Comments 22

  1. This is so problematic in many ways and disappointing to see here on Milkboys.

    First of all, most male homosexuality throughout human history did not involve gay males of the type he is speaking of, who would be recognized as being “gay”. If he’s going to use ‘evolutionary’ arguments (not supported by cross-species evidence) to support gayness but not to support love between men and boys, he’s being hypocritical.

    Most homosexuality historically involved boys with other boys, and boys with men. Most men are ‘bisexual’ in the sense that they can be attracted to both women and boys – but today, self-recognition of their interest in boys is mostly held beneath the surface.

    This ‘pederastic’ homosexuality, between an immature male and a mature male, is indeed evolutionary and is one and the same – and the near-entirety of – the evidence of evolutionary homosexuality. Bonobos, monkeys, chimpanzees, etc., in the numbers of them that are measured are almost never ‘gay’ i.e. they are not seen having sex between two adult males. That is not because it’s impossible, but probably because it doesn’t exist among the non-human primates any moreso than it does among humans i.e. 1 to 3% of the population being androphilic (but we couldn’t know, as it is not observed).

    1. The only disappointing thing is your attempt at legitimizing pederasty and affirming pedophilia as ubiquitous in humans while providing zero evidence of any kind.

      Even if such evidence existed, I don’t see how it would undermine–but rather support–the speaker’s arguments.

      1. Zero evidence? Like I said in my post, all of the homosexual pairbonding observed in primates is pederastic, while none of it is between two adults. That means you can look up any study ever done on primate sexuality, and that’s what you’ll find.

    2. Bro. Stop trying to make an argument for pederasty… it’s weird and really not helping.

      I think you’re confusing “support between a boy and a man” with “sex between a boy and a man”. People have and always will need mentors/father figures but it doesn’t need to be sexual at all… that’s just your way of justifying your own attractions.

      1. Do you know what kind of site this is? Sounds like you’re some kind of self-hating case.

    3. I meant “zero evidence” as in TOTAL BS!

      1) There is ample evidence of homosexual behavior among and between both male and female adults in many nonhuman primate species.

      2) In such species, homosexual behavior in immature individuals commonly involves other immature individuals during ‘rough and tumble’ play.

      3) Cases of homosexual behavior between immature and adult individuals are often related to dominance demonstration and social rank assertion, and are not necessarily affinitive.

      In any case, homosexual behavior between immature individuals and adults in nonhuman primates seems to have little implications for the nature of homosexual behavior in humans between adults and adolescents or children.

      Maybe do some more research before claiming pederasty is natural? I suggest you start by grabbing a dictionary and finding CONSENT.

      Dixson, A. (2010). ”Homosexual Behavior in Primates”, in A. Poiani, Animal Homosexuality: a biosocial perspective, Chapter 9: 381-400. Cambridge University Press.

      Furuichi, T., Connor, R. Hashimoto, C. (2013). ”Non-conceptive sexual interactions in monkeys, apes, and dolphins”, in Amagiwa J., Karczmarski L. (eds) Primates and Cetaceans. Primatology Monographs. Springer, Tokyo

      Vasey, P.L. & Forrester, D.L. (2015). ”Homosexuality in Nonhuman Primates and in Humans”, in P. Whelehan & A. Bolin, The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality, Wiley.

      1. You know very little about this topic.

        Between female adults yes, between male adults, no – not sexual pairbonding, only dominance behavior.

        Want to talk about consent in that kind of way? Can I ask you a question – what on earth are you doing on a site like MilkBoys?

  2. As some of you may have noticed, this video cannot be found in TED’s main page, but only in the TedxTallaght event page. For those of you who–like me–were wondering on what the evidence he referenced was, here are the links to the original publications of some of that research:

    Intelligence and Homosexuality:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293319

    Sexual Preference and Altruism:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v28n01_10

    Homosexuality and Birth Order:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11534970

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18050001

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10763427

    Finally, there is a good review on the relation between evolution and homosexuality by the University of California that addresses some of the aforementioned papers. You can read it here:

    http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(09)00154-2

    http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~mzuk/Bailey%20and%20Zuk%202009%20Same%20sex%20behaviour.pdf

    1. If only you appreciated the irony of posting Ray Blanchard’s research on a place like MilkBoys. What on earth are you doing on this site, Dan?

      1. What Wordworth is referring to here is a controversy concerning one of the authors I cite, Ray Blanchard. By the way, Blanchard is the same author on which a previous scientific article shared here on Milkboy’s a couple of weeks ago is based on (http://milkboys.net/the-older-brother-effect/) (http://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/302.full).

        Blanchard suggested that sex offenders be categorized depending on the age of the victims (before/after puberty) and proposed the term ‘hebephilia’ for those who were attracted to individuals between 11 and 14 yo aprox. His findings where mostly controversial–however–only after he proposed that hebephilia be considered a mental disorder to be included in the DMS-5.

        While many of these critics accepted the scientific basis proposed by Blanchard for the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia, most of them argued that including the latter as part of a paraphilia (considered a mental disorder) meant that anybody attracted to, say, a 14 yo would be mentally ill. Specifically, they contested that sexual attraction could not be tantamount to a lack of restraint–the sort of which would lead to sexual predation and abuse.

        I would totally agree with these critics. Yet in order to have an informed debate on the issue, we must refrain from either claiming that sexual attraction to a 14yo necessarily means you are likely to abuse a minor (Blanchard’s stance) or defending that such a preference is not only perfectly normal and universal, but that even pederasty and abuse should be acknowledged as part of our human nature (Wordworth’s stance).

        Let’s stick to the evidence and inform ourselves; despite the temptation to lash out in the face of ignorant remarks such as those commonly seen on a comment section like this one.

        1. You said, “in order to have an informed debate on the issue, we must refrain from either claiming that… even pederasty and abuse should be acknowledged as part of our human nature,” and then “stick to the evidence and inform ourselves.”

          That doesn’t make sense to me because an informed debate already happened over extensive evidence, culminating in Rind’s paper responding to Blanchard’s DSM efforts (which you cite), which lays out a lot of the same evidence that I am talking about. Better yet, Rind’s book (censored and then republished in “Censoring Sex Research”) is more complete, although it does have some problems. It got only one serious critique, from someone who simply doesn’t agree with any of evolutionary psychology. Still, it doesn’t take an evolutionary argument to see that pederastic impulses (among both parties, men, and boys) – and actual behavior – are instinctive.

          Putting this together with your previous comment about “consent” – it was unclear, by the way, what you were objecting to: you seem to have swallowed the female viewpoint on consent in general, which is ever a muddled one. The question of female consent to sexual contact with males, which is really complex, bears no realistic parallel in man-boy relations because the whole scenario of sex drive, motivation, sexual urgency, and masturbation (i.e. sex rehearsal), is all vastly different between males and females.

    2. “or defending that such a preference is not only perfectly normal and universal, but that even pederasty and abuse should be acknowledged as part of our human nature (Wordworth’s stance). ”

      Then answer this: Why is this a part of every single society on Earth — no matter the location, “religion” or state-sponsored punishment (including murder)? —It continues to happen, regardless of the punishments — including homosexuality [which the “religious” just can’t fucking understand even though “produced” through pure heterosexuality].

  3. No doubt homosexuality somehow has a place in the evolution of humanity, but the guy is out of his mind when he claims that stress causes pregnant women to bear gay sons that will help their family, like, 15-20 years later. These are his personal homocentric (funnier than “anthropocentric” in this context…) interpretations that are not supported by any scientific study.

    But most of his other points totally make sense and should be shared, great talk, as many TED Talks are.

  4. An interesting theory that discusses the existence of “gay” people in a positive light and is therefore a good thing. I’m probably dense, but a discussion of pederasty does not mean and advocacy thereof and there is, and has been, such a thing so it should be discussed.

    1. You’re not dense at all!

      The majority of the evidence on evolution of homosexuality pertains to the evolution of pederastic relations and not androphilic homosexuality, and this site is MilkBOYS, not MilkMEN.

      And most of us who are here to appreciate the subject matter are men.

  5. @ Biboyfred
    “I think you’re confusing “support between a boy and a man” with “sex between a boy and a man”. People have and always will need mentors/father figures but it doesn’t need to be sexual at all… that’s just your way of justifying your own attractions.”

    😜Yeah, like the Greeks were really all about just mentoring young boys!

  6. EXTREMELY INTERESTING! I SHOULD BE BACK ON THIS TOPIC. I HAVE TO REFRESH MY THOUGHTS IN THE ENGLIAH LANGUAGE. I AM FRENCH , FRENCH CANADIAN.

  7. This has been on my mind…
    The evolutionary theory is quite solid, and has its precedents in nature, as the talker spelled out with the ants. The idea of an increased likelihood of homosexuality, in males, with each older brother also has a solid foundation. The implication, though, that a homosexual, within a family / clan environment serves a kind of ancillary role – to de-escalate the too-rapid spread of a clan, and use inherent emotional intelligence to mitigate against the stresses and conflicts within the heterosexual clan – doesn’t fit well with me, because it effectively reduces the heterosexual to having a functional role, in service to the greater heterosexual wellbeing – essentially greasing the wheels of hetero interaction and cohesion. This model puts the homosexual in a mainly passive role, in my opinion. (And I question the notion that expansion of a clan needs a break mechanism, to prevent resources getting to thin, etc. In Darwinism, expansion of genes is the greatest imperative, and resources are sorted out through conflict.)
    That said, I would absolutely concede that the Samoan Fa’ afa’ fine fits the criteria of the model a hundred percent. The only mitigating circumstance I would put there, is it would have a tempering effect not only on the immediate clan, but the complicated wider tribal and inter-tribal tensions in that society. In the modern age, in my generic western country at least, the biological rationale doesn’t have much meaning, other than being an uncle who can take off some of the burden – so while I like the thinking of the model, and accept much of its Darwinian concept, I don’t carry the model, or really many traces of it, into my life, unlike the Ted talk guy, who sees it as highly relevant in his family.

    1. None of this holds water as it stands, I’m afraid, because your definition of ‘homosexuality’ doesn’t line up with most of human homosexuality nor primate sexuality.

      If you replaced ‘homosexuality’ with ‘androphilic homosexuality’ or ‘passive feminine male homosexuality” you could have a case. Most homosexuality in human history and in nature is pederastic, by far.

      There is evidence that ‘gay’ (androphilic) homosexuality can be more common in some human lineages than in others, suggesting a genetic and thus potentially evolutionary component, but even the majority of ‘gay’ men don’t come from those families.

  8. Some great thought provoking and intensely academic points made, quite a debate topic!!.
    I do think observation of human behaviour and history does support the greek model, as you may expect from a fan of this site. ;)
    Oh course its true that some of the gay traits can be exhibited by hetero or homo people, butch and feminine is not purely a orientation defining behaviour.

  9. Haven’t ever thought it this way. Awesome. Thank you for giving me again some reason to live on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *