Support NeoGAF

[VegiHam]

Hello, all!

Gender: Male
Orientation: Gay
Where I'm from/where I live: Pasadena, TX
Age: 26, turning 27 tomorrow
Favorite type of music: Electronic, J-pop/rock, classical
Career interest: Professional clarinetist
Favorite video games: Zone of the Enders 2, Mirror's Edge, Bayonetta series
Non-gaming hobbies: Music, casual tech enthusiast

Happy Birthday new guy! You have my favourite username ever.

"The whole purpose of an organism is to pass on its genes to the next generation" Essentially every living organisms wants to pass it's genes to its offspring. Every gene in said living organism wants to "survive" by being present in the next generation.

This is something that many biologists agree with, and it's a theme in evolutionary biology. However if this is true, then why are there gay organisms? It seems like a silly question, but when I think about it I wonder...

For as much as I love evolutionary biology, I feel like it does a poor job explaining sexuality and same-sex attraction. Where do same-sex couples fall in the spectrum of evolutionary biology?

Hmmmm... this is just something I've always found interesting.

A theory I've read is that if you have one gay kid in your pack, they'll help look after their niblings, and so you have a slightly higher number of surviving grandchildren than people with no gay kids. And each of those grandkids has the DNA to make more gay kids, so the trait doesn't die out.

 

[Escape Goat]

The Fall gotnpicked up for a third series. I hope they tighten up the story. S2 ended with a whimper.

 

[Kevyt]

Happy Birthday new guy! You have my favourite username ever.

A theory I've read is that if you have one gay kid in your pack, they'll help look after their niblings, and so you have a slightly higher number of surviving grandchildren than people with no gay kids. And each of those grandkids has the DNA to make more gay kids, so the trait doesn't die out.

That's interesting... but I think that theory has many flaws. Where did you read that?

I actually have a theory of my own...

 

[VegiHam]

That's interesting... but I think that theory has many flaws. Where did you read that?

I actually have a theory of my own...

Hahaha I can't remember sorry, I just know I've read it somewhere.

What's your theory?

 

[ZackShikari]

A theory I've read is that if you have one gay kid in your pack, they'll help look after their niblings, and so you have a slightly higher number of surviving grandchildren than people with no gay kids. And each of those grandkids has the DNA to make more gay kids, so the trait doesn't die out.

That's called the Gay Uncle Theory, right? I've always thought it had something to do with hormonal imbalance that happens at birth or puberty. But I don't know anything about anything so that's probably wrong.

 

[Kevyt]

Hahaha I can't remember sorry, I just know I've read it somewhere.

What's your theory?

I was going to make a really long post and I actually wrote it out but I realized it's unnecessary for what I'm trying to say, lol.

I think that there is no such thing as exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual human being. Sexuality in the animal kingdom is fluid, and can change on many outside factors and genetics too. Sexuality being fluid is a good thing in my opinion, because it has an enormous underestimated evolutionary advantage. Same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction co-existing facilitate our chances of survival and our ability to adapt to our ever changing environments. It allow us to relate to our kin much better, whether they're of the same sex or the opposite sex. It's not that same-sex attraction is nature gone wrong or against the purpose of reproduction and advancing our species, but a tool that nature has given us, and that we all have. Nature wants us to have same-sex attraction to enforce relationships, kin-relationships, and ensure survival among everyone.

But then again, this just my speculation, aka "theory" lol...

 

[VegiHam]

That's called the Gay Uncle Theory, right? I've always thought it had something to do with hormonal imbalance that happens at birth or puberty. But I don't know anything about anything so that's probably wrong.

I didn't know it had a name, but that sounds right.

I was going to make a really long post and I actually wrote it out but I realized it's unnecessary for what I'm trying to say, lol.

I think that there is no such thing as exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual human being. Sexuality in the animal kingdom is fluid, and can change on many outside factors and genetics too. Sexuality being fluid is a good thing in my opinion, because it has an enormous underestimated evolutionary advantage. Same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction co-existing facilitate our chances of survival and our ability to adapt to our ever changing environments. It allow us to relate to our kin much better, whether they're of the same sex or the opposite sex. It's not that same-sex attraction is nature gone wrong or against the purpose of reproduction and advancing our species, but a tool that nature has given us, and that we all have. Nature wants us to have same-sex attraction to enforce relationships, kin-relationships, and ensure survival among everyone.

But then again, this just my speculation, aka "theory" lol...

Hmmm, that's interesting. But if everyone os capable of homosexual behaviours why do only some people show a preferance for them? I mean most of us would say we didn't choose to be gay, so what makes it happen?

...urgh this stuff is confusing.

 

[Ty4on]

Hmmmm... this is just something I've always found interesting.

That is a far too simplistic idea of evolution. If that had been the case no creature would care for anyone but itself and its offspring.

A common extrapolation in regards to humans is the tribe. Evolution of course not only applies to the humans, but also the tribe. Tribes where the humans take best care of each other thrive in comparison to other tribes and the humans within it will now have more offspring. Maybe one factor could be that gay couples can be great at helping to rise other parents' children.
Queerness could also primarly be a side effect as it is quite common in mammals and just requires some switching. It's far too common to be a random mutation.

Edit: Sorry to reply to an old post

 

[Henchmen21]

Hey all

 

[Dany]

That is a far too simplistic idea of evolution. If that had been the case no creature would care for anyone but itself and its offspring.

A common extrapolation in regards to humans is the tribe. Evolution of course not only applies to the humans, but also the tribe. Tribes where the humans take best care of each other thrive in comparison to other tribes and the humans within it will now have more offspring. Maybe one factor could be that gay couples can be great at helping to rise other parents' children.
Queerness could also primarly be a side effect as it is quite common in mammals and just requires some switching. It's far too common to be a random mutation.

Edit: Sorry to reply to an old post

I've wondered sometimes if its because we've reached maximum density to a region that homosexuality risen as population control. Or something like that.

 

[DOWN]

Sexual orientation isn't in genes and DNA, it's epigenetics according to more recent research as I understand it. They can't be changed, but they're the gene expressors rather than identifiable genes. Epigenetics are still being researched but there's potential for it to be both an unalterable array of expressors or to be in some ways influenced by various factors like the prenatal environment. So far, it appears to be a largely set path by the time of birth.

Edit:
Not a random mutation. More like every pregnancy has the same pool of processes to work with, like it has to fill a poker hand of say 7 cards for there to be a game. Every standard pregnancy is like drawing the hand of 7 cards from the same options in the deck as every other player (biological mother), but you are bound to draw a royal flush hand (non-straight orientation epigenetics expression) at some common percentage rate in the population of card players when they fill a hand. You have a certain calculable rate of chances to get a royal flush when playing the game.

 

[Sibylus]

paging Bo

Sorry for only noticing this now.

What bothers me much more than all the size queen jokes is definitely the "ew vaginas" posts. Love of something harmless isn't a thing that perturbs me. Loathing of something harmless, on the other hand... it's just stupid. Don't do it about people's bodies. Period.

Though granted I can't speak for all bi women, and I really can't speak for all lesbian women. Apply however much salt is needed.

 

[RM8]

I've wondered sometimes if its because we've reached maximum density to a region that homosexuality risen as population control. Or something like that.

Homosexuality has been a thing since forever, though, and I don't think it has actually been observed that it seems to be "on the rise" AFAIK? It just seems like a thing that it's there, it just happens.

 

[RatskyWatsky]

Loathing of something harmless, on the other hand... it's just stupid. Don't do it about people's bodies. Period.

what if we're talking about really small d's tho

Spoiler

XP

 

[Sibylus]

what if we're talking about really small d's tho

Spoiler

XP

H A R M L E S S

*cracks whip*

 

[Dany]

True, its been around since the romans and egyptians iirc.

Perhaps it has to do more with societal constructs of the needs of a family and moreso.

Thats a good metaphor Pantheon. I really wish I looked into this more as an undergrad.

 

[esms]

I've wondered sometimes if its because we've reached maximum density to a region that homosexuality risen as population control. Or something like that.

Hahaha, could you imagine if the solution to overpopulation, and climate change to an extent, was homosexuality?

I can picture the GOP reaction now...

 

[Sai-kun]

H A R M L E S S

*cracks whip*

i like you when you're like this :*

 

[Henchmen21]

True, its been around since the romans and egyptians iirc.

Perhaps it has to do more with societal constructs of the needs of a family and moreso.

Thats a good metaphor Pantheon. I really wish I looked into this more as an undergrad.

Probably even longer than that.

 

[Sibylus]

i like you when you're like this :*

Can't always be shy :3

 

[Kevyt]

That is a far too simplistic idea of evolution. If that had been the case no creature would care for anyone but itself and its offspring.

A common extrapolation in regards to humans is the tribe. Evolution of course not only applies to the humans, but also the tribe. Tribes where the humans take best care of each other thrive in comparison to other tribes and the humans within it will now have more offspring. Maybe one factor could be that gay couples can be great at helping to rise other parents' children.
Queerness could also primarly be a side effect as it is quite common in mammals and just requires some switching. It's far too common to be a random mutation.

Edit: Sorry to reply to an old post

Some species are more social than others. But that's exactly it; caring for itself and its offspring. Also caring for your kin (those who are alike) is very common in the animal kingdom. Essentially the same genes are in that group ensuring survival of those traits. I agree my previous point was too simplistic but that's essentially the barebone of evolutionary biology.

 

[RatskyWatsky]

H A R M L E S S

*cracks whip*

True, its been around since the romans and egyptians iirc.

there were gay cavemen tbh

 

[Dany]

Hot hairy dirty cavemen??? :3 killing animals with their bear hands. :3

sexy

 

[Sai-kun]

bear claws rawr!

 

[RM8]

Hot hairy dirty cavemen??? :3 killing animals with their bear hands. :3

sexy

Everyone was a bear, then?

 

[Kevyt]

I didn't know it had a name, but that sounds right.

Hmmm, that's interesting. But if everyone os capable of homosexual behaviours why do only some people show a preferance for them? I mean most of us would say we didn't choose to be gay, so what makes it happen?

...urgh this stuff is confusing.

Well it's not a choice in the conventional way. It's not something that you sit through and decide upon.... "okay so should I like men or women, both or none?"

All I'm saying is that we're all capable of same-sex/opposite-sex attraction but not all of us will.

I think Bisexuals/Pansexuals would be evidence for this claim.

Sexual orientation isn't in genes and DNA, it's epigenetics according to more recent research as I understand it. They can't be changed, but they're the gene expressors rather than identifiable genes. Epigenetics are still being researched but there's potential for it to be both an unalterable array of expressors or to be in some ways influenced by various factors like the prenatal environment. So far, it appears to be a largely set path by the time of birth.

Edit:
Not a random mutation. More like every pregnancy has the same pool of processes to work with, like it has to fill a poker hand of say 7 cards for there to be a game. Every standard pregnancy is like drawing the hand of 7 cards from the same options in the deck as every other player (biological mother), but you are bound to draw a royal flush hand (non-straight orientation epigenetics expression) at some common percentage rate in the population of card players when they fill a hand. You have a certain calculable rate of chances to get a royal flush when playing the game.

Yes epigenetics play a huge role in many things.

 

[Sai-kun]

im the future :3

 

[RatskyWatsky]

Hot hairy dirty cavemen??? :3 killing animals with their bear hands. :3

sexy

the men go out and hunt mammoths and to celebrate their kill they sex each other

this is also how neanderthals died out

 

[Kevyt]

the men go out and hunt mammoths and to celebrate their kill they sex each other

this is also how neanderthals died out

I'm laughing but as silly as it may sound that could be very much true. We all know the effects that sex can have on individuals. For our cavemen scenario, having sex among them could be a way to strengthen bonds and become closer. It's essentially a form of coming together, caring for one another and becoming more attached to your hunting team members. So maybe gay sex played an important role in our ancestors lives.

 

[esms]

the men go out and hunt mammoths and to celebrate their kill they sex each other

this is also how neanderthals died out

Hasn't it been discovered that there was a ton of inbreeding in neanderthal DNA? A hole was a hole to those dudes. I'd say your scenario is very likely.

 

[DOWN]

It's essentially a form of coming together

Essential

 

[Kevyt]

Hasn't it been discovered that there was a ton of inbreeding in neanderthal DNA? A hole was a hole to those dudes. I'd say your scenario is very likely.

Well some scientists say they bred with humans too. Also, we humans drove them to extinction as we were direct competitors. I think the case men having sex among them being the reason for their extinction is very weak.

Essential

O:

Did I use that word incorrectly?

 

[RatskyWatsky]

I'm laughing but as silly as it may sound that could be very much true. We all know the effects that sex can have on individuals. For our cavemen scenario, having sex among them could be a way to strengthen bonds and become closer. It's essentially a form of coming together, caring for one another and becoming more attached to your hunting team members.

Like the Sacred Band of Thebes! :O

Hasn't it been discovered that there was a ton of inbreeding in neanderthal DNA? A hole was a hole to those dudes. I'd say your scenario is very likely.

 

[Dany]

A hole was a hole to those dudes.

 

[Ty4on]

Some species are more social than others. But that's exactly it; caring for itself and its offspring. Also caring for your kin (those who are alike) is very common in the animal kingdom. Essentially the same genes are in that group ensuring survival of those traits. I agree my previous point was too simplistic but that's essentially the barebone of evolutionary biology.

I could twist your point a bit and say men in a way don't get (direct) offspring or that sexual reproduction is counterproductive as we now need two instead of just one like asexual reproduction.

Nature is also very sloppy. Ask anyone in optics how awful the human eye is.

 

[Kevyt]

I could twist your point a bit and say men in a way don't get (direct) offspring or that sexual reproduction is counterproductive as we now need two instead of just one like asexual reproduction.

Nature is also very sloppy. Ask anyone in optics how awful the human eye is.

The most complex creatures are those that require two parents. There are more variation and mutations that enable said creatures to procreate more "advanced" versions of themselves. Asexual reproduction is effective but you're essentially cloning yourself. Males don't give birth, but their offspring carry their genes so they have a successor (if we can call it that).

Yes, the eye... I agree. I never said or implied that nature was perfect though.

 

[esms]

Well some scientists say they bred with humans too. Also, we humans drove them to extinction as we were direct competitors. I think the case men having sex among them being the reason for their extinction is very weak.

Oh yeah. It definitely wasn't the sole reason or even a major reason. I was just saying dudes banging dudes and chicks banging chicks might not have been uncommon back then.

http://i.imgur.com/rhsN3jd.gif[/img[/QUOTE]

[quote="Dany, post: 155437045"][IMG]http://33.media.tumblr.com/f46e6fccd557503f0f03214da93cd5fe/tumblr_nbfr1uUBXF1rfduvxo1_250.gif[/IMG[/QUOTE]

I'll make sure you guys are on the maiden voyage of my time machine.

 

[Ty4on]

The most complex creatures are those that require two parents. There are more variation and mutations that enable said creatures to procreate more "advanced" versions of themselves. Asexual reproduction is effective but you're essentially cloning yourself. Males don't give birth, but their offspring carry their genes so they have a successor (if we can call it that).

Yes, the eye... I agree. I never said or implied that nature was perfect though.

Excactly, complexity. My point was that evolution isn't always a straight path forward hence why less offspring can be beneficial.

Clarification: Obv. evolution isn't intelligent and can't work backwards.

 

[Kevyt]

Excactly, complexity. My point was that evolution isn't always a straight path forward hence why less offspring can be beneficial.

Clarification: Obv. evolution isn't intelligent and can't work backwards.

Yes of course! that makes sense. I understand your point now.

Oh yeah. It definitely wasn't the sole reason or even a major reason. I was just saying dudes banging dudes and chicks banging chicks might not have been uncommon back then.

I think that the fact that we are able to experience pleasure during sex is telling of something very important that I cannot put my finger on... Dolphins are another species that can have sex for pleasure purposes as well as chimpanzees and other primates. Other species just have sex for reproductive purposes. Chimpanzees, humans and dolphins are among the most intelligent species out there, so hmmm... I wonder. I suspect there's an evolutionary advantage to this.

 

[Ty4on]

Yes of course! that makes sense. I understand your point now.

I guess I meander a lot as well

 

[Escape Goat]

Chicago GAF, if someone lived in Northfield how far would they be to anything of interest? In DC, if you lived outside of the beltway you may as well be living on the moon. And when it came to dating, guys wont even give you the time of day.

 

[Dany]

Would you be commuting and working in downtown chicago? That would be a long one.

There is evanston, skokie and Park Ridge nearby and a short drive to shaumberg which is a mini-chicago.

 

[Escape Goat]

Would you be commuting and working in downtown chicago? That would be a long one.

There is evanston, skokie and Park Ridge nearby and a short drive to shaumberg which is a mini-chicago.

I would potentially be working in Northfield if everything goes to plan. I just assumed Id be living closeby to eliminate a commute.

 

[Kevyt]

I just realized that my left rib is sticking out much more than my right rib, so this creates a hole-like area between my left side of my rib and stomach.

It looks so weird and awful at an angle. (

Does anyone else have this rib situation? One rib bigger than the other one?

 

[Dany]

Yeah, you'd be near some major suburbs and be able to hit chicago on the weekend per your schedule.

 

[Escape Goat]

Yeah, you'd be near some major suburbs and be able to hit chicago on the weekend per your schedule.

Good. I will need to go trolling for DILFs in the burbs. I was trying not to get ahead of myself but i started looking around on google street view. I try to assume every interview was a bomb.

 

[Dany]

I try to assume every interview was the bomb.

fixed <3

 

[CornBurrito]

I tried some sort of cherry cider. Got a pleasant buzz and it was a very good tasting drink. I guess I like ciders and sweeter alcohols.

 

[Aarglefarg]

I tried some sort of cherry cider. Got a pleasant buzz and it was a very good tasting drink. I guess I like ciders and sweeter alcohols.

Check out Strawberry Lime Rekorderlig Cider.

 

[Blackstarhat]

I'm horny