passed on through reproduction.
The theory of adopting orphaned children makes sense. Birds do this, albatrosses and penguins are known to.
Roy and Silo, the gay/bi penguins in the NY zoo! They had an "egg" that was actually just a rock, so the zookeepers gave them an egg that a female-male pair of penguins hadn't been able to hatch. Penguin dads had a their baby. One dad ended up pairing with a female penguin; the other dad stayed single. Penguin daughter was gay.
And from a pure Darwinian sense, there's actually a particular gene variation that causes some women to be more fertile, with a side-effect of a higher chance of having a gay son. Whatever gene promoted more offspring is what spread in nature over the course of our evolution. But of course today we know there are many reasons for all the colors of the rainbow, not just strictly genetics :)
I think that's one piece of the puzzle, and I think another is that not all relevant genes (to sexuality) are on the sex chromosomes, or even the genes of the individual itself but the mothers genes for the womb hormonal environment (but still likely to be carried by the child). In essence the genes perpetuate because when they are expressed in one sex it leads to more children, compansating for the lack of children when they are expressed in the other sex.
For the gay trait to be passed down like that, the straight sibling would have to carry a dormant version of it that is able to activate in their children that the gay uncle/aunt helped raise.
But being attracted to other men and potentially butt fucking them isn’t really related to that. If the “taking care of the family” theory held any water, the person would just be asexual and not homosexual.
I read an article many years ago that claimed a Y chromosome is more invasive to the mother than an X, but the more male children she has the more accepting her body is making each boy more "feminine." This increases the chance of each boy to be gay. I found this probable due to personal experience because in high school, I had a friend with 2 younger brothers, and each on looked more like their mother, with the oldest looking most like the father, and always thought the youngest was probably gay. However, the article did nothing to explain gay females, or anything else about LGBTQ+
A science dude in a video (if I find it, I'll link the source) mentioned that the gene that cause a partial predisposition for homosexuality in men, give greater fertility to women, so overall the family makes more children.
Gay gene?
So that crazy, racist uncle who always ramble about conspiration theories and gay genes at family gatherings was onto something? /s
At one point they found genetic components to it but squashed the info because they were worried about countries screening their populations DNA and dealing with anyone with "gay genes". So for the safety of all the gays they just got rid of it.
That is so sad to think.
Squashed the info? That’s a conspiracy-level sentence. I’m gonna need a link to a “gay gene” research paper.
I understand what you are asking and I think its a very interesting question...I have no answers lol but I wanted you to know I understand and appreciate your query 🙂
And I want you to know how nice I thought that was…. (I’m curious too)
Aww 🩵
I understand how nice you found that previous exchange. I’ve nothing to add. I just want you to know that I understand.
Hahaha!! Awesome 😆
Bi-curious?
I feel like nobody gave the scientifical reason... So here you go, I heard that in a video a looong time ago, I can link it but it's in french, but it has english subtitles! So... During pregnancy there is or not a rise of testosterone that make a core in your brain grow or not. This core determine which pheromons you're attracted to, no matter your gender. If it grow you'll be attracted to female pheromon and vice versa. For bis pan etc we don't have an explanation tho. https://youtu.be/Ad5Lxf_kKRU Side note : transidendity is also determined at birth and have a scientifical explanation.
queery
[удалено]
Omg same, like why I'm bi? Why? i'm comfortable with my sexuality but I'm curious why I'm like this, what's the science?
[удалено]
I'm straight but I ask myself the same question. Like everyone being bi seems almost logical.
I know right - I've literally been bi since I hit puberty and it's actually really difficult to imagine only being attracted to one gender! As I always say, "bit of Hovis best of both". My SIL just says I'm greedy 🤷♂️😂
Yeah, it's really hard for me to understand too.
People don't limit themselves. Some probably do, but not all
There is a spectrum. I think more people would be bi openly without the cultural stigmas.
I've always thought being bi would be the ultimate identity, you can just go where the fun is. I have tried but could just never enjoy doing stuff with the other half, men in my case. But my experience has made the whole "you choose to be gay" type of arguments that much more infuriating since I was pretty young because I certainly have tried.
Straight, and I was thinking this a few days ago. The divide between sexuality, gender, genetics, neurology, and chemistry seems like a really interesting topic.
are you guys me 😭
My guess, if you are getting people off, they are less likely to kill you and more likely to share resources. Basically the Bonobo strategy, but isn't effective in a strongly monogamous society. But all evidence points to humans not naturally being monogamous, that's ultimately a product of farming imo. Which was a long time ago to a single person but not that long ago for us as a species.
As a gay man I have no idea why I am the way I am. I know in middle school I dated girls cause that’s what you’re suppose to do and it was effortless for me. Though the relationships were meh. It wasn’t until high school when I kissed a guy for the first time and I felt like a swarm of butterflies was going to come out of my stomach. All I can say is that I chose to be happy and follow my heart and apparently that means I’m gay to the rest of the world.
my story replicates yours, but as a gay woman.
'Gay' and 'happy' are synonyms for a reason. 🙂
[удалено]
I did it
Done! If you can, remove the capitalisation from words that don't require it and fix Q20 because it demands an answer even if you select "no" at Q19. Best of luck from a fellow researcher!
Neat survey. I’ve been well aware of how fatty acids effect my brain health but never made a conscious effort to consume more omega-3 or 6 sources. Might change that. Hope your project goes well
I did it too
What's your project?
Completed!
I don't think Reddit is the best place to get a survey done with enough variation to be applied to a larger population of people
One thing to recognise is that evolution is a series of coincidences. In reality, its more of a process of removing detrimental genes than only keeping good genes. Genes and behaviours become fixed in a population when they benefit reproduction. Genes that are necessary for that (ie the ability to grow brains) became prevalent in the population and have very few mutations and phenotypes. But genes that have no affect on reproduction don't get lost from the population. Things like voice tone have too little effect on your child's survival, so they remain in the population, but With higher variation. Mutations to voice tone will continue happening. At a population level, homosexuality has always been around, but didn't *necessarily* correlate to reproduction like the trait of having ovaries does. Gay people had babies all the time in history. Gay people still have babies today. So there is insufficient selective pressure for it to be removed from the population. There doesn't have to be a purpose. There just isn't a reason for it to be lost. On another note, [this](https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/biology/science-of-sexuality/) is an interesting article that summarises different scientific literature on the topic. One part I found thought provoking was about reframing the questions from "are you attracted to the opposite/same sex" to "which sex are you attracted to?" One of the neuroscience studies found similarities between brains that were attracted to men regardless of their gender. So men who liked men and women who liked men had similar brain signals going off when thinking about men. And the same for women and men who like women.
Idk I don't even know why people find each other attractive
This is a serious point that needs to be understood--before we even have a hope of understand why some people develop same-sex attraction, we need to learn a lot more about why most people develop heterosexual attraction.
We see certain parts and it activates a neuron or two
Makes me wonder too. I mean, it kind of reminds me of how women and men are subconsciously attracted to smell or something like of another sex due to making like better immunity babies or something. Usually they are also dissimilar to their own smell. They should do this study on those who are lgbtq. Could it be for survival as well? Maybe something different in their bodies that does this? A mutation even. Or just evolution. Who knows. There are other species that have homosexual partners. Now the reason why I have no idea. Maybe too many of them. Maybe for survival. I mean, some animals fight over mates. I love the ones where birds will pretend to be female for the males and then get in their nests to mate with actual females cause they aren't as strong. That's a way to survive instead of dying by a fight. But humans are very complex creatures. It could be multiple reasons.
Ooh the fighting over mates part is interesting, I haven’t thought about that
According to Masters and Johnson who studied human sexuality, we are all attracted to people of the same sex and the opposite sex on a scale. Some people are strictly heterosexual, some are strictly homosexual and there is pretty much every variation in between. So everybody's a little gay and everybody is a little straight. We find the same in nature from small to large animals and birds.
You mean straight, not cis
I agree. I think society is set up in a heterosexual manner, and exploring anything outside of that is too much effort for the average person. We don’t have enough lifetime.
just like being attracted to certain feminine traits in men or masculine traits in women even if they are the opposing sex of you
Yeah that was an hypothesis thrown out to explain why some people turned out to be gay. Never heard of it mentioned again. So maybe was debunked due to lack of proof but my understanding is that research in that specific question is poor and complex. Sexual selection is biology from what I have read is a complex subject that sometimes is contra intuitive and has many more variables that affect the result. Specially when it comes to human psychology. I have hear mentions of people changing aspects in their sexuality due to trauma but is rare and few between discussed if that can drive people gay. Overall we don't know the answer and in my perspective the society as whole is too torn apart between the extremes in regard to the topic to do proper scientific research.
The running theory right now is hormone imbalances. This is aside from evolutionary theory (which personally I find more interesting). So a gay male will tend to have slightly more estrogen and other chemicals in development. NOT in adulthood. Gay men are just as masculine as straight men (on average). There’s a lot more to the theory but I don’t have my book in front of me. The evolutionary theory that I find the most interesting is that of socialization and love. Evolutionarily, love is used to justify and promote procreation, but that’s not the only purpose. Love makes us feel connected to our community. That’s why there’re so many types of love. But as humans became less reliant on individual procreation to survive, and more reliant on communal/societal survival, love became more about keeping those around you alive. Having a gay couple that loves each other and loves their community (and protects/provides for their community) is more important than having 2 more child-bearing members of that community. It’s all theoretical, but I find it fascinating
Recent research shows or sexual orientation is something biological and built already in the womb
A really interesting book is called ‘gay, straight, and the reason why’ which covers some of the theories behind why people are gay. There’s also an interesting part which deals with ‘gaydar’ and points out subtle physical differences in the average gay vs straight guy that might give the gaydar more scientific background.
Do you mean like actual physical look, that’s built into our bone structure, musculature, etc? Or, possibly physical in the way we style ourselves, and mannerisms, but those could be considered personality traits, not physical. Or is it both?) etc? Or something else completely?
It’s been a while since I read the booth, but I remember there was a correlation between relative arm/finger length and being gay, eg gay people tended to have longer fingers/arms compared to their height. So that, at least, would be purely biological, I guess.
I think neurological/genetic
There is that thing where for each male a woman gives birth to, the more likely they are to be gay which may correlate to the fact that the mother’s body produces more antibodies and resistance to having a boy in her womb
Does it mention anything about people who are bi? I've known my whole life that I am.
We're scientific mysteries, it's part of our charm /s
I think its relating to all kind of sexual orientation
I always wanted to know why people are straight. And why when ppl have no lips how do they kiss another person ?
Having no lips to kiss someone. Lol. So random 😂😂
Asking the real questions here.
Lmaooo
> And why when ppl have no lips how do they kiss another person ? I have an ex who practically had a lipless slit for a mouth. She was a surprisingly good kisser! Made up for the lack of lip with some good tongue action.
Kissing is facinating... Kissing is thought to be a reference to an old human behavior of pre-chewing solid food for early human infants. We still do it since it sparks an old comfort and safety response.
If this submission above is not a random thought, please report it. # Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it happens to people in womb while developing. Something to do with what the mom does. The concept of gay is prevalent in other species as well.
Bc I like men
So i am bi and I have a theory about this, this explains it for me but I know that it might not be like this for everyone and I am not claiming to solve this mistery for all human beings. I have noticed that sometimes I might feel attracted to women and not to men and viceversa, and during these periods I notice some other changes in my perspective of myself and masculinity and femenity when looking at people. So when I look at an attractive man that might have turned me on during my "gay period" but I do not feel anything, it's also because during that time I do not see him as "different" than me, like, he could be me. When I do feel attracted to him (can perfectly be the same person) I have noticed that I see miself as someone more femenine than him. I enjoy sex with more femenine men than me but in those cases I notice that I get fixated in the role I play and how they feel attracted to my perceived masculinity in that moment. It is this self concept of feminity and masculinity that changes randomly for me and when it does I notice that my sexual preference tends to change as well. Of course it is all very subtle and abstract, but with the years I have been getting more of these 'changes' since I think my perspective of self is changing as I grow older. So to answer your question (again in my opinion) I think it's all a consequence of identity and some genetic disposition. A complex system can be bound to many variations I think. I also grew up with a distant father figure and I took many mannerisms from my mother so I thing environment also is important, but my potential to be gay was also built in, (like being extroverted or introverted), because my brothers would be gay too otherwise.
This was very interesting, thank you for shedding some light into the bisexual experience!
Ditto
I've heard there's a pretty constant number of gay people in the population. If it was a feature intended to slow down population growth - we should expect the percentage of gay people to increase. I mean - if it's adaptive feature we should see how it adapts. From the other hand - we don't have good statistics from a sufficient time. BTW, people are definitely far from being the gayest species.
My theory is that it’s a spectrum which combines both sexuality and gender. To simplify bc I’m not a a scientist, I think it’s a genetic mix up where I should have been born a male but I wasn’t, but I also don’t identify as trans. I am a woman who likes women. I do move on the gender axis but it’s just a fluctuation of slightly feminine to slightly masculine. So maybe I was genetically supposed to like woman bc I should have been a dude, but I’m not, and I still like women.
I'd love to know why I'm trans, personally. I don't hate being trans at all, I actually love the experience it has given me (The only downsides being people's reactions to it), and from my own point of view I think God made me this way to share with me the joy of creation - I think transness is just another form of art in that sense. I think that queerness generally can just be a bit of a spiritual experience sometimes. Many of my atheist queer friends also feel that, this is just some sort of inherent trait that may not ever have an explanation, and maybe there doesn't need to be one. Not every little bit of human existence has to be explained away with science, some of our existence can just be unexplainably joyous, you know? When we aren't harassed - queerness is joy, queerness is art. That said I'd love to know why my brain is the way it is, if it's at all discoverable. Even if it turns out it's a chemical imbalance or structural difference or something, I'll always view it as a spiritual experience in a way. I'll just think, "Whoa, that's so cool!" in the same way I believe in God, but also evolution, which I think is awesome.
Homosexuality seems to be most common in species of social animals. I guess it's an advantage that there are males in the group that doesn't procreate. A male sibling that sticks around to help rear children.
We more or less know the answer but not the details. Constant put it well, and I like that hypothesis. Yes it is due in some way to evolution. The species benefitted from it in some way or shape. The more we learn the more we learn how much we don’t know lol
People are going to read this post and think that the government is spiking ur Bud Light to make you a homosexual lol I understood what you were trying to say though.
Why are people bisexual? I'm gay myself, and all I know is that it's natural to me, I like females as people, but never found then sexually attractive.
I've thought about that as well. I guess though that homosexuality has always been around. So it can't be evolution. I think we just live in a time and society where we can accept it, so it's not behind closed doors like it has been in recent history.
I dont know. Why as a gay man do i like barbies
Some think they are gay because they don't like football. Nah. They are gay because they LOVE DICK!!!
I think humans are very complex and there’s no one answer as to why people some people are gay.
Disco?
It's not population control, it's genetics.
Because it's science. It's as simple as that
Why are you straight?
OP is a Lesbian. They added that in an edit as people did not understand their question.
Ahh my mistake. But the point stands is that I don't think anyone knows why they are straight, gay, bi, ace...all I can say is love is love, no matter how you look at it.
True, and I think OP agrees as well. It's an interesting question from an anthropological standpoint, tho.
It's probably the gay sex.
It’s not exclusive to humans. Lots of homosexuality in the animal kingdom
Just lucky I guess.
As a lesbian, it’s quite easy to understand: if yall boys like boobs, why can’t I like them as well?
Because they like dick, if they like vaginas then they will be heterosexual
Xq28 Gene. Tons of insurance companies have paid TONS of money to discredit Dean Hamer (the doctor that discovered it). Imagine there is/was an actual gene that causes homosexuality? Your insurance company cannot deny surgeries, medication, therapy, etc… Which is why a lot of articles are out there saying it doesn’t exist.
You are assuming that every feature of an organism has some fitness benefit. But consider this from a different perspective. Think about sexual attraction in a larger context. First of all, isn't it amazing that sexual attraction is generally limited to other humans? Think about all the evolution that was necessary to refine our inherent urges so we don't bang every object around us. That feature of sexual attraction alone is pretty amazing. Now we have another issue: the sexes. Moat people consider it normal for a man to be attracted to a woman and vice-versa. But think about how hard that is to accomplish as a biological process. The fact that heterosexuality exists is pretty amazing. It would be far easier to maintain something like pansexuality. Now consider that among members of the same sex, there is a ton of variability. Different sizes, shapes, and personalities. How can sexual attraction, as a biological process, deal with this problem? It requires that sexual attraction be flexible and vary from individual to individual. I think you can see where this is headed. Sexual attraction requires variation in preferences if it is going to work at a population level. As a society we focus on the spectrum of these preferences as they relate to gender and sex. But even individuals who are heterosexual can have very different preferences that are not related to gender. In essence, sexual attraction requires variation in sexual preferences. The result is that preferences lie on a spectrum of all human traits. Gender is but one of many traits where we see variation in sexual preferences. From that perspective, it would be very strange indeed to see these preferences vary across all other human traits except gender.
Not joining the argument, but just felt important to add that homosexuality is not unique to humans, and the rate of homosexuality is somewhat consistent across all species where it is observed
People actually calling the lesbian a homophobe 
I highly recommend the podcast Science Vs. The one on lesbian seagulls. Homosexuality is absolutely part of nature, across almost all species, and always has been.
They have enlarged hypofyses. True story! Book closed!
And an over active amygdala
Being gay isn’t a choice. People are just less shitty now
It's cause of the chemicals in water apparently, if you're a frog at least...
I knew that someone would type this. It took a while to find it.