/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14452989
Sex abuse and sociopathy.

>>14452989 A small sexually divergent minority seems to be a common thing across the evolutionary board. Perhaps, it does serve some purpose, or is simply and artifact of the process or maybe we all carry the gay gene

>>14452989
Because of the gay uncle theory (or whatever its called)

>Sex abuse and sociopathy.
Are these things that haven't been around for relatively very long? I'd still think humans more susceptible to becoming gay from abuse/trauma should have reproduced less and died out

>>14452989
Gays are not sterile. Gayness is also very complicated, the human brain is complicated.
Given 100,000 years or so they will not exist under natural circumstances, or men will develop butt wombs.
Humans are no longer evolving under natural circumstances

>>14452989
Because mothers hate their sons.
https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-sexuality-videnskabdk/possible-link-between-hormone-treatment-and-sexuality-study/1445137

>>14453008
What are natural circumstances exactly?

>>14452989
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=biological+exuberance

>>14453022
https://youtu.be/ETatUw0CbII?t=3m

>>14453005
Started out likely as sociopathic dominance. A need to see other men humiliated. Written evidence about it historically started with Athens and surrounding areas where pedo shit was normalized/enforced as population control initially.

>>14453008
Not how evolutionary processes work.

>>14453029
You're right. Which is why they're developing tumors and various cancers directly tied to the orifaces mostly used for being fucked instead.

>>14453041
but MSM told me prostate stimulation reduced the chance of cancer

>>14453028
This. Most sexual abuse is rooted in the perpetrator's psychopathy.

Gay uncle theory. Gays aren't a drain on the population in low numbers, they don't often reproduce but having a few people in a tribe who contribute but don't require additional resources for their own family units can be a net positive and increase survival rates especially for kin. I also remember reading somewhere that male children beyond the first are more likely to be gay but I don't remember where.

Abuse also seems to occasionally change sexual preference but the two (and other) explanations aren't mutually exclusive.

>>14453043
Prostate stimulation can be done externally. It's also probably a mistake to use devices in or near mucus membranes where absorption of any toxic shit in them is more readily taken up.

>>14453053
How many gay men do you know contribute to "caring for the tribe" outside of paying income tax? Historically these men were likely still reproducing, which pretty much negates any evolutionary argument towards it being beneficial. Is there historical documentation of faghags? It seems like most women would not want their children around a failed man.

>>14453062
>It seems like most women would not want their children around a failed man.
Most women can't even pick a good man, how would they know any better?

>>14453062
Our current society is so radically different from our evolutionary history that much of it can't really be compared and if it's an evolves trait with a low frequency it will take a lot longer than a hundred generations for it to fade after it stops being useful. Any other factors that could produce homosexuality would make seeing changes in the background rate more difficult too.

>>14453073
Look for roastie behavior and you'll be guaranteed to find it. In times when women cared about whether their kids were sexually abused, as opposed to the current era of online attentionwhoring or exploiting their kids for attention, do you honestly think that would have gone over well?

>>14452989
How come people still keep getting infected by behavior altering micro organisms?

>>14453093
Cats...They're the cause of homosexuality!

>>14452989
Homosexuality is a hobby that has no impact on reproduction rates

>>14453053
I accept gays now

>>14453134
Cats, man, I knew I shouldn't have fucked one.

>>14453147
enjoy your AIDS, faggot

Gays will be responsible for new strains of superbugs

>>14452989
Where can i find more of her

>>14452989
I think you need to ask: Why are ugly people still around despite natural selection? What about downs syndrome and other forms of degenerative disorder that affects a person's ability to reproduce before sexual maturity?
But you didn't because this is just a slide thread.

>>14453013
Natural circumstances would be surviving in the wild and passing on your genes without the social constructs of modern society

>>14452989
Because mitochondria want to propagate.

>>14453029
Yes. I'm sure a gay caveman, if he was strong enough to stop the others bashing his head with rocks...would fashion a deer skin diaper to stop his anal leakage. Maybe some other gays will help him repair his prolapsed anus

>>14452989
I hope you die

>>14452989
There is a very strong biological argument against the heritability of male obligate homosexuality ('being gay') through genetics. Male obligate homosexuality carries about an 80% decrease in likelihood to reproduce. Hence any 'gay uncle effect' would be extremely obvious and pronounced, supported by incontrovertible evidence, since otherwise it would not be significant enough to counteract the huge evolutionary pressure against being gay. In reality there is no historical or archaeological evidence for gay uncles ever being beneficial. Hence the gay uncle effect is out.

What if it's a mutation? There are very few mutational disorders which have a comparable effect on genetic fitness with being gay. The most common genetic disorder in humans is Down syndrome, which occurs in one in 700 births; Down syndrome is therefore charitably one seventh as common as being gay. This means being gay is very unlikely to be a mutation - the human genome does not accumulate harmful mutations so easily; a mutation this common would quickly become much rarer.

What if it's spread by genes which are beneficial to female relatives? This is untenable for the same reason as the gay uncle hypothesis.

What if it's caused by hormonal imbalances in the mother during pregnancy? A tendency in women that causes this effect would be analogous to other congenital conditions causing disability, which means the same argument against mutations applies here.

The solution? Homosexuality in men is caused by a pathogen. This means it evolves to compete with the human immune system, and solves the evolutionary counterarguments.

>>14452989
Not genetic and beneficial or at least not harmful to social groups?

>>14452989
Your brain isn't programmed at birth to be attracted to women. You spend your childhood not having actual attraction to women. Sexual attraction is mostly learned, with some genetic influence.
Most humans are potentially bisexual. Gays just never developed their heterosexual part, while straights are the opposite.

>>14453519
Society is a product of the wild. Do you consider ants,termites, and bees wild?

>>14452989
>>14453773
It's from the lack of mercury, the only genetic part is if you get gay first or fat first.

Because gays are created culturally not biologically. As long as our society and culture remain as is, there will be gays

>>14452989
nature also selects for gays, dumb-dumb

>>14452989
What is the connection with faggots and asian males in the west?
There is the exact same thread but instead of faggots, its asian males.

Gayness is real and has partial biological origins, that much is certain.

Gay genes make you have more children at the cost that is you inherit too many of them you end up childless and gay. It's kinds like "everything is good in moderation", people with the correct number of gay genes have a reproductive advantage.

As to why exactly too many gay genes makes you gay while also making you have more children at smaller doses? It's probably some inborn form of population control. Having 3 straight + 1 gay kids is better than having 1 kid, but if theres too many people they compete with each other, they gay kid wont compete.

>>14452989
Recruitment is a lot more utilised than mentioned (probably because "it's natural" doesn't quite meld with "my uncle touched me")

For the most part you got two groups of people:
1) Hedonists who want to have degenerative sex rather than start a family
2) Unconfident people who are uncomfortable around the unknown that is pussy, or prefer the company of men because they're more comfortable around them than women

Pretty much either one of them two if not the recruitment one. It's not natural that's just a cope

>>14452989
because fluoride in tap water is a greater force than natural selection, especially because the latter is not real

>>14454179
This would be interesting if true. What is the source?

If a preferable gen multiples quickly, ills be distributed faster, but if it's multiplying too quickly, it'll supersede all other families too fast and yield diminishing returns (due to incest, overpopulation etc).
Since homosexuality seems to correlate with what >>14453011 says, it's seems to be way to "protect" a preferable gene thats already yielding results (if a stone age mother survives 8+ child births, she's doing something right)

>>14452989
Because their sexual flexibility helps ensure the survival of the human species.

OP is a faggot.

Whatever causes homosexuality must have a large, non-genetic component. This is trivial to show, due to identical twins - there are many sets of twins where one is gay, and the other is not. If a "gay gene" existed then this would not happen.

God created certain aspects of life to test us, the resolve of our faith, and many things to try and tempt us into sin. Faggotry is one of those things, but if you are truly living a life according to the rules and laws set forth by god and given to mosses to be passed upon to the rest of the world then you will be protected against this vile and disgusting degeneracy

>>14454700
FUCK YOU FUCK YOU I DONT NEED A SOURCE NIGGER IT'S TRUE

Its not genetic
Its not upbringing
Its not chemicals
Its not the mother's hormones.
All of the above are fucking retarded.
Its caused by a parasitic micro organism that alters sexual behavior for its own reproductive benefit.
It most probably spread through sexual contact involving human feces.
Its likely to be a virus or protozoa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior-altering_parasite

>>14454934
Your god told me to tell you to stfu.

guys how do I decrease my libido?

>>14454968
i think it's genetic

>>14454934
My god (Zeus) loves gay sex and would kick your god in the butt

>>14452989
wtf i love Asians

>>14453826
>Your brain isn't programmed at birth to be attracted to women
You obviously had no puberty.

>>14454968
Did you consider that your theory (spreading through sexual contact involving feces => anal sex) would require 10% of striaght people world wide to have gay anal sex with gay men before being actually gay and enjoying gay anal sex?

>>14454756
Yeah, but the identical twin sexuality concordance rate is something like well over 40%. That's far higher than what it would be if there were 0 genetic factors at play, thus there has to be at least a significant genetic component.

>>14455374
"Wow, what country are you from?"
"Eyeliner"

>>14454934
How’s the closet?

>>14455385
It could easily be some shared childhood factor causing it - for example the parasite hypothesis that other anon has presented - if one twin was exposed to the parasite it is likely that the other one will, but not guaranteed. And of course it is possible that some genes do make one more vulnerable to whatever causes the gay; but are neutral or mildly beneficial without that exposure.

>>14452989
being molested as a child turns it gay

>>14452989
the mother being stressed during pregnancy causes her to upregulate genes in the baby for love and compassion in order to balance a stressful environment by putting out a supportive child which also tends to cause them to be gay.

if it's because of the father and the father beats the kids too then you get an angry closeted gay.

>>14453028
> pedo shit was normalized/enforced as population control initially.

Living through it now, it does feel like we’re being humiliated by a malevolent conquer.

>>14452989
the bigger question.. how gays are still around despite that girl existing..

>>14455754
>>14455788

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior-altering_parasite

>>14452989
For nearly 10,000 years 17 women reproduced for every one man. Similar disparities no doubt existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract/%22

The presence of chased men would no doubt aid in the survival of Neolithic tribes, I doubt they were all made eunics. The proclivity to Engauge in homosex was probably a social and emotional necessity for most beta tribe members.

>>14454237
Instead of this retarded fixation on calling it a gay gene let us instead call it an attracted to men gene. Woman who inherit such a gene have better reproductive sucess thus propagating the gene. There is no mechanism for propagating such a gene without having men inherit it as well. Perhaps you put the gene on the x chromosome men are less effected but not entirely unaffected.

>>14452989
You gotta believe me, most gays were molested as children by older men, this in turn causes them to become attracted to guys. Another story is that gays have parasites in them, I remember some anons said how when gays were given ivermectin, they would all shit out worms and started to turn heterosexual, something about the parasites cause them to act gay to spread the parasitic worms more by rim jobs. Another thing is an hormones interfering with a child's self perception.

>>14452989
Gays reproduce through abuse

>>14456151
>Engauge in homosex was probably a social and emotional necessity for most beta tribe members.
That would explain why 99% of gays are so wimpy.

>>14452989
Genuinely.
Banging a man isn't genetically beneficial. Banging a woman who looks like a man is.
Hence, gayness. Bisexuals also help carry it

>>14456166
why don't men grow vaginas?

>>14456407
Men have a y chromosome you absolute brainlet. Sex is not a social construct, it's a construct of nature.

>>14452989
watch Southpark
Either sexual abuse or perceived sexual abuse

>>14456409
So wheres the vagina gene and why aren't men affected at all by it?

>>14456421
>why yes I did fail biology how could you tell

>>14456428
>i cant answer the question

consider two families with one male and one female sibling:
>Family A consists of a straight female, her husband, their 5 children, and the female's gay brother. so 2 males, 1 female, 5 children
>Family B consists of a straight man, his wife, their 5 children, a straight woman, her husband, and their 5 children. so 2 males, 2 females, 10 children
>a male hunts x surplus meat (meat he doesn't eat) per day
>both families have 2x surplus meat
>Family A splits the 2x surplus meat between 1 females and 5 children
>Family B splits the 2x surplus meat between 2 females and 10 children
The female and children in family A will have more food and be more fit to reproduce, despite there being less of them.

>>14456166
>Instead of this retarded fixation on calling it a gay gene let us instead call it an attracted to men gene

You can happily get railed by a bunch of dudes without being attracted to men

>>14456503
Get your corks ready, boys!
Butt pirate ahoy!

because the operative unit of human evolution is "genes" not "people", the gay people with gene A got it from a family that also had it, and their interaction with that family A makes that family have more kids more successfully, because the gene A in females makes them more receptive and successful as mothers, and the presence of brothers without kids frees them up to do child-rearing.

Also what sort of fucking faggot god invents a prostate?

>>14453773
hi greg

>>14456728
The prostate is probably involved in some function of bowel movement feedback, it would be what controls the tone of the anal muscles along with gating the urethra. Women have a short perineum and thus their anal canal is pretty much right next to their vagina, so that's what would perform the same function in them.

>>14453773
>The most common genetic disorder in humans is Down syndrome, which occurs in one in 700 births; Down syndrome is therefore charitably one seventh as common as being gay.
mental disorders are more complex, there is evidence to suggest that e.g. alcoholism has a mutational origin

ITT: virgins

Its well known that gayness is caused by parasites. If you dont know this then you are still stuck in the 20th century.

>>14452989
I could be completely wrong on this one but I always assumed it's because of how it wasn't widely socially accepted until recently. So if homosexually is genetic (which I don't know if it is) then until recently homosexuals pretended to be straight and had kids in order to fit in society.

>>14453013
Many traits that make you successful in civilization (being born into a wealthy family in whatever region is prosperous at that time in history) aren't exactly passed on genetically

>>14452997
basically this. nobody is born with the gay, it's all adopted behaviour.

>>14456804
True - but alcoholism is nowhere near as disastrous to genetic fitness as being gay, and there is much more evidence for positive side-effects to the traits which cause alcoholism (IIRC it comes along with relative resistance to a large class of organic toxins).

>>14457068
>>14457005
>>14456974
all wrong, its parasites

>>14453773
>male obligate homosexuality ('being gay')
gays aren't obligate homosexuals in the same way that e.g. cats are obligate carnivores though. I am suspicious of how the 'obligateness' of homosexuality is sometimes presented. 'being gay' just means 'most of the sex you have is gay'

if a man is gay in the ancient Roman way, i.e. he fucks other men purely as a show of dominance, and he also has a wife he fucks regularly, is he gay? bi? closeted? you can force a man at gunpoint to have sex with another man, does that make him gay? bi? closeted?

honestly most gays seem to be like most fats, clearly doing something wrong and counter-evolutionary because it hits their dopamine receptors. disgusting behaviour but far from incomprehensible

>>14457071
I'm >>14457068 - I think it's a pathogen as well. You need to read threads before responding.

In This Thread: repressed homosexuality from losers

>>14457083
they are being manipulated by parasites. Their sexual behavior has been hijacked to suit the reproduction of the parasite instead. Are you so stupid you cant see that?

>>14457083
If you're not an obligate homosexual then there's reduced evolutionary pressure against you. I read the question as being about obligates homosexuals since otherwise it would not be an interesting question.

>>14456151
>incest
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS

>>14457098
good argument nigger

>>14457100
fair enough. I don't think there is such a thing as 'obligate homosexuality' any more than there is such a thing as 'obligate obesity'

Gay uncle theory + gayness can be a "dropping out" from dealing with crazy femoids. Plenty of bifags get sick of womens' insanity and choose a submissive femboy instead.

>>14457083
>>14457102
This doesn't make sense because gay sex wouldn't please a normal man, nor would there be a state of sexual arousal conducive to sexual contact in that situation.

There is also a large cohort (maybe 1%) of men in the modern world who profess sexual attraction towards men and not towards women.

>>14457119
>This doesn't make sense because gay sex wouldn't please a normal man, nor would there be a state of sexual arousal conducive to sexual contact in that situation.
it's not evolutionary, I agree. however, neither is obesity. stuffing your face hole with palm oil and sugar "wouldn't please a normal man" either, but we don't have controversies over whether obesity should be in the DSM or make up crazy theories about magic tapeworms about them, we just tell them to put down the fucking candy bar

>There is also a large cohort (maybe 1%) of men in the modern world who profess sexual attraction towards men and not towards women.
people say a lot of retarded shit for a lot of weird reasons, 1% of men doesn't mean shit, that's why we're at this stage of analysing the data to figure out what's REALLY going on

>>14453008
>men will grow butt wombs
you will never be a woman

>>14452989
Because despite of what they want you to believe, its a choice, not genetics

>>14453201
she is insanely hot, perfect yellow lady

>>14453773
>one in 700 births
Aren't a lot of them aborted if they're found to have downs though?

>>14452989
worms

>>14456151
WHATS THE SOURCE OF THIS WEBM

>>14458302
Yes, this is 1 in 700 live births.

>>14452989
>despite natural selection
your answer is obvious, unatural selection

>>14457139
The anus is capable of speech, who would have thought?

>>14457094
As if anyone could be bothered reading through your drivel.

>>14452997
This is really the only explanation.

>>14458767
You're here, no?

>>14452989
Stressed people living like rats increasss it

>>14452989
source

>>14459173
>source

4chan

>>14452989
Basic dialectics, it's part of a historical supercycle.

Maybe whatever genetic/environmental thing that makes men gay hasn't been evolved out of because if it happens to a women it makes them promiscuous thus more likely to have children. Or does some other thing that counteracts the reduced potential fertility of the person that only happens under specific circumstances. Who knows OP. Shits complicated. Its not like there is a switch in your DNA that you can turn off and makes you not gay. If there was there would be basically no gay people. Probably the same for many things like trannys or whatever shit that makes you less fertile.

Are there any citations of straight men ingesting said parasites and subsequently becoming LGBT?

Gay isn't genetic. It's caused by your environment.

>>14452989
Might be a genetic predisposition, but greatly potentiated by the environment.
/thread
>>>/lgbt/

>>14454934
Yes. Keep telling it.

>>14452989
Because of patriarchy. Even if you're a gay guy, you'd still be expected to have a wife. And even if you were a dyke, you'd still be expected to become a mother. So, even though gays have no desire to fuck people of the opposite sex, most societies would still pressure you to do so.
The real questions are:
>how did incels survive natural selection?
>what will happen to gays now they aren't pressured to leave biological kids?

How can the gay uncle theory be true if gays are also more likely to abuse kids and traumatize them to the point many end up also turning gay?

>>14459369
> how did incels survive natural selection
Patriarchies. It's kind of how chads fuck most women today even if they're ugly as shit, incels could leverage society to obtain a partner they wouldn't have otherwise.

The fact remains is there is no conclusive evidence that supports any of the popular theories, such as genetics, environment, abuse, etc.
My unfortunate conclusion is that homosexuality persists becasue it must be really good sex. Like really mind blowing. So once a guy gets over the initial ickyness of fucking another male's anus they get hooked. Maybe having a cock shoved repeatedly up your butt results in an amazing orgasm. Maybe making a guy cum from shoving your dick up his ass puts the pleasure receptors in your mind into overdrive.
That must be the reason why gay guys keep doing it. It gets passed down from generation to generation as a great way to blow your load. Add to that the fact that women are out of commission for 25% of the time and also likely to spit out some brat that requires a good slab of your time and resources to raise, you can understand why some men might prefer to stick to homo sex.

Gays can procreate just fine. Modern propaganda teaches them not to, but they can.

>>14452989
Viruses.

>>14452989
Possibly Sapiosexuality misguided through proximity as homosexuality? Other than abuse.

I grew up imprinted by social media and questioned if I was gay/bi from all the years of staring at any kind of screen. I think a smart brain was what I was attracted to though I can't say that "love" steers you to this all the time.

>>14453773
Gays exist for the same reason men have nipples, sometimes a womens genetics overpower the male side.

>>14459694
>its well known that some viruses and other microorganisms cause alterations to behavior through hijacking the brains of their hosts. Prime example : Rabies.
>Its even well documented that Influenza will cause humans to become more outgoing and increase their social contact, and so help spread the virus.
>vast numbers of viruses are still not properly identified or understood. New viruses that can infect humans are being detected every year.
>Just recently an entirely new class of virus, the Giant Mimivirus, was discovered, yet it commonly exists around most of the world.

But lets ignore all that with respect to causes and persistence of Homosexuality within Humans. Lets entirely ignore the fact that microorganisms can alter your behavior and you aren't even aware of it. Instead, let's just keep arguing about genetics versus upbringing.

>>14452989
They reproduce by abusing and raping kids.

>>14452989
breeders bred them
they also bred murderers and rapists
breeders are dumb

>>14455374
>>14456166
Get hanged

>>14452989
That's a man. And I want that bussy.

Captcha: 8MASK

>>14459694
The reason why viruses are not accepted as a cause is because that would admit homosexuality is a transmissible disease. That is not going to fly in the face of 50 years of political activism to normalize it. It would give legitimacy to isolating homosexuals from society at large as a means of preventing infection. That's unacceptable in a scientifically illiterate political climate where facts are far less important than feelings. Because of this homosexuality is going to continue spreading and infecting an ever growing percentage of the population.

People have gay sex because it feels good.

>>14452989
>>14455374
>>14456166
kys

>>14455382
Child molesters

Because sexual desire is way too complex to be coded in genes. The only thing coded in genes is sexual conditioning, but what you get conditioned to is up to the environment. Natural selection still happens though, it's just not expressed in genes. If you have two groups of people, and one group of people encourages straight sex and stigmatizes gays, the other is sexually open to everybody, which group will have more children? You don't need something to be expressed in genes to be a subject of natural selection. But humans are slowly globalizing, we're seeing a population explosion so social natural selection doesn't happen anymore because we're moving towards just one set of ideas for everybody now. What we will see happen in the next few hundred years is this set of ideas getting more and more open and permissive until we strike a balance to where enough people are not reproducing to the point where the population stops growing.

>>14453005
If the genes that increase the chance of being gay don't make being gay 100% certain, and being gay doesn't reduce the chance of them having children to 0%, it can still be passed on. It won't be selected against except when it actually manifests in homosexuality, which is a minority of cases.

>>14453008
No, humans are working entirely under normal circumstances, because...

>>14453013
the "normal" circumstances that lead to new species are bottlenecks, like a population becoming isolated, or a catastrophes that kill off members of the population that lack some trait(s).

>>14453826
That's absolutely retarded. We reproduce sexually. Heterosexuality isn't just the default, it's the actual thing that defines what the sexual act is. Everything else is just mutual masturbation.

>>14453001
My theory is that having somebody who is gay in your family is good bc that means you get somebody who is not interested in having babies himself and can help raise yours. We all have that one uncle that doesn't have kids so he spoils his brothers and sisters kids and takes care of them. Sometimes he touches them but yeah.

bleed

>>14452989
>>14453008

Gay is a meme made to sell you the cult of gay.
In reality, people are generally attracted to both sides depending on how easily saturated their brain is with degeneracy and how that person handles it.
There's been studies on finding genes for it, but all they found were self destructive behavioural loops.
The meme itself is actually a tool for corporations, the cult of gay and psychological warfare nowadays (though the last part can overlap with mere bdsm - which really is just sexual slavery).

>>14453011
>Because mothers hate their sons.
Wasn't that the same reason doctors gave for autism decades ago?

>>14453028
It was 100% a power dominance syndrome that people had in the past. The acceptance is arguably a coping mechanism on part of the receivers.
>you will put that lotion on your skin
>you will enjoy it

With regards to lesbianism, it's the opposite - with women wanting to avoid the power dependence on the man.
Plus I think even men can agree that we are heinously ugly. I wear that as a badge though.

So naturally there must be some embedded urge that is naturally selected to allow for people to accept some stance of weakness and accept the mighty. That's why testosterone is there to overcome it in males too, otherwise there wouldn't be any reproduction.
That's why most gay male bottoms tend to look effeminate or behave that way too.

>>14453073
I've never met a good person, male or female.

This is why I will only have sex with xenomorphs.

>>14453053
>gay uncle theory
It's more of a meme actually and a recent one too because it's merely women selecting for literally npc types over actual people with personalities and the flaws with them.

That's been happening since we stopped arranging marriage in our society.
I think the Taliban are right, harems must be enforced now at the state level.
It's the only option.

>>14454237
>>14456166
1st: define what is a man and a woman
2nd: look at how we observe and distinguish between the two (i.e. how the brain processes visual observations, social observations and how they can often be in dissonance)

After that you'll realise that there never was "gay" because people play things by ear from person to person and even object to object.
The mental faculty that provides a way to distinguish between human and non-human is similar to the faculty that allows us to distinguish between male and female.

So of course you're gonna have problems when you blindly assume that must like one sex or the other. That simply doesn't happen in your brain.
Instead it goes further to the objects that we sexualise in detail - orifices, flesh, social tethers and interactions, etc.

This is why murderers often are obsessed with sex and the overlap with the mere flesh aspects of it. That's actually how our brian works.
Our brains are, simply put, pure evil.

>>14460013
>breeders
This just makes me want to genghis khan the place.
Keep doing it, it will boost fertility rates everywhere soon, I guarantee.

>>14452989
>How come gays are still around despite natural selection?
Antibiotics

>>14452989
huh? they die childless. They dont spread their seed and eliminate their geneology

it's just natural down-regulation of a exponentially grown population.

God I love our genome

>>14452989
Population control

How would any of you explain feminine men?

>>14459369
>how did incels survive natural selection?
>>14459416
>Patriarchies. It's kind of how chads fuck most women today even if they're ugly as shit, incels could leverage society to obtain a partner they wouldn't have otherwise.
This partly true, but it has a lot to do with the increasing sexual dimorphic nature of humans.

Very tall men are statistically much more likely to reproduce, but so are very short women.
Bada bing, bada boom, average sized kid.

Men with sharp jawlines are more attractive. Women with round faces are more attractive.
Bada bing, bada boom, average looking kid.

Law of odds say that you'll eventually have kids who take more after their soft-faced, womanlet mothers. These kids are called incels.

Ultimately, the best thing you can do in life is be born a woman, because the moon and stars must align to be attractive as a man.

>>14456166
>Instead of this retarded fixation on calling it a gay gene let us instead call it an attracted to men gene.
Because absolutely nothing suggests the gay gene exclusively "makes you attracted to men" or something. The gay gene could increase intelligence without decreasing fertility, for example. It could increase verbal intelligence, or rather make men more "female like" cognitively, as women have higher verbal intelligence on average. It could also do other stuff, and in the correct environment it'll undergo positive selection, and thus make you have more kids.

>>14468814
>women have higher verbal intelligence on average

Its probably a virus. Being gay is surprisingly low in its genetic heritability, and also un-surprisingly not caused by environmental influence (because the environment doesnt influence much at all). So it seems to be a non-genetic biological factor.

Its probably some virus kids get before puberty that permanently messes them up.

>>14468715
When a child is conceived, they get their genes from their parents, and by luck they could get the more feminine traits from both of their parents. They could get the more feminine genes from their parents, and still be male.

Having a Y chromosome is obviously a big factor in being feminine or masculine, but its not the only genetic factor that is relevant to behavior, morphology, hormones, etc.

>>14464631
>My theory is that having somebody who is gay in your family is good bc that means you get somebody who is not interested in having babies himself and can help raise yours.

So, gay people have basically no kids. That is a huge evolutionary penalty. So for it to be worthwhile, there must be some incredible evolutionary benefit. Lets take your claim that maybe being gay helps you raise your siblings kids. Since your siblings share half of their DNA, a gay person would need to compensate their lost fertility by helping theirs siblings have twice as many kids as they did not have, for it to be worthwhile. we would have to observe gay people's siblings have something like 4 more kids on average. That is a crazy large increase in fertility that is obviously not the case in reality. We dont observe in real life, childless gay people being so incredibly helpful in their brother's families that their brothers have >4 extra kids.

>>14459658
You survivle natural selection by the kids you _can_ have, you survive natural selection by the kids you _do_ have.

>>14459260
I dont have any, but thats not really whats proposed by the germ theory of homosexuality.

Its not a virus that converts a straight man into a gay man. It doesnt take the machinery of a straight brain and reconfigure it into a gay one. The proposition is a virus that interferes with puberty and the natural biological development of sexual behaviors.

>>14459195
>women it makes them promiscuous thus more likely to have children
Promiscuity doesnt necessarily lead to more children. If there was just an unlimited fertility gain from being promiscuous, then women could be a million times more promiscuous. Since they arent, it means they are closer to the equilibrium where being more promiscuous actually hurts their fertility.

Women arent advantaged by just having as much sex as possible. They are advantaged by producing viable offspring, which means a lot of parenting and mate selection. Most of the work in effectively reproducing is not in simply having sex.

>>14468824
Yeah, they do. Men have higher rates of autism. Men are interested in things, women are interested in people, and having an interest in people just so happens to be correlated with verbal intelligence.

I will say that verbal intelligence is pretty much the only cognitive trait which women have been found to have an advantage in, though.

>>14468957
seethe chang

burn

>>14452989
Don’t know if someone mentioned this already but a study of queer vs. hetero siblings found that heterosexual siblings, if they had a gay sibling were more promiscuous on average. The theory was that the sex drive of the sibling compensates for the gayness of the other, allowing for the familial genes to propagate at the same rate. You always have to remember that you aren’t the only one with your genes, your parents and siblings carry them too.

>>14452989
name of whore?

>>14470993
Why do you care? There are a million like her. All virtually identical. You must be fucking stupid.

>>14455374
That bitch is white

>>14468888
>Its probably a virus
Then why hasn't the virus been identified?

>>14471031
It's being an evasive faggot?

>>14452989
Genetics, especially of highly complex animals like human beings, is extraordinarily complex, fags could be an adaptation to an as-yet unknown or poorly understood environmental pressure, they could be the result of random mutations that make up the normal level of genetic variance, there's also a fair chunk of evidence that the quantity of total males born to one mother increases the chances of any more male children being effeminate or gay, as the mother's body attempts to homogenize the fetus with her own internal environment and gets better and better at doing this the more children she has.
This "adaptation" to pregnancies with male children would also help control the growth of population, as gay men are less likely to reproduce by personal choice.

>>14457071
>>14457094
Wrong. It's a dysfunction in reproductive gene expression.

gays are created culturally not biologically, no amount of natural selection will remove gays as long as the culture that creates them remains

>>14454179
Freddie proves you wrong.

The scientist who says anime makes you trans also says that having more sons increases the chances of your next son to be gay. So it's less the genes of the gay and more the genes of the mother. Personally I believe that it's a kind of adaption to inheritance. The eldest straight son inherits everything. And the youngest gay becomes a twink for the older one

>>14452989
kys

>>14452989
Bisexuals are more common than gays. They are the reservoir of "gay genes".

>>14452989
it's caused by environmental factors.

certain chemicals exploit the way that some biological mechanisms in our body work.

>>14459697
>sapiosexuality
Isn't an actual thing
>>14459369
This implies that one or several gay genes exist which isn't the case.

>>14452989
Animal experiments have concluded homosexuality occurs under the absence of females or stressful situations. Homosexuality is unnatural and humans only have two genders.
That said, it's not necessary to throw stones at those people but neither is it to hide the truth.

>>14452989
There will always be OP.

>>14465471
This. It's a fetish like autogynephilia.

>>14468888
>we would have to observe gay people's siblings have something like 4 more kids on average.
Not necessarily. It would be enough for a gay person's nieces/nephews to be 4x more likely to survive to reproductive age.

In a society with much higher maternal and child mortality rates, a mother with a gay brother to help watch the kids would be more likely to have grandchildren than a mother with a straight brother who doesn't give a shit about his sister's kids. She'd also be more likely to survive childbirth, since she could have time to recover without doing the work of feeding/nurturing a newborn. This would result in her having more kids over her lifespan, on average.

But it's basically impossible to get enough historical data to know whether any of our theories hold water, so it's all speculation at the end of the day.

>>14452989
If genetic susceptibility towards homosexuality exists, it is most likely very similar to desirable traits, hence minute and common variations will lead to homosexuality. This would explain the more or less consistent prevalence. There's also a bunch of environmental reasons, but these are expected to vary as the social culture changes.

>>14452989
if you're seen dogs fuck each other for dominance or prisoners talking about turning a weak one into a sissy girl then you'd know its about dominance and abuse, like >>14452997
said.perhaps the passive ones develop some sort of stockholm syndrome.

people who claim that gays love each other and are able to form stable relationship are seriously misinformed or just delusional

>>14472814
>She'd also be more likely to survive childbirth, since she could have time to recover without doing the work of feeding/nurturing a newborn.
Can gay men breastfeed? Because physical recovery and breastfeeding are what end up taking a physiological toll on the mother. Evolution didn't consider formula or breast pumps in its development agenda.
>>14472847
They don't outside of probably rare occurrences. They're generally more promiscuous than any paid whore, so bond development is probably fucked.

>>14472866
There's documented evidence of formula existing as far back as ancient Rome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684040/

IIRC there's also a precolonial american paste made with mortar and pestle that tribal societies fed to children.

People have been cooking since before people were homo sapiens, so it definitely had an influence on our evolution.

>>14452989
There are non-gays creating more gays, which is inherently gay

>>14472897
Still a non-argument. There's no benefit to having a man fully capable of physical labor being tied for 1-2 months at best for childbirth recovery.

>>14472960
Of course it does:
>women are the limiting factor in reproduction
>therefore preserving the life of a woman improves the rate of reproduction
>but preserving the life of a man does not
>therefore evolution rewards tribes that care for women after childbirth

Plus, by the time of homo sapiens, the labor of 1 man could provide sustenance for several families, because crops were cultivated. The remaining men created permanent fixtures like shelter and monuments, or administered primitive religions and financial systems.
It's easy enough for a simple accountant or clergyman to take an extended leave and put his work in the hands of an apprentice.

Furthermore, not all men "worked" in the sense we understand it today. Some acted as tribal elders and advised younger people. Some were "village idiots" and did nothing at all. These men could obviously take care of a kid for a little while without any loss to the tribe.

>>14452997
I would only add to this the possibility that they merely see it in a fetishistic sort of way. tl;dr
>sex abuse
>sociopathy
>autism

There you go.

>>14452989
Gay spreads through molestation

>>14453008
>Butt wombs
Trying to implant a womb won't work, in the distant future they would just set up genetic editing clinics

>>14452989
give it some time,
before, gays married women despite their condition, so they reproduce, is just recently that gays are completely free to be gay and dont reproduce,
it could be that we have genes for that and it just doesn't affect our survival enough to die out

bleed

>>14452989
>>14452997
So is it gay to want to fuck traps or no? Yes, it is a power thing.

>>14452997
Why are men who have been through sexual abuse constantly stigmatized?

>>14473541
Because out of men, women and children. Men are the only ones that have to grow up. So if you don't, or if you're fucked up in any sort of way, you're a burden and men aren't allowed to be burdens.

>>14473541
Because of the societal standards that you uphold yourselves to? CSA is a serious issue, and gay men taking advantage of young teen boys is commonly accepted. Ask who creates these rules and doesn't punish sex abusers or at best gives them a slap on the wrist. Many are just allowed to slither along because they made some "contribution to the gay community" or poured a ton of money out into some meaningless bullshit in a pretend effort to be an activist. All CSA should be heavily punished, and the victims rehabilitated and immediately removed from the environment. Instead they're just left in an endless cycle to eventually do the same thing to other boys.

>>14473561
>CSA
?

>>14452989
Causes of homosexuality are unclear and mainstream theories are flawed. Likely gays are caused by a virus or parasite set somewhere in the brain, and only affecting a subpopulation with some set of aligning coincidences.
Recall that gays literally don't exist in hunter-gatherer societies and only appear after western anthropologists visit them often enough

die

>>14470899
>enjoyment is a weapon. Every time you are enjoying yourself, your brain is damaged by satan. The bible has shown that what i just said is true, and also there's grey matter damage as well. The definition of gray matter damage is the following: .... In addition to being pleasant, porn is fake. Also, there's a monistic relationship between every single man and every single woman, and this thing is damaged metaphysically when porn is viewed. Also, Some evil entity is exerting its influence over you (probably satan.) Finally, league of legends sells slaves

>>14452989
Kys

Faggots reproduce by molestation. (im from India)

41% aren’t still around Anon.

>>14452989
natural selection is kindergarden meme science

Women are abhorrent. Aside from their supple and physically pleasurable bodies, and their dulcet and emotionally pleasing voices, they are shallow, obnoxious and immature at all stages of life. A female will remain attractive for one decade, two at most, before her best aspects dissolve by way of the wall. Aside from the formerly mentioned two aspects, they provide nothing of value different than males. Sexual attraction toward the same sex is somewhat a genetic trait but is largely a learned behavior, and as common as anal copulation with as little an actual interest as women hold for it, such stimulation tends to be a gateway for homosexuality; their own prudence plays a role in their devaluation. Women only succeed as they do because of assistance from males; marriage is a design to promote the continuation of progeny in a safe environment and to protect and enable the use of females. Natural selection would still have women much, much more subservient and serving their entire purpose of breeding solely while women would establish meaningful relationships among other men of the tribe.

What many "gays" of today are mentally weak and plyable and do no truly believe their outlook but have become subservient like women. Those who tout on about "gay pride" are entirely socially engineered and are enamored with the concept foremost. Similarly, they exist purely because society enables their protection and success. In short, true homosexuality between men is more natural than the gay agenda that would otherwise be abolished by natural selection due to creature comforts in the same way as women's independence.

I appreciate the girl in the OP and would make thorough use of her, but I know she will lose that value in very short time and could easily enjoy myself equally with sexually similar males while also investing in them mentally and emotionally as well.

>>14476927
To add citation to this, I'm a thirty-two year old male who has had almost forty female sexual partners and a fraction of that as romantic partners. I was a single child in my household and experienced no form of abuse nor have extended family. What I can add is that I used to have a severe porn addiction, stemming from a stress addiction, and anyone worth their salt knows which tribes manipulate both the Western "gay agenda" and porn sites. Subsequently, I'm a faggot that will fuck anything that movies and seeks to procreate but refuses to couple with a female or any bastardization of what a male thinks he can make himself of as a female (because any man who seeks to change himself and identity as a female beyond his sexual role, ie castration of gender identity, values women more than their worth and is beyond worse in other regards). People who chase eugenics in any form are idealist at best and ignorant crowd chasers at worst. Any trend is propagated by a sense for control, either over others or over one's self. Simple as.

>>14476927
>Women are abhorrent.
imagine 200,000 years of these fags being erased from the gene pool.
truly the ultimate kek.

Do you guys actually believe the absolutely insane shit that you type or is this entire board just an ironic shitpost

>>14452989
Because 80% of men don't reproduce. They are useless. They can be degenerates and die and it has little to no effect on the gene pool. Therefore not relevant to natural selection.

>>14452989
Harems and concubines and human sexuality being more malleable than anyone wants to admit.

>>14472967
>Plus, by the time of homo sapiens, the labor of 1 man could provide sustenance for several families, because crops were cultivated.

No, not even close. Homo sapiens, based on were you want to point at a timeline became a thing between 130 k BC and 80 k BC. Neolithic Revolution happen in 10 k BC, which the first very clearly different societies from it starting around 6500 BC. First places that started to have that type of out put were the river valley civilizations, with Mesopotamia reaching that around 4200 BC, Egypt getting their in 3400 BC, and the other two even later then that.

Thing is that is only for the river valleys themselves, not for other lands under cultivation by those peoples. More places started to have rates farming households to supported non farming households around 700 BC. For example the Po valley. Thing is that overland transportation before railroad is a hell of a thing and most places were still at a rate of 5 to 1 households farming to non farming households to 3 to 4.

The UK as a national average got a out put that would enable a 1 to 2 rate of farming households to non farming households in 1720 AD.

>>14480349
>1 farming household to 2 non-farming households
>1 farming man and his wife and 4 kids to 2 non-farming men and their wives and 8 kids
>2 farming humans to 16 non-farming humans
guess it's the labor of 1 man and 1 woman providing sustenance to 3 families, my point will never recover from this slight adjustment in math

>>14480355
>guess it's the labor of 1 man and 1 woman providing sustenance to 3 families,

The kids also worked in the fields starting around age 7. You may think that is a small thing but generally speaking a kid was a net profit for the farming parents do to the labor they would get out of before he or she left for their own family.

The next thing that I would say is that "1 man and 1 woman [plus kids] providing sustenance to 3 families" is what the UK got to by 1720 AD. And that their system used seasonal labor from other households during both planting and harvesting season.

The point I am trying to make is that producing food generally took a huge amount of manpower.

>>14452989
I would say gays are around because of natural selection. Humans are perhaps the only species for which a member will actively seek to self destruct when it realizes it has nothing to give to the gene pool. When you are not social you become depressed and commit suicide because you realized you meant nothing to us as a species and some mechanism compelled you to either become usefull or die.

>>14455642
>the parasite hypothesis

>>14474091
This doesn't show porn is harmful. The Israelis broadcasted porn because it was offensive, and so demoralising, it was a show of strength. If they were to do this to the west they would show back to back heckin racisms on the TV. Every channel you turn to will have someone screaming "nigger", imagine the level of chimp out that would cause? same in this situation.

>>14454934
That doesn't make sense. Because if that is truly the case - a test made by god- then one would hope it would get better in the future or ask for salvation. For example, a poor man prays that he will be less poor and there's a hope element into it that he truly believes it will get better. But for a gay person no matter how many times prayers have been conducted you wouldn't be less attracted to male. There's quite literally no hope for a gay individual to make it better.

>>14452989
what if its a recessive gene on the X chromosome?

It’s part of a genetic trade-off. A man who is less selective and fucks anything that moves is more likely to reproduce. It’s all just a numbers game.

>>14452989

I have a read a theory. It is based on genetics but not as a direct issue. The theory goes that it is a gene in the mother that has a building auto immunity reaction to male fetuses hormones. Every kid after the first born son is more on the kinsey scale.

Why is it still around? The first born son and any daughter born before hand are unaffected.

The theory is based on kinsey scale test findings. The auto immunity reaction is explanation that is yet to be prove.

>>14471031
Why would it be? There are tons and tons of viruses. They are tiny. They dont necessarily lead to any illness or sickness. Some viruses just live in us constantly. Many times if you are sick from a virus we just say you have "a cold".

Maybe it has been identified, we just havent connected it to being gay yet.

>>14472814
> It would be enough for a gay person's nieces/nephews to be 4x more likely to survive to reproductive age.

How can you be 4x more likely to reach reproductive age when >90% of people born make it to reproductive age? That just doesnt make any sense.

You appeal to historical data, as if sometime in the past it was ever the case that only 10% of children made it to reproductive age. Even if that was the case, child mortality has been gone for a long time in the west, so you would think gay genes would go extinct as soon as the pre-condition for their usefulness also disappeared. But thats not what we see.

>>14481829
>. A man who is less selective and fucks anything that moves is more likely to reproduce.

That is simply false. Men who have sex with anything dont have kids. For example, gay men do not have kids. Men who have sex with sex dolls dont have kids.

>>14480556
Self destructing would remove you from the gene pool, so it cannot be a consequence of natural selection.

If there was some genetic mechanism where people would commit suicide when they discovered they were obsolete, it would fail to reproduce and the genes that lead to it would go extinct. It would lose out to the sorts of people who genetically dont commit suicide when faced with the same thing.

>>14453150
>Cats, man, I knew I shouldn't have fucked one.

loled

>>14452989
How come we still get sick and die, despite natural selection?

There was this documentary from finland or sweden, brainwashing i think - about taboo subjects

one episode was about the gay

and there was this american neuro something scientist who was gay himself and he wanted to find out why so he started his own research

He scanned a lot of gay heads in the mri, and he did find that most of the ones who felt nothing towards the opposite sex from birth - had a less developed part of the brain that, i think regulated hormones, which explains those gay guys with the feminine voice and looks.

Of course the scientist got cancelled by his fellow gays because he basically implies that being gay is like having adhd, or like being born with autism - its a random mechanical fuckup in the brain that can happen to anyone.
For the others, well its mostly a fetish that got out of control or any of the other reasons anons gave itt

Except the parasite one. Ive seen you fuckers before, i would not even be suprised its one or few guys who also attack germ theory on the regular here or even that - there are no viruses - tripfag. Either trolling or just kids who just found out about those brain eating funghi that manipulates ants minds

Im also very dissapointed in sci because its here that ive got that docu series here recommended

Because you are all so stupid and make me sigh, im not gonna bother to check the name of the show.

theres an episode just called violence, then theres nature vs nurture episode
has one episode about sexes
the author is a commedian from one of the nordic countries
itsa beautiful docu series because the humanities people just get dunked on in every episode there by scientists

>>14452989
because homosexuality is clearly a mental illness

>>14485496
Nature doesn't make mistakes. There's no such thing as random mechanical fuckup.
You may not yet understand the cause but its not a "fuckup".

>>14452989
>come to /sci/ - Science & Math
>see this

>>14485496
t. ate the parasite contaminated poo poo

>>14485675
>There's no such thing as random mechanical fuckup.

Of course there is. Genes mutate randomly. Most mutations are negative. Most orgamisms are in less than optimal shape. Stuff is physiologically not operating like it ideally should.

Thats just normal degrees of fucked-up. You can obviously see cases where people are like, congenitally deaf or unable to walk or whatever else.

>>14452989
grooming

>>14452989
I want to be so tiny and I want her to put me in her snatch as she sways around and moves me with her.

>>14485675
>YOU CANT HECKIN CALL GAYS "FUCK UPS"

>>14485496
Retard take

it might be beneficial for a gene, or at least neutral, when you factor in inheritance dynamics.
Also gay relatives with out their own kids are extra hands to help, same way having grandparents is evolutionary advantagious

>>14452989
Dysgenics

>>14483925
Think of it more from a macro perspective. A population of men who are less picky about the traits they select will be more successful than those who are picky. You’ll have a nice numbers spread of people willing to fuck anything from their own species (heavily skewed towards attraction to females).

>>14486571
If you think nature just make random genetic mutations then you will never be able to figure out the truth.

Nature doesn't make mistakes. You may not understand the cause of a certain condition yet but it is not a mistake.

>>14453008
>Humans are no longer evolving under natural circumstances
this is important

I can not believe I made a 250 reply thread! This is a momentous occasion guys.
Thank you all very much

>>14487265
>A population of men who are less picky about the traits they select will be more successful than those who are picky.

Just stating this doesnt make it true. Its pretty easy to find examples of men making poor mating decisions when they arent selective about who they mate with.

>>14452989
>same energy with
How come weebs are still around despite natural selection?

>>14487479
>Nature doesn't make mistakes.

moronic

>>14487479
Genetic mutations are in fact random.

Organisms every generation are degenerating genetically, and only by natural selection do they stay in any form at all.

>>14472662
kek

>>14452989
Either because being gay isn't a genetic predisposition or because the number of those predisposed who don't end up in a heterosexual relationship regardless are negligible

>>14490835
its caused by a virus

>>14489117
how are you still on this website despite natural selection?
go back

>>14493358
Well you do have point.
I just love wagmi general.
Adios

>>14452989
What are you talking about? Gals pile up in front of gays.