Adult Male Homosexual Preference Not Observed Among Hunter-Gatherer Societies

[PaleoPhil]

Some scientific research sure to piss off the PC crowd: 

"A positive relationship was observed between the level of social stratification and the probability of observing MHP, supporting the hypergyny hypothesis.

...

Contrary to the widely held view that MHP is present in all contemporary societies e.g., [20, 22], the anthropological data gathered here show that MHP is likely absent from some societies, especially those that display low levels of stratification. Anthropologists that have explicitly searched for signs of MHP have acknowledged its absence: among the Alorese[,] ... the Yanomamo [and the] Aka...."

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134817

[TylerDurden]

Well, GS will like this.... From my own perspective, I suspect that societies with no obviously overt homosexuals simply have homosexuals living in heterosexual relationships, but with some indulging in homosexual relationships, all depending on the tribe's laws' strictness  as regards homosexuality. I view homosexuality as a necessary aspect of mammalian evolution, in that it also allows the existence of hyper-male womanisers. In other words, if homosexuals did not exist, neither would alpha-male types who cheat on women all the time.

[cherimoya_kid]

Good points, Tyler.

[eveheart]

"Low levels of stratification" as a factor in the absence of homosexuality makes sense.

What GS has reported here regarding feminized non-homosexual males is easily explained by stratification, the Philippines being a highly stratified society, judging from the Philippine emigrants that come to the US to avoid being low-caste.

Stratification and its relationship to homosexuality also explains why so many homosexual men are flamboyant, in that flamboyance is a "display" of non-competition for alpha-men to see, saying, "You have nothing to worry about from me because I'm acting like one of the girls," rather than a display to attract other homosexual men. In other words, flamboyance is an aggression-avoidance behavior.

[dariorpl]

I view homosexuality as a necessary aspect of mammalian evolution, in that it also allows the existence of hyper-male womanisers. In other words, if homosexuals did not exist, neither would alpha-male types who cheat on women all the time.

The problem with this is that if there is such a thing as a homosexual gene, then that gene would not get passed on, or it would not get passed on nearly as much as the other genes. So this doesn't explain that behavior. Unless you're saying that homosexuality is just a pretend game that some men play so that they're trusted to be around with the women, and then can have sex with them when the other men are not around. I could buy into that, and I'm sure some of that definitely exists even to this day. But then we have to redefine the whole thing, and expose homosexuality as the sham it would be.

I'll take the more moderate approach, and assume that when men say they're gay, that they really mean it and believe it themselves, and would never sleep with a woman under any circumstances. From that perspective, I believe homosexuality is a disease. It might be psychological. It might be cultural. It might be caused by pollution, toxic chemicals and vaccines, or lack of proper nutrition. There might be a lot of explanations for it. But at the end of the day, if a lifeform can't reproduce, it's not fully functional. It doesn't mean they can't be good people, but all this dancing around the issue and pretending that homosexuality is the best thing since sliced bread, and actually encouraging people to become homosexuals, is a huge problem in modern western societies. If someone had a disease that made them unable to have children, we wouldn't say they're bad people, but we would recognize that they were unfortunately victims of a disease. Some diseases can be cured, others can be treated. But pretending that there's nothing wrong with them and that their disease is actually a blessing, creates a lot of problems for a society, in my view.

[eveheart]

The problem with this is that if there is such a thing as a homosexual gene, then that gene would not get passed on, or it would not get passed on nearly as much as the other genes. So this doesn't explain that behavior. Unless you're saying that homosexuality is just a pretend game that some men play so that they're trusted to be around with the women, and then can have sex with them when the other men are not around. I could buy into that, ...

I don't think Plato won that argument, IOW, social behaviors can be learned, not just inherited. People take their role in society for various reasons, but it doesn't make sense to oversimplify the process and look for genetic evidence only.

[TylerDurden]

I was not suggesting that homosexuality was inherited per se. I suspect that what happens in the womb is important, so the embryo's brain being influenced by the mother's testosterone-levels or lack thereof might be a factor, among many others. Some studies show that the more children a mother has, the more likely the later offspring will be homosexual. Makes sense if Nature wants to limit the number of children that a mother has, for example. Also, I do not see people being in specific categories, necessarily. For example, there are effeminate heterosexuals and there are also very masculine homosexuals.

That reminds me, there was a study showing that the presence of a homosexual in a family led to the females of that family having more children than the average. Perhaps, subconsciously, the women make up for the homosexual's lack of children(they have c. 1/6 the number of children heterosexuals have, though this seems to be erroneous now that lesbians and gays are finding ways to get round Nature's, ah, "restrictions" in order to have babies). Perhaps having a non-reproducing person in the family also means that that person's resources can be better spent on heterosexual family members who do have children. For example, one of my cousins(the only clever one) got an inheritance from her gay uncle in the form of his house.

[dariorpl]

I don't think Plato won that argument, IOW, social behaviors can be learned, not just inherited. People take their role in society for various reasons, but it doesn't make sense to oversimplify the process and look for genetic evidence only.

Right, so I don't look at genetic evidence. What I was saying is that it can't be genetics. While genetics may play a role of course, they would not be a determining factor. Something else must be causing the epidemic of homosexuality we see in this day and age. In the same way that your genes can determine your likelihood of developing a particular form of cancer, but only in the presence of the toxins that exist in the modern world, and in the lack of proper nutrition necessary to eliminate those toxins adequately.

[TylerDurden]

I don't think Plato won that argument, IOW, social behaviors can be learned, not just inherited. People take their role in society for various reasons, but it doesn't make sense to oversimplify the process and look for genetic evidence only.

Except that homosexuals in the media constantly claim that they were "born this way". I agree that some of them  are probably lying, in that science shows that the human "ideal" mating imprint is actually formed between the age of 4 and the age of 8. Which is why I find it so revolting that some Leftwing councils want to educate/brainwash children as young as 3 by forcing them to read modern stories about gay lifestyles. I mean sex education of any kind at the age of 12, just before puberty, is fine, but sex education of any kind before that point amounts to exploitative paedophilia and is rather sick.

[TylerDurden]

Right, so I don't look at genetic evidence. What I was saying is that it can't be genetics. While genetics may play a role of course, they would not be a determining factor. Something else must be causing the epidemic of homosexuality we see in this day and age. In the same way that your genes can determine your likelihood of developing a particular form of cancer, but only in the presence of the toxins that exist in the modern world, and in the lack of proper nutrition necessary to eliminate those toxins adequately.

You are referring to the weston-price claim re homosexuality appearing in tribes once modern western diets appeared.There are other claims such as that urban overcrowding increases the rate of homosexuality:-
https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm

Obviously, some societies can function well, even with high levels of homosexuals. Look at ancient Sparta, for example.

But my main point was that if embryos' sexual preference is to some extent determined in the womb due to maternal levels of fluctuating hormones, the number of male(or female) children the mother has already had etc. etc., then, imo, not only do we get homosexuals but also extreme males who are hyper-heterosexual as well,so it all balances out, marring new environmental factors such as diet or overpopulation. Of course, if science and cultural morality advances to the point where parents can determine what hormones an embryo is exposed to etc., then one could perhaps choose, to a certain extent, what sexual preferences an embryo will have.

[dariorpl]

I was not aware of the weston price study you cited. I'll look into it.

I'm not sure what your point is when you say it balances out. Cancer kills people, but you wouldn't say that it's all good that we have a cancer epidemic because after all, it balances birth rates and deaths so that there's less overpopulation (which I don't even believe, but let's just say that that's an issue). If homosexuality is a disease, and it benefits those of the same sex who don't have it, we still shouldn't say homosexuality is good. Of course it may benefit me in my seeking of a female partner that there are males who are struck with a disease that makes them unable to pursue women, because it means there's less competition for me. But it's still not a good thing for a society, and not something we should be encouraging. Also, it may be a benefit for me as a man that there are other men who are gay, but it's a detriment for women, because now they have less options.

[TylerDurden]

Hhm, perhaps homosexuality is Nature's way of marking men who would otherwise be unsuitable for women in other ways.

Also, like I said, what is a disadvantage from one angle  can be seen as an advantage viewed from a different perspective.


Currently, I do not view  modern gay culture as being all that healthy due to the drug-culture and excess of sexual partners. I would far rather have a healthier society like Ancient Rome where the heterosexual family was considered all-important but that homosexuality/bisexuality could be practised without being considered a problem in society.

[goodsamaritan]

Well, GS will like this.... From my own perspective, I suspect that societies with no obviously overt homosexuals simply have homosexuals living in heterosexual relationships, but with some indulging in homosexual relationships, all depending on the tribe's laws' strictness  as regards homosexuality. I view homosexuality as a necessary aspect of mammalian evolution, in that it also allows the existence of hyper-male womanisers. In other words, if homosexuals did not exist, neither would alpha-male types who cheat on women all the time.

Pottenger made his study with his CATS.
This study seems to JIVE with the Pottenger's cats study.
Healthy inputs to the human beings = low or negligible reports of homosexuality.

The other thing we need to be reminded is these are the years when the Depopulation Masters are in full swing with their sabotage of humanity down to 500 million as stated in their Georgia guide stones.
So they are firing at human being sabotage with everything they've got.  Disinfo, bad chemicals, bad food, population re-engineering, family destruction... everything that was GOOD in the past mid 20th century is being dismantled / sabotaged to engineer a massive population decline.

It is what it is folks. 

Remember that the Politically Correct crowd are the stooges of the depopulation masters and are not interested in the pursuit of truth.

Thankfully, health idiots like us are interested in truth.

[goodsamaritan]

In other words, if homosexuals did not exist, neither would alpha-male types who cheat on women all the time.

My observation of human sexuality goes the other way.  That human sexuality is driven by the WOMEN... you do not blame men for "cheating"... men are supposed to be capable of impregnating as many females as possible... that is the default mode of men... it is this idiotic concept of monogamy which is being propagated by the empires beginning with Rome. 

You may want to google for the Singaporean leader Lee Kwan Yu who lamented the bull shit of forcing monogamy on all... which makes the next generations WEAK.

I observe that women will not settle for a man just because he is single... women want the men they want and will do everything in their power to get her preferred seed for her babies.

So I disagree that homosexuality has something to do with alpha males and cheating.

A more clear cut observation of homosexuality... more often bi-sexuality... was discussed in the book Sperm Wars by Baker.

Where bi-sexual males have some reproductive advantage over 100% heterosexuals because the bi-sexual males begin their sex lives earlier, and are more experienced fuckers / impregnators.

-------

The issue is muddled up today with the current propaganda that male homosexuality has to be exclusive... either pure homo or pure hetero... which a big human re-engineering pack of lies to promote depopulation.  Before all this bull shit homo propaganda... most were identified as bi-sexual... were still called homos...

The exclusive 100% homo only person used to be very rare.

Now the propaganda is "born gay"... utter P.C. bullshit. 

[TylerDurden]

I view Lee Kuan Yew as an amazing man("I aim to be correct, not politically correct" etc.) Only trouble is so few of his calibre are found in his own ethnic group, let alone in Mankind as a whole.

Bisexuality is, imo, not a successful reproductive strategy. Being a rampant alpha-male is also not a good idea. I only need to cite my older brother as a typical example:- he could effortlessly get women into bed, even from the age of 15, often taking just a couple of hours from his first words to the bed, and he ended up murdered at the age of 28 as a result of his reckless womanising and never committing to just one woman. He also had a terrible accident that crippled his legs 7 years before his death but which still did not stop his womanising or carousing. The point is that, because of the Pill, I doubt he left any children. Now, maybe a very few married women chose to have his sperm instead of their husband's but I doubt it.

The most successful reproductive strategy  I have seen was the Mormon Fundamentalism  practised not by Warren Jeffs, but by the Apostolic  Brethren(who are more women-friendly). The average would be 2-3 wives per man, the wives would come from the regular monogamous Mormons so there were always enough, and each wife would have c.7 or 8 children on average.

Not that all this matters, the successful reproducers will find their future Earth to be a ruined wasteland incapable of supporting the predatious behaviour of its top species. Expect future national parks in a 1000 years time to consist of just 6 birch trees and a couple of squirrels etc.

[TylerDurden]

Ancient Rome, prior to Christianity, and many other ancient civilisations,  may have been heavily  family-oriented but they were not necessarily monogamous. They had religious erotic sex cults devoted to Bacchus they had maenads who cavorted in drunken sex orgies, one of their empresses even  indulged in a personal orgy with 200 men(one after the other with her, not with each other!). The ancient Babylonians had a system whereby young female virgins hoping to get married had to go to the local temple of the goddess of Love and had to stay there sitting on the temple floor until a kind passing male stranger would have sex with them and give them a silver token; this silver token would be provided as proof that she could now get married as she was now obviously no longer a virgin. This was a method to prevent inbreeding as only foreigners(usually visiting foreign merchants) were allowed to have sex with such virgins. If only I had lived in such enlightened times......