Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction
ScienceDaily (Feb. 4, 2010) — Male homosexuality doesn’t make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable, but because homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men, shouldn’t the genes for this trait have been extinguished long ago? What value could this sexual orientation have, that it has persisted for eons even without any discernible reproductive advantage?
One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the “kin selection hypothesis.” What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being “helpers in the nest.” By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.
Killer Whales Sick of Each Other
350 Years of Science
18 Comments
Comments
I remember reading a study on homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Basically the same as above, the researchers found that the homosexual couples provided a stronger infrastructure for the survival of the species.
-Two male guardians being stronger and more mathematically likely to successfully bring up young compared to one male alone.
-Less competition for available females without loss of strength/protection in the group.
-Some couples “adopt” abandoned young allowing more of the population to survive.
-In other cases (birds in the study) one of the males will mate with a female who’ll then surrender the egg to the couple to allow her genetic material a stronger chance of survival.
Funnily enough all the materials I’ve read focus on male homosexuality. Haven’t heard/read a thing about Females. Hmmm
It makes sense from the perspective of a survival of a tribe (or an “extended family”) if there are some members who do not produce offspring (the proverbial “mouths to feed”) but nonetheless are able to contribute to the wellbeing of the group. From an evolutionary perspective, it seems like it may be beneficial to have a smaller number of better fed and better defended (and educated etc.) offspring per each adult member of the community, than a greater number of malnourished ones.
I think this is the same reason why many societies had some sort of celibate “priesthood” caste – to ensure there is a certain number of “altruistic” providers who didn’t need to provide for their own offspring (and also could explain why there are many parallels or links in many societies between “queer” people and shamans, medicine men, priests etc.)
Fuck that I’m not taking care of anyone’s kids