Are you ready for some wild speculation, homologous chromosomes and MILFs? Italian researcher Andrea Camperio Ciani has a fascinating new scientific theory about why you’re such a gaywad.
The question tossed around, usually by anti-gay activists, is, “If homosexuality is genetic and gay people can’t reproduce naturally, how does the so-called ‘gay gene’ get passed on?”
Ciani’s explanation for that is complicated, but the thinking goes basically like this: Research shows that moms who have gay sons tend to have more offspring than moms who don’t. Ciani’s current theory is that the gene that theoretically makes men gay is linked to the one that makes women more fertile.
Previously, the Italian researchers suggested that the “gay-man gene” might simply increase androphilia, or attraction to men, thereby making the males who possess the gene homosexual and the females who possess it more promiscuous.
But after investigating the characteristics of 161 female maternal relatives of homosexual and heterosexual men, the researchers have adjusted their hypothesis. Rather than making women more attracted to men, the “gay-man gene” appears to make these women more attractive to men.
“High fecundity, that means having more babies, is not about pleasure in sex—nor is it about promiscuity. The androphilic pattern that we found is about females who increase their reproductive value to attract the best males,” Camperio Ciani told Life’s Little Mysteries.
Women who fit this profile have better reproductive health, improved mental and social skills, and particularly appealing personalities. Assuming they have kids more often, that gay gene continues on from generation to generation.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Our question is, does this gene make queer guys more attractive, too? Is that why ladies pout that the good ones are always gay? Are gay guys, in fact, a culture of genetically superior übermenschen?
The answer is yes, obviously, but we’ll wait for science to confirm it.
Hyhybt
An interesting notion.
Frank
Thank you Mom !!….now I know why I am so fabulous
InscrutableTed
So I’m not the only guy who had to put up with the awkwardness of my school chums telling me my mom was hot?
Kev C
So Italian scientists suggest that men are gay because their mother is Roman Catholic? Calling Dr. Freud, we have a case of projection.
Chris
I actually read coverage of this on other sites, and then read the study itself…and this is an incredibly poor distillation of the study.
A least read the study, or a good synopsis before you write this crap. I understand you want sensationalism, but this study fits into current genetic theory very well, and has many serious aspects to it, and it deserves better.
Stew
Someone clearly didn’t study probability at school
Kamuurie
Isn’t this similar to the finding a few years ago that the more male children a woman has, the more likely each subsequent brother is to be gay?
Kev C
@Chris: Having just read the long abstract (2004), it’s highly speculative, and the authors are trying too hard to fit homosexuality into a darwinian model. Part of the problem it that the study is ridiculously small, and it’s a major flaw. They are studying italian subjects where large families and female fecundity is an ideal and a commonality. We found water to be wet.
And this is from their 2007 paper:
“Several lines of evidence indicate the existence of genetic factors influencing male homosexuality and bisexuality. In spite of its relatively low frequency, the stable permanence in all human populations of this apparently detrimental trait (??!!) constitutes a puzzling ‘Darwinian paradox’.”
Yoder
What Chris @5 said. The kind of data reported in this study can ONLY determine whether women related to gay men have more kids; it can’t tell us anything about the actual genes that might be responsible, much less whether those genes are located on the X chromosome, which everyone inherits from his mother, but not his father.
(We do have data from other sources that suggest some sort of genetic determination of sexual orientation; but it’s a mixed bag, and the X chromosome connection is especially weak.)
Hyhybt
@Yoder: It wouldn’t have to be located on the X chromosome.
Baba Booey
I see this a lot. Gay sons of hot moms. Myself included. This study may be onto something.
Baba Booey
@Kamuurie: Yes. Third born males of all males generally were found to be gay.
Third born male here.
James M. Martin
This certainly conflicts with the current beliefs of the Nurturists, who believe God made our species together with everything else in the universe in six days circa 6,000 B.C.E. (meaning that homo sapiens walked with dinosaurs and a species of serpent, seemingly now-defunct, could talk). The rest of us, Naturists, always assumed a biological “cause” of homosexuality, environmental factors either not counting for much or else working as a reinforcement of the child’s natural instincts. I still say that LeVay and others may yet be proved correct in studies tending to show a difference between gay and straight brains, and that the geneticists are onto something when they find hormonal changes in the mother during pregnancy and delivery as playing some role. I like to think that sexuality and gender and orientation are a combination of both nature and nurture, as well as other factors.
kippers2222
I get so frustrated with the scientific community doing research to find out what causes homosexually. I mean come on they should focus on what causes heterosexually and then that should explains what causes us to be gay. Right!!!
Hyhybt
@kippers2222: Theoretically, perhaps. But “why are a few people different than usual” makes a better starting point for finding out the answer to both sides of the question.
Dennis Byrnes
Absolute nonsense. More BS from the Far Right to find reasons now to abort certain fetuses.
Hyhybt
@Dennis Byrnes: The far right is against abortion even in cases of defect so severe there is no possibility of survival. On what grounds, therefore, do you claim they’re looking for reasons to abort?
Stupid
Stop talking about my mom’s tits.
Chris
@Kev C: Fine, I am not arguing the validity of the study, I am arguing its distillation into “your mom is hot”, especially since sexual attractiveness had nothing to do with the study.
I personally don’t pretend to be qualified to judge a genetic study, and in all honesty I doubt many of the commenters here are qualified either. I did state that it was interesting, especially in light of some other studies tha seem to bolster this. But queerty should either actually read something before doing a synopsis like “Your mom is hot” or it should stick to lighter subjects and leave the genetic studies to others who are willing to report it accurately.
Kev C
@Chris: A study done by sexist, homophobic hairshirts probably isn’t worthy of decorum.
What annoys me is the notion that violent, aggressive behavior which results in war and death, is beneficial to survival, according to Darwinians. While non-violent, cooperative behavior which results in civility and peace, is faggy and detrimental to survival and evolution. Yet these are the assumptions this study is founded on.
B
No. 20 · Kev C wrote, “What annoys me is the notion that violent, aggressive behavior which results in war and death, is beneficial to survival, according to Darwinians. While non-violent, cooperative behavior which results in civility and peace, is faggy and detrimental to survival and evolution. Yet these are the assumptions this study is founded on.”
You don’t understand natural selection. “Survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean “survival of the most violent and aggressive”. Example: bonobos.