How exactly is it possible for an only child or oldest siblings to be non straight?

submitted by jacques1102 from self.TumblrInAction

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlyingKangaroo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I heard some claims like that, perhaps social position can influence it sometimes but personally I wouldn’t view it as any strong claim. I have never heard yet of any big research about it, it was always closer to anecdotes.

BTW asexuality isn’t a sexuality, it’s a lack of thereof. Don’t feed the trolls (though I know you didn’t have bad intentions). Don’t equal that to LGB or “queers”.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I've seen some YouTube videos of the "I know everything about everything" informational cartoon variety posit that "children after the first have higher estrogen and are therefore more likely to be gay" I think it's not very well proven or a very coherent theory. I personally think it's bullshit. But there might be some statistical basis behind it. Of course correlation is not causation and all that.

The gay uncle hypothesis is more an attempt to explain why homosexuality hasn't been naturally selected out of the genepool yet. Idea is basically, if some members of a family or tribe aren't reproducing but are helping to ensure the survivability of the tribe their siblings will survive to pass on their genes, true enough. I have another unfounded theory though. I think women selected out gay genes for survival over millennia. Nothing stoping gay men from fathering children, women kind of have a, at the very least this ideal of a well kept well mannered man that is somewhat along the lines of what we might consider to be a "gay" characteristic. I think that it's only in our recent modern society that sexual orientation is even a major consideration. In the past gay men just took wives and had kids anyway, why wouldn't their genes pass? Humans aren't animals only driven by primal urges. Gay people aren't free of the desire to have children. It's not like plenty of women dislike sex but do it anyway because they want babies no?

[–]BioEssentialism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The gay uncle hypothesis is more an attempt to explain why homosexuality hasn't been naturally selected out of the genepool yet. Idea is basically, if some members of a family or tribe aren't reproducing but are helping to ensure the survivability of the tribe their siblings will survive to pass on their genes, true enough. I have another unfounded theory though. I think women selected out gay genes for survival over millennia.

No, it’s to prevent overpopulation. The only reason why homosexuality and bisexuality are more prevalent in families with a lot of siblings is because the parents are reproducing way beyond population replacement levels, thus the gay gene is more likely to occur in families with more than 2 children as a population mitigating effect.

Queerness only exists as an evolutionary mechanism so humanity doesn’t outbreed itself into extinction, resources and even sheer space on this planet are finite after all.

In the past gay men just took wives and had kids anyway, why wouldn't their genes pass?

Most of these men were bi not gay, there’s a difference. Historically most Kinsey-scale 6 gay men either became eunuchs, prostitutes, or were transed/classified as something of a 3rd gender. This is where the modern day concept of being trans comes from, you really think it was AGP middle aged “transbians” and “gay” transmen transitioning back in the day? Not likely.

[–]fuck_redditThou/Thee/Thy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I recently heard a similar theory. There’s supposedly a few different genes that correlate with being gay: have all or most of them, and you’re gay. The interesting thing is, the more you have while still remaining straight: the more kids you have, on average. Some posit these “gay” genes help men relate to women up until they make people gay. It would be an example of heterozygote advantage, where having 0% or 100% of something is less advantageous than having 25-75% of something

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. I heard there's a few big genes that can correllate: The "Bi gene" (likeliness of bisexuality), Intersex gene (same for intersex), Gay gene (as said), Cancer genex2 (double the likeliness of cancer eventually forming), Ovum gene (sometimes the gene that produces egg cells shows up in a man), and Keratin gene (the more your hair/skin/nails has, the likelier it will be.)

So really, whichever of your kids is likeliest to get BIG-COCK early in their life will end up gay. It's science.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think women selected out gay genes for survival over millennia. Nothing stoping gay men from fathering children, women kind of have a, at the very least this ideal of a well kept well mannered man

You guys are all making this too complicated. The issue is that men and women have the same DNA aside from a single chromosome. The data to code a man and woman is built into thet single DNA pattern. The outcome relies on that Y chromosome correctly turning on and off every other gene in the code to generate a male who is attracted to a female. If the "attraction to males" genes don't get turned off then the male ends up gay.