Is homosexuality mainly the outcome of a physical/mental abuse?

[Maximinus Thrax]

Is homosexuality mainly the outcome of abuse-related events in one's life? What percentage of people follow the homosexual path outside these abuse scenarios?

[sumskilz]

Is homosexuality mainly the outcome of abuse-related events in one's life?

I doubt it. The cause of homosexual preference to the exclusion of attraction to the opposite sex almost certainly has a biological element, though it's highly unlikely that component is primarily genetic. I'm saying "preference" because the choice to act or not act on it may be significantly influenced by sociocultural environment.

What percentage of people follow the homosexual path outside these abuse scenarios?

You're not likely to find unbiased data on the topic, and in any case, it's not easy to answer such a question scientifically. There are a lot of confounds and issues of definition to consider.

[Frunk]

What an odd question. Do you actually assume that the majority of homosexuals are abuse victims? That would suggest a lot of abuse, which there surely is a lot of, but there are doubtless hundreds of millions of homosexuals in the world (the old "10% of the population" line is bogus - the true figure is surely much higher).

[Commissar Caligula_]

If its not due to abuse like Maximinus is suggesting, is the common argument that its due to genetics? It kinda strikes me as a really dumb argument that there is a "gay gene". I'd say its just personal preference, the society you're raised in and subconscious Sigmund Freud type stuff if we really have to get into it.

[athanaric]

What an odd question. Do you actually assume that the majority of homosexuals are abuse victims? That would suggest a lot of abuse, which there surely is a lot of, but there are doubtless hundreds of millions of homosexuals in the world (the old "10% of the population" line is bogus - the true figure is surely much higher).

Although I agree with you in that there must be other reasons for homosexuality than abuse, I think you are confusing, or conflating, homosexuals with bisexuals. "10% of the population" is actually an absurdly high estimate for true homosexuals.

[Frunk]

Although I agree with you in that there must be other reasons for homosexuality than abuse, I think you are confusing, or conflating, homosexuals with bisexuals. "10% of the population" is actually an absurdly high estimate for true homosexuals.

I could well be. As sumskilz says, there are issues with definitions and where one draws the line.

[sumskilz]

If its not due to abuse like Maximinus is suggesting, is the common argument that its due to genetics? It kinda strikes me as a really dumb argument that there is a "gay gene". I'd say its just personal preference, the society you're raised in and subconscious Sigmund Freud type stuff if we really have to get into it.

Obviously sexual preference is genetic and immutable whereas gender is a choice. Didn't you know? Actually, the only question that is perplexing from a scientific perspective, is why would someone be exclusively attracted to same sex individuals? To claim it's largely genetic makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, and the math simply doesn't work for the alleged fitness explanations that have been proposed. However, there does seem to be a genetic component. In men, genetic effects explain 34-39% of variation, for women it's 18–19% according to one of the larger studies on the topic. Other studies have found similar results. The biological factors involved in male homosexuality appear to be a potential genetic propensity combined with pre-natal exposure to female-typical levels of sex steroid hormones. See here: Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Genetics of Homosexuality.

Freud should probably never be mentioned in a science sub-forum, except with disdain.

Although I agree with you in that there must be other reasons for homosexuality than abuse, I think you are confusing, or conflating, homosexuals with bisexuals. "10% of the population" is actually an absurdly high estimate for true homosexuals.

As you probably know, the real number is below 5%, perhaps significantly so for exclusively homosexual people, but Frunk's post reflects a common misconception:

Is 10% of the population really gay?

Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.

[Adar]

Obviously sexual preference is genetic and immutable whereas gender is a choice. Didn't you know? Actually, the only question that is perplexing from a scientific perspective, is why would someone be exclusively attracted to same sex individuals? To claim it's largely genetic makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, and the math simply doesn't work for the alleged fitness explanations that have been proposed. However, there does seem to be a genetic component. In men, genetic effects explain 34-39% of variation, for women it's 18–19% according to one of the larger studies on the topic. Other studies have found similar results. The biological factors involved in male homosexuality appear to be a potential genetic propensity combined with pre-natal exposure to female-typical levels of sex steroid hormones. See here: Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Genetics of Homosexuality.

Freud should probably never be mentioned in a science sub-forum, except with disdain.

I think we struggle to understand homosexuality as we look at it from a modern Judeo-christian perspective. Historically homosexuality may be a social inconvenience for individuals but social norms still forced/encouraged homosexuals to have children. So even if being a homosexual may have been problematic it does not really score that high on the evolutionary fitness scale just like getting prostate cancer in your 70s or 80s). So my guess is that homosexuality is a pretty typical case of genetics where the complex combination of different genotypes and and environmental exposure produce a few very negative cases (ie no children) while it in most cases is neutral or advantageous for a part of society to carry the traits.

[hellheaven1987]

I remember saw a study not long ago claim younger children in a large family have higher chance to be homosexual...

[Himster]

I remember saw a study not long ago claim younger children in a large family have higher chance to be homosexual...

Yeah, I remember that too. It was part of a series of studies where a particular epigenetic marker was identified which was associated with a high fertility level in females, hence a strong correlation with large families and gay younger sons.... or the other way around.

[saxdude]

I think we struggle to understand homosexuality as we look at it from a modern Judeo-christian perspective. Historically homosexuality may be a social inconvenience for individuals but social norms still forced/encouraged homosexuals to have children. So even if being a homosexual may have been problematic it does not really score that high on the evolutionary fitness scale just like getting prostate cancer in your 70s or 80s). So my guess is that homosexuality is a pretty typical case of genetics where the complex combination of different genotypes and and environmental exposure produce a few very negative cases (ie no children) while it in most cases is neutral or advantageous for a part of society to carry the traits.

Interesting point and I think you are on the money, homosexuality is pretty difficult to define and is largely tinted by modern judeo-christian lenses. One has to consider that if a culture encourages marriage and child making, but is also fairly leniant with homosexual behavior to the extent were sexual activity between the same sex is almost expected (ie ancient Rome, albeit so long as one is the dominant or the "active" person), then the divide between exclusive monosexuality and bisexuality becomes largely a matter of conveniance, does it not?
In other words, monosexuality might be less predominant if one isn't taught that sexual interactions with the sex you have a lesser preference for isn't absolutly disgusting, and thus commiting homosexual or heterosexual acts on a whim, even if you have a preference for one or the other, isn't as game changing as it would be today.

If that's the case then homosexuality as a genetic trait isn't particularly self defeating, just genetically inconveniant.

[Adar]

Given the context I think this research is a good example of how bisexuality or even homosexuality can work from an evolutionary perspective.


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...91243216679934

[sumskilz]

The issues with homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective are only particularly relevant to those who are exclusively or nearly exclusively attracted to their own sex. As a behavioral phenotype, its prevalence (something like 3 to 4%) can't be explained in isolation, especially male homosexuality. Assuming most males in traditional societies still paired off with females in order to have children, it seems nearly impossible that having no attraction to women would not have reduced the total number of children on average. For example, there are all sorts of subconscious signals women close to ovulation give off that make them particularly attractive to most men, which are completely lost on men with no attraction to women. Plenty of research could be done in order to estimate exactly how many less pregnancies would result on average and what that would ultimately translate to in net-reproductive success, but the exact number doesn't actually matter for the general principle. If not being attracted to women only reduced net-reproductive success by 10% then such individuals would not be 3 to 4% of the population, but rather something less than 0.000000003% of the population. That is random mutation rate adjusted by the number of generations it would take for the trait to disappear. If we know the heritabilty of a phenotype and it's net effect on fitness, then we know the rate of change in frequency each generation. So returning to the random supposition of 10% which I'm sure is an underestimate, that's a fitness rate of -0.1, but assuming the trait has no effect on women, that halves it to -0.05. Now multiply that by the heritability of the trait squared, which is -0.05(0.36*0.36) = -0.00648. Even with my very modest estimate, the behavioral phenotype will reduce its underlying genetic frequency by 0.648% each generation, but again, it doesn't matter how accurate the estimate is, because no matter what it is, it will eventually reduce the trait to an extremely low frequency and couldn't ever have gotten to the frequency we know it exists in.

But as I said, that's taken in isolation. For the potential genetic basis to exist at the frequency it does, it has to also produce positive fitness effects, either in men when it doesn't result in exclusive same sex preference or more likely in women, since it appears to be inherited on the X chromosome. I'm fairly sure the net-fitness hit, even in traditional societies, was even greater than 10%, but since the phenotype isn't primarily genetic, there is a limit to the degree which selection can act on it relative to more heritable traits. Whatever positive fitness traits are associated with the same allele(s) are probably higher in heritability.

EDIT: The Breeder's Equation

[Prodromos]

I think it is a fairly recent invention that homosexuality is genetic or "uncontrollable." A lot of the academic research about this is politicized and shouldn't be given much weight.

I've actually researched this quite a bit. Homosexuality is caused by one or both of these things:


1- Desire to be degraded.
2- Desire to degrade other people.

Homosexuals tend to imitate heterosexual relationship dynamics.

There are "passive" homosexuals; these are mostly guys who are insecure about their masculinity or general worth to society. They may be bullied, or timid, or small relative to other guys. (Someone mentioned that younger siblings are more likely to become gay. That is because younger siblings grow up understanding that they are smaller, weaker, followers instead of leaders, etc.) They feel they aren't "real" men and should adopt a[n often exaggerated] female role. Some may believe that it is all they are good for. Others may feel being with men will eventually "teach" them how to be a real man.

"Active" homosexuals are much less complex, and tend to be people who simply get off to the idea of "emasculating", or otherwise degrading a fellow man.

Many homosexuals "switch" between the active and the passive roles.

For those interested here's an article by a former gay man, who lived the gay lifestyle through the 80s and 90s and beyond. It is a bit long but explains things quite well.

In 1989, I walked into the world famous Castro District of San Francisco as a disaffected young man of almost nineteen years of age. I had grown up bullied and lonely, and I was looking to finally belong. Almost since I was a child nearing adolescence, the other boys at school instinctively rejected me. While they made the decisive testosterone fueled jump to more masculine pursuits, such as aggressive schoolyard play and sports, I was timid and unsure. While their voices deepened and sounded increasingly confident, mine remained high-pitched but strangely muted. While they grew taller and filled-out, I just became thinner and ganglier. The pre-macho boys were typically the best at playing kick-ball and inevitably turn out to be recess and PE team captains. Focusing on my embarrassing apparent lack of skill, they were always quick to ridicule and loudly point out my utter worthlessness. No one ever wanted me on their team. After even the smaller girls got picked, I was always the default last man standing.

There were a few other unathletic boys in my class, either overweight or exceedingly short, who also got similarly passed-over. But they could turn rejection into an advantage through comical self-deprecation or by poking fun at me or someone else. I couldn’t do that. I tended to take everything to heart. I froze at the merest slight. The often cruel unthinking banter of boys seemed deliberately vicious. Yet, the more they rejected and taunted me, the more I wanted to belong. My childhood fantasies began to center around a benevolent superhero who would adopt me as his sidekick. In the afternoon, I would rush home to see after-school reruns of “Batman” and imagine myself as Burt Ward. To this day, it’s highly significant that homoerotic fantasies about Batman and Robin are pervasive in gay male culture.

When I arrived in San Francisco, I was still tall, thin, and uncoordinated, but I quickly discovered that men wanted to be with me. Here, a boyish stick frame was a distinct advantage. That first night, as I crept into my first gay bar, I was the same insecure and desperately shy kid. I didn’t know what to do. My only experience with the world of male-on-male sexuality was through watching gay porn. And, in those images I was fascinated. There was a fundamental order and a ritual to everything portrayed: old with young, big over small, the experienced and the naive. The mature and supremely masculine always ushered into manhood the fresh-faced and less physically impressive youthful rookies.

From porn, I sort of knew what to expect; I had seen such ominous similarly titled films like: “Daddy It Hurts,” “Stop It Hurts,” and “Its Gonna Hurt.” I imagined my transition to masculinity as an initiation rite. And at the near height of the AIDS crisis, like male youths in tribal cultures, who had to endure some sort of physical torment or trial in order to join the community of men, I was willing to suffer anything in the process; even to die.

You can read the rest here:

http://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/

In truth, there is no straight or gay. There's just what you do, and what you don't do. So you should do good things and avoid bad things.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I've actually researched this quite a bit. Homosexuality, is caused by one or both of these things:

1- Desire to be degraded.
2- Desire to degrade other people.

haha, what absolute, unadulterated . This is easily the most fundamentally idiotic I've ever read on this website. Congratulations.

[alhoon]

The opening post doesn't provide any scientific links or sources that suggest or disprove that homosexuality is related to abuse, it doesn't include any opinion of the poster aside of a one-line question nor a concrete basis for discussion.