« Reprints & Revivals Sunday(!) open thread | Main | Creepers: How To Spot One, How To Be One »

July 01, 2013

Comments

As a straight guy, I've always found the idea that gay men weren't attracted to women to be far more perplexing than the fact that they were attracted to other men. So I suppose that means I'm more inclined to think that bisexual men exist than that truly homosexual men do.

And that means, that, if I were the gay analog of myself, I would be more perplexed by the idea that straight men weren't attracted to other men than I would be by the fact that they were attracted to women. So I would be more inclined to believe in the existence of bisexual men than that of truly heterosexual men.

All of which is to say that, whether gay or straight, I would only be willing to think that other men were bisexual, and maybe only the ones who claimed to be of an orientation other than mine, whatever that might be (other than bisexual!).

As far as women go, as a straight man, I'm quite open to bisexuality. I don't know if I would really care either way if I were gay (and not bisexual - of course!).

More seriously, I think it would be great if everyone were bisexual, and openly so, including me. (Maybe I've just never met Mr. Right....)

It's much more difficult for me, personally, to believe that monosexuals[1] really, truly exist.

Why would this be, other than projecting your own broadly-defined notion of sexuality on the rest of humanity? Seriously, as a scientist, does any part of today's post comport with the scientific method? I ask this because at least twice in your post, you've appealed to your own authority as a "scientist" and, quite frankly, it looks like the polar opposite of science and lot more like the speculative mumbo jumbo in a lot of the 'expert reports' I see in civil litigation.

Of course people are monosexual--a/k/a heterosexual. It's why gays have been in the closet forever until relatively recently. As opposed to gay men, a bisexual male can find a "conventional" outlet for his drives. Gay and straight men have only one outlet. Some gay men report efforts to conform by attempting relations with women, but invariably they report being exclusively gay once they are out.

What this suggests to me is that, for some cultural reason, a lot of men report themselves as gay (or straight) when they could say "bisexual", that there's something worse or more uncomfortable for men about being bi than being gay.

"Some cultural reason"--More scientific method at work here? How about this: sexual orientation isn't that big of a deal anymore, so self-reporting is more reliable than in years past. If people self-report as 'straight, not bisexual' or 'gay, not bisexual', it could just mean that they are *telling the truth*.

It makes a certain amount of sense that a bisexual male who wishes to remain in closet would declare himself to be straight. It makes no sense that an 'out' gay male would give two sh*ts if he was bi as opposed to gay. Particularly not someone like Andrew Sullivan, who I cannot imagine would consciously describe himself as something other than what he is.

Why would this be, other than projecting your own broadly-defined notion of sexuality on the rest of humanity?

I took that as an deliberate, illustrative error. To show us what that's like.

I took that as an deliberate, illustrative error. To show us what that's like.

Maybe so--perhaps my nuance-ity meter is on the fritz.

I gather that some monosexuals are made uncomfortable by the term, but I can't think of a good reason why

I'm not sure that making people uncomfortable because one doesn't see a good reason is really a way things should go. The liberalization of society seems to have been driven not by finding good reasons to not make people uncomfortable, but because we acknowledge that we don't know the reasons behind particular people's choices. Of course, this bumps up into the things that we do problematize, which is the classic conservative complaint about liberals, but the things that we find problematic are often tied up in power differentials where people don't really have a choice.

If you are complaining about how society might force a notion of sexual roles on people, I'm up with that. But if you want to make monosexuals 'feel uncomfortable' because you are sure you are plugged into the truth of the matter, imagine substituting any other group name (within reason) in the sentence and see how it sounds.

I see that Slart suggests this is just an illustrative example of the problems, so I'll need to get my nuance-o-meter repaired as well. Still, the question of how we deal with sexual preference as a marker for our personal beliefs is one that is kind of fraught and questioning the existence of mono-sexuals seems to deny the fact that people choose to be excited by what excites them. If that happens to be guided by personal history and culture, in the same way that being a speaker of a particular language is, you end up coming off badly if you opine that there is no good reason that you to be that way.

I self-identify as gay, but I can't say I've never been attracted to any women, or for that matter, that I never had sex with one. My partener of 22 years has a kid. It's real common for gays to experiment before recognizing their true orientation. The reason you don't see more straights going through a similar period of experimentation is cultural, I suspect.

"It's why gays have been in the closet forever until relatively recently."

Is that really so? My understanding is that while homosexuality has famously been called, "the love that dares not breath its name," a homosexual identity is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back to about the end of the nineteenth century. Prior to that, it was simply seen as a behavior, not an identity.

Thus it was quite common for people to engage in both homosex and heterosex, with the former generally seen as shameful - with noted exceptions (such as parts of ancient Greece). And even then, it was still expected that adult men and women would marry and produce children.

I love this post since this is basically exactly how I feel and think about the subject. I do feel and struggle with the tension between believing different people have different experiences and you should believe people when they describe their own reality and the fact that mono sexuality as a majority orientation makes no sense to me both from "gut feeling" perspective as well as a historical, cultural and scientific one.

I think the issue is that in current society we don't really have strong definitions of bi sexual or gay or straight. I would never ever tell someone that their orientation is not whatever they say it is. But I don't really understand why a man who has been in the past attracted to women or a woman who has been attracted to men would not think that the most accurate descriptor is bisexual with possible strong preference for men/women in romantic relationship. Human sexuality is so highly complicated. For example I know numerous people who are perfectly capable and often are physically attracted to both genders but can only picture/consider relationships with one gender. I don't see how thats not bisexual though I do understand why not publicly identifying that way might be easier if you're seeking a mate from a specific gender and acceptance from a specific society. Still I think it's bizarre that in current society you have to be almost mathematically 50/50 in your attraction and choice of lovers to decide to call yourself bisexual.

The biology behind sexual identity seems to be a subject so risky to investigate these days, (Kind of like IQ and race.) that relatively little can be said about it with any certainty.

And were I to speculate, it would only lead to a demonstration that this is so...

But, hey, I love arguments.

Heterosexuality has obvious reproductive advantage, and unsurprisingly, is by a huge margin the dominant sexual identity. (That the media tend to over-represent homosexuals in their output might obscure this, but Kinseyian fraud aside, homosexuals are probably only 1-2% of the population, tops.) Exclusive, "monosexual" heterosexuality not only exists, it is very common, though given that a bit of homosexual attraction is unlikely to have much reproductive consequence, there's not much evolutionary pressure to make the orientation strictly exclusive.

Exclusive, "monosexual" homosexuality, on the other hand, is going to be pretty rare, because it represents the extreme of a departure from the dominant mode. But the population is large, it likely occurs, too.

I don't see any particular moral sailence to this variation, though I admit a certain degree of "yuck" with regards to homosexuality. Then again, I don't like birds nest soup, either, and don't view it as a moral matter.

But I do think it's a bit ironic that the relaxation of norms against homosexuality will increase reproductive selection against it, by subjecting homosexuals to less pressure to engage in activities which might result in them reproducing.

There are a lot more than three. Most of the fun and interesting differentiation happens before and after and outside the acts.

I like brunettes. I think my thing against blondes must be genetic. I also like those who wear glasses. Thick dark rimmed glasses, not wireframes.

But not Republicans.

Sorry, I was born this way.

Maybe before we talk about what kind of sex we like with what kind of person, and there are a lot of varieties right there for each of us, we could start asking what is sex or sexual and what isn't, how we decide what to place in the respective categories, and why er make these decisions or if we are entirely "free" in making them.

Dinner with one person can be sexual but going to the game with friends never is?

Choosing an orientation or identity is easily as important for what it excludes as what it includes.

The puzzling preference is exclusive same-sex. Either such people somehow perform an important service for their kin who do reproduce, or their preference is some kind of error, genetic, mental, hormonal or something.

All types of behavior have the ultimate purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation and onward.

I have to go with McTex on this one. What is saying that you have trouble accepting that true monosexuals exist but the mirror image of people doubting that bisexuals (e.g. you) exist?

Personally, I seem to be entirely monosexual. I have no problem accepting that homosexuals exist (and that we are looking at nature, not nurture or decision, here) and that bisexuals exist (and account for the cases of supposed homosexuals being "cured"). I can't relate at all to their preferences, but that doesn't mean that I can't accept that they exist.

The biology behind sexual identity seems to be a subject so risky to investigate these days, (Kind of like IQ and race.)

Well, you know, phrenology is pretty much dead. More importantly, the effort it took to kill it was substantial. The "science" of the Bell Curve (shame on you Andrew Sullivan) and climate change deniers should be next on the list, and we'll just bypass the anti-evolution deadenders.

I am reminded of a recent run-in with an in-law who scoffed at the science of global climate change. One of the factoids he brought up was the assertion that "CO2 is heavier than air-therefore it can't be a cause of global warming." Having never heard this one before, I was fascinated, so I looked it up. And it's true, CO2 is 'heavier' than air, but that is not what we observe (gas laws, which see) and therefore the conclusion was totally off base. However reading the back and forth arguing this on the accompanying thread almost reduced my comfort with the convincing power of reasoned scientific fact to rubble.

So I certainly hope "opinions" are not genetic!

All types of behavior have the ultimate purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation and onward.

Insofar as genetic properties (mutations) are altered randomly, this is, to my understanding, simply not so. Win some, lose some.

"Well, you know, phrenology is pretty much dead."

Heh, I knew somebody would bring up phrenology, as though it had anything AT ALL to do with the genetics of IQ. Took a bit of work to kill off philostogen theory, too, but that didn't make chemistry a crock.

I've been making my own gravy from scratch lately.

But I do think it's a bit ironic that the relaxation of norms against homosexuality will increase reproductive selection against it, by subjecting homosexuals to less pressure to engage in activities which might result in them reproducing.

The concept of homosexuals "reproducing" is novel to me.

I know that Christian parents are statistically likely to produce Christian children, Muslim parents to produce Muslim children, and so on. I hear that tall parents are likely to produce tall children. I suspect that wealthy parents most often produce wealthy children. All sorts of traits are measurably hereditary.

But homosexuality? Is there some sort of evidence (scientific, not Limbaughian) that homosexuality is in any sense hereditary?

--TP

"CO2 is heavier than air-therefore it can't be a cause of global warming."

And, since water is lighter than air (H2O vs O2 and N2), obviously it can't rain. Gotta love how people who know nothing about science can pick irrelevant facts and build them into (false) conclusions that support their preferences.

Took a bit of work to kill off philostogen theory, too, but that didn't make chemistry a crock.

Total misdirection.

Perhaps Mr. Bellmore can demonstrate to us the huge value of the scientific contribution made by those who posit a relationship between "race" and "IQ", the impeccable nature of their research, and the astounding revelations this line of inquiry has brought to other disciplines. After all, such ruminations have a long, very long, history. I should think this preferable to hiding behind bald faced dissembling asserting that the subject is "touchy" and only held in check by some imagined political "correctness" (undoubtedly genetic in nature) that has possessed the academic community.

The floor is yours, sir.

I've been making my own gravy from scratch lately.

I don't believe you.

And again I have to ride to the defence of phlogiston :-(
Phrenology was obvious pseudo-science from the start, phlogiston was not. That it turned out to be incorrect in the end does not change the fact that it was a huge step forward for chemistry as a science (as opposed to alchemy as a philosophy). It was the radical idea that a single principle underlies a huge variety of seemingly very different phenomena (which turned out to be fully correct) and was crucial in turning chemists from mere observation (quality) to measurement (quantity). "Phlogistics" became the victim of its own overwhelming success. It spawned the advances in understanding and technology that in the end proved it wrong. I my opinion progress would have been significantly slower without it. It's a prime example of how the scientific method works: advance by testing (good) hypotheses. The quality of a hypothesis lies not just in it being true but in what understanding can get gained in testing it, even if it turns out to be false.
Now tell me how phrenology advanced true understanding.
---
From my understanding all Biblical references to homosexuality point towards cultural aspects. "Gay" sex was seen as a symptom not the basic wrong. I see a connection (and an overreaction) to Balaam's trap, the way he proposed to lure the Israelites away from their god by offering access to pagan cults that included 'deviant' sex as an essential part. That made it necessary to not just destroy those cults but also to narrowly define the acceptable norms in the matters of sexual conduct. Cf. the obsession with "uncovering the nakedness" in the same chapter (Lev 18). Modern translations muddy the waters a bit with replacing that with a 'do not have sex with' This imo hides the fact that the literal text again uses the symptom as a stand-in for what is actually meant.

Is there some sort of evidence (scientific, not Limbaughian) that homosexuality is in any sense hereditary?
I think there might be some evidence in that direction, but it is important to understand the politics of the question.

The criminalisation of sodomy was combated with the argument that homsexuality is a sickness, better treated medically than judicially. In 1980's, with the decriminalisation more or less complete, homosexuality was considered to be a non-treatable trait and removed from disease classification. The moral justification for homosexuality was that it was an innate, i.e. inherited, trait and thus not a choice of immoral lifestyle.

Actually, until recently, the LBGT community has typically claimed "being born this way". Only during the last decade it has become acceptable to claim LBGT identity as a conscious choice, because nowadays, such choice is considered legitimate by the mainstream society.

Here, when McKinneyTexas calls homosexuality a hereditary trait, it should be understood as a gesture of goodwill, as he is following the traditional talking points of the LBGT movement.

"Perhaps Mr. Bellmore can demonstrate to us the huge value of the scientific contribution made by those who posit a relationship between "race" and "IQ", the impeccable nature of their research, and the astounding revelations this line of inquiry has brought to other disciplines."

And perhaps you can do the same for string theory. Whatever happened to the idea that the search for knowledge was it's own justification?

You can tell Brett was just itching to search for knowledge in a particular way in this thread. I've never understood why this abstract desire for knowledge for its own sake in this particular area is so strong in some white males of a certain political persuasion, considering the difficulties and obscurities involved. It's almost as though people want a certain outcome to be true long before there's any good reason to believe in it.

link to Cosma Shalizi's discussion of hereditability

And that's all the thread derailing I plan to participate in.

If we can step outside of Homo Sap for a minute, I think that I can offer some evidence for a hereditary basis for homosexuality. There are a number of species of both amphibians and reptiles where homosexual behavior has been documented. These include species where the eggs are abandoned after being laid. Pretty well taking nurture out of the mix.

Deliberately provocative and interesting.

My theory is that sexuality is a continuum, perhaps not a linear one, with 'true' bisexuality (equal attraction to both sexes) in the middle and exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality at the extremes. Although a good deal of (admitted) attraction is set by convention and enforced by societal norms, I believe there is some intrinsic pull one way or the other. But it's very situational, and can change with age and circumstance (criminality or not, peer pressure or not, etc.)
I got into semantic trouble with a gay friend once, when I pompously announced that while I had no problem with homosexuality, it obviously wasn't Normal, because Biology. I was in college, and a biology major, what can I say? He responded that made him abnormal by definition, and went on to cite animal examples, etc. The idea that I was putting him, a friend, in the Abnormal category struck me quite forcibly. I tried out variant, but that didn't seem to work either.

Societal expectations and enforcement of cultural norms are a powerful force.

And I hear echoes of my friend's not wanting to be thought of as abnormal in the cries of those who seemingly desperately want to thought of as normal.

Perhaps Mr. Bellmore can demonstrate to us the huge value of the scientific contribution made by those who posit a relationship between "race" and "IQ"

Ah, I had missed this.

I've mostly forgotten the background on this, but genetics and IQ are in fact strongly correlated. Whether that correlation means something about the genetics, or whether that correlation is due to something else correlated with the genetics is the key question. And I think that most of the key discoveries on this point have been made; that (IIRC) such correlations are in fact due more to cultural and economic environment than genetics.

I don't care much about whether people positing such correlation have an agenda or not. Or, rather, I do care, but such an agenda doesn't negate any valid science that comes out as a result of such an inquiry.

Truth will come out, one way or another.

Hmm...something missing, there, in that last comment.

I had intended to say that you have on the one hand data, and you have on the other hand various interpretations of what that data means, and what its implications are.

Assuming the data is verifiable and repeatable, the interpretation and sorting out of the implications is not an uncontentious process. Which is as it should be, I think.

genetics and IQ are in fact strongly correlated.

I'm in agreement with Slarti's comment, but this phrasing may lead the unwary astray.

IQ is highly heritable. But there's been no success relating IQ to specific genomic features.

Lots of things are highly heritable. Height. Wealth. Enjoyment of southern cooking. Most highly heritable things have nothing to do with genetics at all.

I don't see anything there to disagree with, Turbulence.

In the case of e.g. Ashkenazi Jews, generally higher IQ might be primarily genetic, or it could be cultural, or it could be both of those things. I don't think anyone knows for certain.

But I think the key thing is that until someone finds genes that encode for something related to higher intelligence (I hate to even go here, because the language is horribly imprecise), and establishes that some group of people have that gene while others don't, this is all guesswork. And it's going to be guesswork for a good while longer, I suspect.

People tend to want their answers tidy, but as with anything of even modest complexity, the real explanation is going to be something more involved than a single sentence to the effect that intelligence and race are connected.

And I'm not even going into the highly contested notion of "race", because that's another (but still relevant) conversation. Also muddy is the distinction of "intelligence", and what that really means other than an ability to score well on some kind of test.

There is more genetic diversity among humans in sub-Saharan Africa than there is among humans on the entire planet outside of sub-Saharan Africa. You can easily find two "black" people who are more genentically different from each other than any two other-than-"black" people in existence - take one Italian and one Chinese, or one Mapuche and one Russian - you choose. It doesn't matter.

Simply moving between race, a dubious concept to begin with, and genetics, a scientifically complex subject, is not going to score you points on the "how scientific are you being?" scale.

So, even if there's a genetic component to intelligence, you don't just warp drive straight to race.

With that, while I get the history of homosexual rights being gained after it was put forth that one has no choice in one's sexuality, it kind of bugs me that it should matter at all. What about the fact that there's simply nothing wrong with homosexuality, you know - because it doesn't hurt anyone?

I mean, you wouldn't let a natural, born killer (assuming there were such a thing - and maybe there is!) go around murdering people just because he was born murderous, would you?

Whatever happened to the idea that the search for knowledge was it's own justification?

Why, nothing. Why do you ask?

" IQ is highly heritable. But there's been no success relating IQ to specific genomic features."

Highly likely to change, now that the cost of gene sequencing is dropping to the point where you can use it in mass studies. You can now basically collect the entire sequence for tens of thousands of people, and look for correlations between specific genes and various things like IQ or longevity.


Beijing Genomics Institute working to determine the genetic basis for High IQ

Highly likely to change...

What's highly likely to change is that it is indeterminate whether or not specific genomic features relate to IQ. It is somewhat less likely that specific genomic features will be found to be related to IQ, because it could be that what they find is that there is no relation.

My gut tells me, among lots of other things, that there is some degree of genetic influence on IQ (or potential IQ), but there are lots of other influences, from prenatal environment, intellectual stimulation - especially during early developmental stages, nutrition, disease and other environmental exposures, and who knows what else. Add in the problems with defining and measuring IQ, and things get messy fast. Best of luck.

Well, I can accept your lived experience, sure. Mine is that I've only ever been sexually attracted to women. Can I prove, beyond any doubt, that this was not influenced by culture? Of course not, though I doubt culture actually had much to do with it. Why? Because I've never had to fight down thoughts that were outside the box. Not once.

I think that's probably true for ~90% of the population. I could, of course, be wrong, even wildly so. Just a guess.

Beijing Genomics Institute working to determine the genetic basis for High IQ

This also in the imminent: US physicists working on a Theory of Everything.

"Working on" doesn't mean "are near to solving".

But this isn't work that is necessarily doomed to failure, even if it fails to accomplish it. If you can correlate to things as nebulously defined as intelligence, after all, you can correlate to genetic encoding of practically anything else you can imagine.

Possibly even luck.

/Ringworld

vjs: "My theory is that sexuality is a continuum, perhaps not a linear one, with 'true' bisexuality (equal attraction to both sexes) in the middle and exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality at the extremes."

Nice way to 'dis the asexuals, vjs.

That continuum? What the hell makes you think that it's only ONE dimension? Perhaps more like 10-dimensional string theory, where for "string" one should read "tight leather straps".

Well, (s)he did write "perhaps not a linear one," so I'm going to interpret that literally to allow for leather, rubber, latex, fur, shoes, cheese graters, washing machines and jelly donuts.

How about furries?

Whatever blows your skirt up, cuz. It's none of my business.

Here, when McKinneyTexas calls homosexuality a hereditary trait, it should be understood as a gesture of goodwill, as he is following the traditional talking points of the LBGT movement.

While I like to think of myself as having nothing but goodwill toward any and everyone, generally speaking, I don't believe I've ever indicated that homosexuality is heritable. I have personal anecdotal experience with one gay male siring a son who also was gay, but that is the only gay person I know who had a gay parent.

I think that some circumstances--prison, prolonged isolation--can reduce the inhibitive component of sexual orientation such that a heterosexual's default, reflexive rejection of same-sex intimacy can be eroded over time and under some circumstances. This is an inference I draw from the higher incidence in same sex intimacy in prison populations.

I think it unlikely homosexuality is heritable in any positive sense. Any gene for homosexuality would be selected out of the population with remarkable speed. What seems certain is that heterosexuality is heritable.

Homosexuality is merely a consequence of heterosexuality being imperfectly heritable. Such imperfections would naturally be heritable, because they would represent imperfections in something heritable.

There are inheritable bad traits that do not disappear over time. A standard way to 'achieve' that is having certain parts of the genome that have positive consequences provided they do not get coupled with certain others. Each of these would be kept due to their positive effect but when by chance they meet they deal a knockout blow. I think it was stuff like this that discredited the idea of mmonofunctional isolated genes.
Another example are heritable diseases that are inherited by way of one sex but hits exclusively the other (best known: hemophilia).
And then there is the case where the number of copies of certain sequences is the critical point. When they add up too much the effect begins to show.
All of that leaves out epigenetics and the mass of 'junk' DNA. A lot can be hidden there waiting just for the right switch to flip. What has no current effect is not affected by negative selection.
That does not mean that any of these explain 'the gay' but that quick assumptions about hereditability or lack thereof should be avoided.

Won't science answer the genetics question eventually?

Does anyone really care about this subject? If so, why? If it's a question of justifying one's behavior, why justify sexual behavior? Isn't that a private thing, and none of anyone's business?

Unless, of course, you're basing your identity on your sexuality (via marriage, gay culture, Romeo, whatev...).

Basically, people are various in their sexual practices, as the McKinseys reported decades ago. And yet, we insist on organizing our society (to a certain extent) around our sexual partnerships and commitments.

All I can say about it is that it's really weird that we attach so much importance to it, and who really cares about who touches whom in a consensually sexual manner?

Another way to have a background level of a particular heritable bad trait, is for it to simply spontaneously occur with some frequency, and not be efficiently selected out. For instance, let us suppose that there are 20 or 30, or more, separate mutations, which each have the effect of marginally destabilizing sexual identity. Evolution can only keep the dysfunction in check, not entirely eliminate it. You get a distribution of the trait, peaking around the fully functional phenotype.

I'd say that actually describes the status quo for essentially all traits that vary over a continuum due to being poly-genetic. There may be an evolutionarily optimum genotype, but there's no chance that it will prevail, it will simply represent a peak in the distribution.

"All I can say about it is that it's really weird that we attach so much importance to it,"

We're not only hard wired to have a sexual identity, we're hard wired to care about it... That's my guess.

Of course, it's going to get really interesting once we have some solid data about this, because we're starting to be able to engineer ourselves. That fraction of the population who want to reproduce also want their offspring to reproduce, so they have an obvious interest in the matter. And I guess homosexuals will have some interest in preventing them from doing anything about it, too.

It's going to be interesting.

And I guess homosexuals will have some interest in preventing them from doing anything about it, too.

OMG, they want to destroy the human race! They are insidiously evil!!!

You really need to get out more Brett.

"Homosexuals are probably only 1-2 percent of the population, tops."

Coincidentally, that's exactly the percentage Libertarian candidates receive in general elections.

Homosexuality is merely a consequence of heterosexuality being imperfectly heritable.

This sounds like a statement of fact, for which there is abundant evidence.

But you'd have thought I'd have heard about it in other places, first.

According to a newly released hypothesis, homosexuality might not lie in DNA itself. Instead, as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child. This benefits the unborn child, however if these epigenetic changes persist once the child is born, and has children of its own, some of these offspring may be homosexual.
[...]

Homosexuality Might Develop in the Womb Due to Epigenetic Changes

CharlesWT, what's the bet that someone will try to develop a pill that can be marketed as 'prevent your grandchildren from becoming gay'? Advantage: the desired effect wil lie so far in the future that product liability should not pose a problem for the manufacturer. Now there is just the question of how to test it in the first place within a reasonable time. Fruitflies? ;-)

"OMG, they want to destroy the human race! They are insidiously evil!!!"

Nah, they just want there to continue to be homosexuals around.

Am I the only one thinking of the line from Singles where the guy says, "Sterility runs in my family"?

(Big feet run in mine, btw.)

More correctly:

Steve Dunne: I'm probably sterile. It runs in my family.

Easily possible, if it works like hemophilia, i.e. transmission through the female line but expression only in males (sorry, if I get the terminology wrong).
Aren't there even some animal species where all male offspring is sterile and the females procreate by parthenogenesis?

Nah, they just want there to continue to be homosexuals around.

Yep, cause people always treat sex like buying toilet paper: I gotta stock up while I can.

I'm not sure that getting out more would help.

I gotta stock up while I can.

Yuuuuuuuup

Do monosexuals exist?

Yep. This has been another episode of.....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad