Saturday, July 14, 2012

Are male and female homosexuality inversely correlated?

U.S. General Social Survey (analysis by Jason Malloy),
- only groups of 40 or more individuals included
- homosexual category includes bisexuals

Jason Malloy has looked into the U.S. General Social Survey for rates of homosexuality by national origin and by gender.  Not surprisingly, he found that different national origins have different rates of homosexuality, given their different levels of sexual permissiveness. Surprisingly, however, there is an apparent inverse correlation between male and female homosexuality. If sexual permissiveness were the causal factor, shouldn’t it increase the numbers of both gays and lesbians? Perhaps not to the same extent, but the effect should at least be in the same positive direction.
This finding is in line with the one discussed in the last post. Although female homosexuality is becoming more common among younger age cohorts, these same cohorts show a stable or even decreasing rate of male homosexuality.

Again, what is going on? When cultural constraints are weak or absent, it may be that the upper limit for expression of homosexuality is higher in females than in males. But that in itself wouldn’t produce an inverse correlation. Perhaps different national groups, for reasons of genetics or family environment (e.g., diet, early childhood upbringing), have different susceptibilities to male and female homosexuality.
For instance, Chinese Americans may be highly susceptible to male homosexuality but only weakly susceptible to female homosexuality. This particular finding might be related to the community’s higher birth ratio of males to females and its corresponding wife shortage. Yet that kind of explanation still rings a bit hollow.

Any ideas?


Anonymous said...

Even straight Chinese men are rather effeminate. Seems like that should be relevant, though I'm not sure how to expand on that thought in a way that makes sense of the rest of the table.

Anonymous said...

As for women's rates increasing--that may simply be a reflection of the increase in a woman's economic self-sufficiency. Perhaps the rate of women attracted to men as sexual partners was never as high as we thought. Women may have married to have kids. The desire to have sex is simply not the driver of female "orientation" as it is for men. A lot of women who had kids may not have actually gone ahead and had them out of any maternal drive to procreate and the kids they had may not have been the result of the women's sexual lust for men but rather because they were conforming to societal norms.

As for the male homosexual--well, it's not really clear, is it, that the rate has really declined; it seems just as likely to be, as you suggested, "stable."

Drawing conclusions between data on male homosexuality and female homosexuality is tricky, like mixing apples and oranges.

Anonymous said...

I think this was deleted from the OK Cupid blog, but they put up a chart one time showing that very short and very tall men are more likely to be homosexual.

Anonymous said...

Greece, cradle of Western civilization where pederasty was tolerated and adult male homosexual okay as long as the man wasn't penetrated, has more females homosexuals than male homosexuals?!? 11% for female homosexuality and 2.4% for male homosexuality? With all of those Greek male nude statues? I think I just fainted of disbelief.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the word for male homosexual should be "effimacy". It's more akin to being childish and throwing tantrums if they don't get their way (ever got the word bigot or homophobic innaccurately thrown at you?). Male homosexuals in their mannerisms remind me of children. They are like little fascists who cry, kick and scream.

Anonymous said...

Male homosexuals are little fascists in my experience. Ditto about lesbians...

Anonymous said...

Little childish fascists out of horror movies. Strangely Orwellian in some cases with PC words...

Stacy said...

For instance, Chinese Americans may be highly susceptible to male homosexuality but only weakly susceptible to female homosexuality.

I believe this is because Chinese has aborted a lot of female babies and so you get an overbalance of males (e.g. 130 males for every 100 girls). Who will these men turn to companionship for? Not all of them will become priests or monks. Most of them will become single or celibate. Others will turn towards the same sex.

Chris Crawford said...

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the obvious (to me, at least) selection effect at work here. These are all American residents with different national origins. These are the ones who, for one reason or another, broke with the mother country and went to America. Such people cannot be representative of their mother countries -- if they were, they'd be back home! They're bold or driven or fugitive or ostracized or something else. Because their nation of origin strongly affects their reason for coming to the USA, I cannot imagine what useful inferences can be drawn from this data.

Anonymous said...

I believe this is because Chinese has aborted a lot of female babies and so you get an overbalance of males (e.g. 130 males for every 100 girls)

Do you have any real evidence of this?

I know lots of Chinese people, including in China, and I have seen no evidence of aborting of female babies.

In any event, in looking at the masculinity of different groups, we find the following:

Chinese < Caucasians < Sub-Saharan Africans

When we look at femininity, we see:

Sub-Saharan Africans < Caucasian < Chinese.

Chris Crawford said...

Anonymous, you might wish to consult the Wikipedia article on abortion in China, as well as its many references, to disabuse yourself of the notion that gender-selective abortion is not an important factor there. They cite a 2001 birthrate of 117 boys to 100 girls.

Anonymous said...

A quick Excel calculation provided a correlation of -0.24 between male and female homosexuality, which is not significant on the 5%-level, if my computing was right. So if not reverse related both phenomena seem to be completely untight, which is interesting enough. Furthermore there is no relation to genetic distance: European values span from top to bottom of the table, while Filipinos cluster with Germans and Greeks. That hints to environmental factors. I had the vague suspicion before, that there could be an correspondence between occurrence of homosexuality and r/K-continuum (it is said that Jews and Japanese have a special affinity to male homosexuality while it is nearly unknown between Africans). But these figures don’t lend any support.

Jason Malloy said...

In my original post I did underline that American ethnic groups might be atypical of their national forebears. And at least according to the GSS sample there is no skewed sex ratio for Chinese Americans.

Not surprisingly, he found that different national origins have different rates of homosexuality, given their different levels of sexual permissiveness

I did not mention sexual permissiveness, and didn't suspect is was related to (male) homosexuality. But since you've mentioned it I decided to test the theory.

I've given the ethnic groups a composite sexual permissiveness score by adding up responses to four questions: HOMOSEX (how wrong is homosexuality?), PREMARSX (premarital sex), TEENSEX (sex among 14-16 year olds), XMARSEX1 (extramarital sex). The questions are ranked on a four point scale: always wrong to never wrong. So higher scores = more permissive. I only included the responses of straight people, since the point is to see how cultural values might influence the rate of homosexuality.

Sexual Permissiveness (Max 12)
Russia 9.83
Italy 8.87
China 8.75
Poland 8.59
Czech 8.58
Fr. Can 8.29
Denmark 8.23
Puerto Rico 8.15
Greece 8.13
France 8.06
Mexico 8.04
Sweden 8.04
Ireland 7.97
Spain 7.95
Scotland 7.89
Norway 7.75
Germany 7.73
England 7.65
Philippines 7.46
India 7.43
Africa 7.39
Netherlands 7.24
Amerindian 7.21

Jason Malloy said...

If I was forced to make a prediction I would’ve thought that liberal cultures facilitated more female homosexual behavior and had little to no effect on male homosexuality (which is caused by early biological factors).

But according to these numbers anyway, my suppositions could be wrong. Sexual permissiveness has a weakly positive association with male homosexuality (0.11) and a moderately negative association with female homosexuality (-0.28). Sexually conservative cultures have more lesbians, and sexually liberal cultures have fewer lesbians. I'm not sure how well this fits with the secular trends.

I also looked at the sexes separately:

Male permissiveness
0.27 gays
-0.13 lesbians

Female permissiveness
-0.08 gays
-0.36 lesbians

Male and female permissiveness has surprisingly little effect on the opposite sex, but a moderate-sized effect on own-sex. Male permissiveness is associated with more gays/bisexuals and female permissiveness is associated with less lesbians/bisexuals. It's possible that causality is running either way (e.g. do sexually liberal male cultures create more gays, or do gays generate more liberal standards for straight men).

Difference Maker said...

The explanation seems straightforward.

Low male permissiveness means hostility to male homosexuals revealing themselves.

High female permissiveness means extramarital sex, and therefore less need to turn to lesbianism for companionship.

Anonymous said...

The Chinese (and Japanese) sample size in the GSS really sucks... It's not really useful for anything.

This guy Arthur Hu seems to find a low homosexuality rate in East Asians, although I'm not sure I find his methodology sound -


"Percent gay or bisexual

Males (sample size = 7,753)
Whites 3.4
Blacks 4.4
Mex-Ams 4.5

Females (sample size = 8,694)
Whites 2.7
Blacks 3.0
Mex-Ams 1.8"

"I told him that the prevalence of homosexuals is at least as high among blacks and Hispanics. According to the General Social Survey, it's 3.0% of white men, 5.4% of Hispanics, and 3.8% of blacks. I suggested that non-white homosexuals are more invisible since their ethnic groups are small, and there is less acceptance of the orientation among these groups.

According to The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 7.0% of white adolescent boys say that they have been romantically attracted to another boy. The corresponding number for blacks is 8.2% and 9.0% for Hispanics (N = 3,101). Interesting how the ranking is the same for the two surveys."

Anonymous said...

Perhaps any genetic factor is either oriented towards females or males. That's why you may end with more heterosexual women and gay men versus more heterosexual men and lesbian women. The genes either like men or women and these show up in both sexes.

Sean said...

Chris, Look at the figures for Denmark. In Denmark homosexuality was legalised in 1933, the age of consent is 15, and it was the first country to legalize same sex unions. Nobody leaves Denmark to get away from homophobia Chris. Girly digit ratio = liberal permissive societies, but few lesbians. Your argument would have merit in relation to illiberal Jamaica (Beany Man sang “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the Gays”) where I would expect male homosexuals to be considerably less common than lesbians.

Denmark has a full share of male homosexuality but so few lesbians because Denmark has least masculine digit ratios and the lowest male fertility in Europe. Other countries with high digit ratios are Spain and Poland.

The 2nd:4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population
differences, and reproductive success:
evidence for sexually antagonistic genes?

Steve Sailor spotted this Why Doesn't Evolution Get Rid of ...
"effects on males than in females. Extrapolating to humans (and oversimplifying, sorry) you might imagine that a particular shape of the nose or turn of the chin would look drop-dead hunky on a male, but horsey on a woman; dad got to mate because his looks attracted a female, but the result of their togetherness produced daughters whose pulchritude was less than obvious. Traits that evolutionary psychologists tell us make women unfit for mating (having the “wrong” shape) remain abundant in the human race because the DNA for the traits, when inherited by sons, confers a selective advantage; when those sons have daughters, presto—more females with less-than-hourglass shapes. Or as the Edinburgh biologists put it, “optimal genotypes differ between male and female red deer, because a genotype that produces a male phenotype with relatively high fitness will, on average, produce a phenotype with lower fitness when expressed in a female.”"

Sexual selection and ancestral Europeans

Anonymous said...

Sean, a quick scan of those at a Saturday Little League game or soccer gathering tells me the ugly mate with the ugly, the averages with the averages, and the beautiful with the beautiful.

Do we have evidence that the uglies produce opposite-sex beautiful children? My eyes tell me "no."

How about number of offspring? Any difference among the three groups I mentioned?

I don't see any evidence (beyond, say, the very wealthy, where the old rich geezer gets a hot chick) that the beautiful breed with those that have a trait that marks them as unattractive.

Think about it. A bottle nose on a guy is as unattractive to a woman as a bottle nose on a woman is to a guy. Same for a pear-shaped body.

Anonymous said...

Example of big nose mating with big nose (and skinny pole with skinny pole)

Weiner's got one of the ugliest noses I've seen on a guy. (In fact, recalling the pics, his male organ was the only thing about him that was average, not simply ugly).

Jason Malloy said...

I decided to Google Scholar/Books some national prevalence rates to see how they compare to the GSS numbers. You would think that, say, 0% for Danish women is an absurd number, right?

But here's one 1988 survey from Denmark. The interviewer asked 625 women if they had had any homosexual experiences. Of those 625 women, only one said yes (0.16%)!

Anonymous said...

Apparently many lesbians don't have sex:

This contrasts with the general view that male homosexuals are promiscuous.

Anonymous said...

Aren't male homosexuals better looking than heterosexual men? Male homosexuals typically have nice faces and skinny bodies, contrasting the ugly faces and fat bodies of heterosexual men. Lesbians on the other hand are typically average or ugly-average in the face.

Right? Any input here?

Anonymous said...

Male homosexuals have a "gay face" that people recognize:

I don't think women find it attractive. People generally find it odd and freakish.

Anonymous said...

"Aren't male homosexuals better looking than heterosexual men?"

No, that notion is probably the result of gays gravitating to certain fields in which it helps to be attractive, acting and modeling, for example. However, the straight guys in acting and modeling are good looking also.

A walk through the Castro in SF or the Village in NY shows you the full range of looks.

Stacy said...

Interesting point on make looks Anon. As a young woman I feel weird chasing after a goodlooking Adonis type of guy. I think most handsome guys are gay so I just stick to the average looking guys. I'm very happy so far. Very few average looking guys are homosexual. On the other hand good looking girls are usually always straight so that's why a lot of guys are confident going after hot girls, even if they get shot down. Goodlooking guys have this distant, etheral beauty. Like I can't catch them or something as a girl.

Stacy said...

Sorry I meant "male looks".

Anonymous said...

Stacey said, "As a young woman I feel weird chasing after a goodlooking Adonis type of guy. I think most handsome guys are gay so I just stick to the average looking guys."

Stacey, maybe you work somewhere with a higher percentage of gay males than most places?

I say this because I've never found it hard to quickly distinguish between gay and straight men. Body language and movement + noting whom HE is observing (gay men, closeted or not steal glances or stare openly at attractive men) and, all that failing, you can almost always tell with a very short conversation.

If you don't find a guy admiring attractive women, he's gay.

Sean said...

The point I was trying to make is that populations are not all equally balanced between masculinity and femininity. Consequently the women of some populations are more feminine thereby making them less easily tipped into lesbian orientation by some virus, fetal stress or whatever.

Relative to other Europeans The total population of Danes is biologically optimized for conditions of sexual selection of females. That is why Danish men have low fertility, and Danish women are rated as highly attractive. I is also why Danish women are so rarely lesbians. Europeans in general are biologically optimized for conditions of sexual selection of females. Danes are just the most extreme example.

Relative to other peoples black Africans of both sexes are masculinized as a result of the tight sexual selection of men in Africa,(a corollary of polygyny). Kanazawa in his infamous blog post about the relative unattractiveness of black women (based on a large data set) said that black men are rated more physically attractive. Lewis, M.B. (2012). the study A Facial Attractiveness Account of Gender Asymmetries in Interracial Marriage found that Black men are rated as more attractive than White men. In physique blacks are more masculine " the highly polygynous, agricultural peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are ... physically robust. They and their African American descendants outclass European-descended subjects for weight, chest size, arm girth, leg girth, muscle fiber properties, and bone density". Here Black women have higher rates of infertility. I think Black men have lower rates of preferential and exclusive homosexuality and Black women have higher rates of lesbian orientation. Unfortunately it is difficult to prove this because communities with a masculine biologic reproductive bias (like Jamaica) are extremely opposed to social acceptance of homosexuals or lesbians, and make them keep a low profile.

Stacy said...

Stacey, maybe you work somewhere with a higher percentage of gay males than most places?

Not really. It's just that attractive men strike me as having higher percentage of gays. I don't like goodlooking guys and the fact that they show them so much on ads, TV, movies and other places makes me sick. Average looking guys are typically less gay. Whenever they show an Adonis type of guy it just makes me roll my eyes. Hot guys can just touch other guys for all I care.

Anonymous said...

Sean said,

"...the highly polygynous, agricultural peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are ... physically robust. They and their African American descendants outclass European-descended subjects for weight, chest size, arm girth, leg girth, muscle fiber properties, and bone density". Here Black women have higher rates of infertility."

Yeah, "higher rates of infertility" caused by ....ready? Pathogens.

Non-hygenic conditions, poor or lacking medical services, sexual practices, and just plain all around ignorance let those pathogens have their way.

Doesn't take much to scar fallopian tubes.

Jason Malloy said...


Your theory doesn't fit the data. As I noted in the last thread, both female and male homosexuality are inversely correlated with latitude.

According to the GSS, 2.5% of white men are exclusively homosexual while 3.3% of black men are exclusively homosexual. And if black gays are "keeping a lower profile" even this is an underestimate.

A recent meta-analysis pretty much killed the idea that digit ratio is related to male homosexuality, although it still might help explain population differences in female homosexuality, including the relatively low rate in Denmark.

Anonymous said...

Jason Malloy,

Thanks for the link to the meta-analysis about digit ratio. I've often wondered if previous sampling was strong enough to make the assertion that digit ratio in males was a marker of homosexuality.

Same with the claims about clockwise and counter-clockwise hair whorls. I wonder...anecdotally, on several occasions, we've checked the hair whorls on a bunch of gay guys we work with. We seem to get no difference in ratio between the gay guys and the straight guys, FWIW.

Sean said...

I never said anything about latitude. Lesbians are more commom than male homosexuals in those from Sweden and Greece. If you start at Denmark lesbianism becomes more common in any direction while male homsexuality seems to decline somewhat. I mentioned HERE individuals' 2D:4D being associated with lesbian but not male homosexual orientation.

Masculine men go for feminine women. Bare in mind that alleles most beneficial to success for females under sexual selection are the ones making her more feminine. Sexual selection (which works on either males or females, but not both) men can affect the both sexes over generations. Female-female competition (with the corollary of relaxed male-male competition) can alter the gene pool. Hence the whole population becomes more feminine over many generations. And Vice versa for strong male-male sexual selection. Populations are not all equally balanced between masculinity and femininity, due to some populations having had periods of sexual selection, there were a range of focuses and intensities in various times and locations. A corollary of one sex being especially easily tipped into homosexual orientation is that the hetrosexualty of the opposite sex in that population will be robust, in relation to the opposite sex in the same population at least.

Marriages in Walden Mass in the early colonial period averaged almost 10 children. Women from New France who married before 15 years old averaged 12 childen. Europeans are more fertile The oldest natural mother was English. African American women have twice the odds of infertility compared to white women.

The rate of excusive preferential male homosexuality among American blacks is apparently not low relative to whites though I expect that passive role homosexuality is less common among blacks than among Europeans. I still think that black women have high rates of lesbian orientation. . In my opinion the country where the population is most biologically optimized for sexual selection of males is Senegal (it has got the most polygyny) .Wikipedia says "According to the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, a strong 96% of Senegal residents said that homosexuality should be rejected by society, making it one of the highest rejection of homosexuality in the 44 countries surveyed."
Being a lesbian in Senegal is dangerous dangerous so I think there are far more than anyone knows, in orientation at least.

Anonymous said...

Germ theory? Female promiscuity has only relatively recently been mainstreamed among the young by the media and schools. If the germ theory is at least partly correct then this ought to have increased the incidence of at least bisexuality as bisexual women tend to have had the most male partners.

Sean said...

'The incidence of cervical cancer in Danish women is among the highest worldwide (14.5 per 100000 women)' We know that is caused by a virus (that's sexually transmitted). So Danish women get around. Yet Danish women are very rarely bisexual or lesbian. So the most heterosexual women in the world actually get a lot of sexual contacts.

It is pretty clear that male and female homosexuality are indeed inversely correlated. If either male or female homosexuality (or both) are caused by a bug(s), or a different bug(s) why would male and female homosexuality be inversely correlated eh?

About r/K selection, European women are the most fertile and least likely to be lesbians. Rushton's theory would not predict that.

Anonymous said...

So, populations with hotter males than females have more lesbians, while those with hotter females than males have more gays? This is in accordance with your earlier ideas about weak heterosexuals near a threshold, yet there is still an ugly fact here: in direction and strength of drive, the average gay ain’t a “weak homosexual” still located near the threshold he passed getting somewhat further than the rest-he’s rather anything but. Anyways, here are some (vaguely) relevant ideas:

Homosexuality vs. cinaidosyne: I’m coining a term to refer to the sexuality of gays (anatomical men with a drive to play the part of a woman) from ancient Greek (where such men were called cinaidi), to avoid identifying it with all homosexuality, which technically may include more attitudes. While basic (anatomical) male sexuality (being straight or gay) is strongly fixed (and certainly congenital or nearly so), what about cultures and places (the prison, ancient Greece, the Levant in the-anthropological-present) where a drive to play the part of a man with other men exists in many men who also have the drive to play the part of a man with women, and no drive to play the part of a woman? I think that basic straightness is the drive to play the part of a man. This drive can get directed towards other men in situations of great need, and perhaps, in cultures encouraging it, it can develop in most men, through some imprinting mechanism, to be generally directed at men as well as women. Note that such cultures sharply distinguish the two homosexualities, and are anything but gay-friendly. Note also that the pederastai of ancient Greece were looking for effeminacy in young boys, facial hair making a boy too old for a pederast (so the drive isn’t completely removed from its basic straight origin; I think that in Islamic cultures, men willing to play the part of men with other men preferred these other men to be effeminate too; anybody, any ideas about what kinds of other men do dominant prisoners prefer to sodomize?), and that there were closet cinaidi trying to pass for pederasts, as there are nowdays “bisexuals” (the 11th and 12th books of the Greek Anthology will offer interesting insights). Bisexuals, which had ought to be more than gays if they were for real(=if there was a scale rather than a divide), might be a collection of the few basically straight men still developing the urge to play the part of men with other men in cultures generally discouraging it, gays with a degree of denial, and PC straights and gays thinking that everybody must be bisexual, since nature must be PC.

(part 1/2)

Anonymous said...

(part 2/2)

Female sexual fluidity: it has been shown experimentally that straight men get aroused by straight porn and plain images of naked women, gay men by gay porn and plain images of naked men, while both straight and lesbian women seem to be aroused by any action porn, and not so aroused by any plain images-they’re more about things going on than who’s involved (or not) in anything. Perhaps women are also more sexual about anything, having less clear a distinction between sexual and non-sexual behavior, their general lovydovyness being susceptible to sexualization beyond their basic sexuality. I happen to know some lesbians-they all have been involved with men (even the quite butch ones) past what would be accounted for by trying to pass for “normal”, and I don’t think the same is true for gays. Lesbians feel threatened by men in a way gays don’t feel threatened by women, and perhaps for a good reason: perhaps that good catch, a really cute, effeminate gal that flowed to a lesbian, is a basically straight girl that will easily flow back to men (and even a basically lesbian gal may be allured by family and the like). In Greece, I have been aware of anecdotal complains that in places with a lot of lesbian tourism (i.e., Lesbos itself), the local women are affected, while I’ve never heard of Myconians believing that all the gays going there are affecting the orientation of local men. Finally, I don’t think that a tenth of women in my population are lesbians, though I now realize that I certainly have met more lesbians than gays. You think us meds have hotter males than females? I think there seems to be a gender imbalance in Nordic/Mediterranean matings, paralleling the White/Black one. Of course I, though quite unchauvinistic and rather left leaning, prefer women of my own ethnic group (and of those more resembling physically), but this can be imprinting (don’t get me wrong, I’m all for genetic explanations, but there still must be some going on), or the weak heterosexuality of someone somewhat more into books and less into sports than the next guy, if this whole weak heterosexuality thing is true.

Anonymous said...

…and here’s another (less vaguely relevant) idea that just came to me: since one’s chance of being gay is proportional to number of older brothers, percentage of gays in a population must correlate with fertility; and fertility correlates negatively with a population’s living standards (which in turn correlate with permissiveness); thus, you could get less gays (by having fewer second, third, and beyond sons) and more women with some homosexual experience to count (by greater permissiveness allowing true lesbians to be themselves-one can imagine how many would simply be married off in older times-, as well as more fluid non-lesbians experimenting). This could produce an inverse gay/lesbian correlation.

Sean said...

We can see who gets turned out. Homosexual behaviour does not mean taking turns playing the passive receptive role. Going by prison it's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men. Compared to blacks, whites are not physically or mentally equipped for male-male competition. Whites are the result of female-female competition.

To me black Africans of both sexes seem to be the result of intense male-male competition.

The viral causation idea assumes that because it never could pay for a man or woman to be totally homosexual, then both sexes must be under diversifying selection that keeps genes specific to success in sexual selection from being expressed in the 'wrong' sex. But what if the most masculine 10% of males father 90% of the children. Or, if the most feminine 66% of women bear 100% of the children eh?

Stacy said...

Judeo-Christian populations on average are less homosexual in either direction if you compare them to other cultures (and it isn't all "suppression") but most of all their men are rather plain looking. Mediterranean and Middle Eastern men seem to be the gayest and they are some of the hottest men on earth. That's why I as a girl never go for hot guys. Most sexy men are gay. Plain guys are straighter in my experience. I don't want an Adonis thank you.

Anonymous said...

Going by prison it's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men. Compared to blacks, whites are not physically or mentally equipped for male-male competition.

Whites are vastly outnumbered by blacks in prison. The blacks have large gangs while the whites tend to be isolated. There is also bias against whites in conflicts with blacks.

Anonymous said...

We can see who gets turned out.

If whites vastly outnumbered blacks in prison, had large gangs while blacks were isolated, and had institutional state bias in their favor, they might not "turn out" the blacks, because they're not as gay as the blacks. But they might wipe them all out. That's a hell of a lot more "robustly heterosexual" than "turning out".

Anonymous said...

"It is pretty clear that male and female homosexuality are indeed inversely correlated"

It's not remotely clear. I think a more likely explanation is the relationship between male and female promiscuity e.g. male promiscuity may have been higher than female in most cultures over most time periods but that has changed very recently which also fits.

If places like the Phillipines and Thailand were outliers then it could be the result of an unusually large percentage of women who'd dabbled in prostitution due to sex tourism.


"We can see who gets turned's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men."

1) Without intervention from the prison authorities Aryan Nations could hold *entire prisons* with just a dozen guys. The bulk of the white guys couldn't do it but the toughest white guys in an *organized* group could - easily. It's brains and brawn, not just brawn.

2) Apart from that tangential point the truth is the exact opposite. The big difference between "straight" black and white men is black men have a much lower threshold for having sex with men.

It's the thing that makes me wonder most about the germ theory. However i don't think it's actually anything to do with homosexuality per se. At least in my experience it seems more to do with an almost compulsive kind of promiscuity which if you look at places like the Congo could easily be imagined as a kind of terrible virus. If a woman isn't available a group of black men will attack a man far more readily than a group of White men, Hollywood as always not withstanding..

(This is relatively speaking. The absolute number of men who'd do it in both cases is low.)

It's also why i wonder if female bisexuality isn't actually more to do with hyper promiscuity than homosexuality as that seems to fit the bill much more closely from my (limited) experience.

It seems to me the germ theory makes more sense if originally it was less to do with homosexuality and more to do with compulsive promiscuity. If so then the exclusively gay version would be a mutation.


I don't know but AIDS spread so much faster among gay men and Africans because of anal sex and promiscuity and if you have a bug that wants to spread itself sexually then it makes sense for it to incline the carrier to the types of behavior most likely to spread it.


"Female sexual fluidity: it has been shown experimentally that straight men get aroused by straight men by gay porn...while both straight and lesbian women seem to be aroused by...etc"

If i recall correctly the research showed that men got *very* aroused by porn specific to their sexuality whereas women got *mildly* aroused by everything so i don't think that argument holds too well.

I don't think female sexuality is more fluid at all. If anything women engaging in lesbian activity to please men shows just how heterosexual they are.

Anonymous said...

To sum up and respond:
1) the idea of “weak heterosexuality” (in Peter Frost’s older posts): gays are derived from a subpopulation of “weak heterosexuals” (preference for less feminine women) who are near a threshold for being gay, those actually being gay just move somewhat more (because of whatever), passing the threshold; nice idea, though it doesn’t account for the ugly fact that your average gay isn’t anywhere near such a threshold; he’s not a “weak homosexual” preferring less masculine men. Shouldn’t gays then tend to be near the threshold, albeit on the other side?
2) male homosexuality is very hardwired: gayness (cinaidosyne) is hardwired; indeed, it seems to be congenital, or, at any rate, it’s there since early childhood. Yet, we need to distinguish cinaidosyne from the, perhaps much less hardwired, non-gay homosexuality that can appear in situations of great need (prison), or as an imprinted preference coexisting with the preference for women (in cultures distinguishing the two homosexualities, looking down at the one, but permitting the other). Note that in such cultures and needy situations, men don’t become gay (effeminate, willing to be penetrated). It is very difficult to picture the 300 as fashion designers with helmets. Prisoners strongly prefer to rape than be raped. Contemporary “bisexuals”, when not gays in (some) denial or PC people that would like believing everybody must indeed be bisexual, must be such non-gay part-time homosexuals (if many men can become like that in certain cultures that encourage it, why can’t at least a few become like that in our culture? If indeed bisexuals were instead simply somewhere between gay and straight, you’d expect them to more than gays-unless of course there’s a reason to expect a u rather than a bell curve here-any ideas?).

Anonymous said...

3) female homosexuality less hardwired: it could be so, but this could be that basic female sexuality is indeed hardwired (after all, many lesbians do absolutely look like lesbians, just as the average gay man is less masculine than the average straight man), but women exhibit sexual fluidity (basically straight, in their hard-wiring, women can, when in appropriate context, express some sexual tendencies towards women, while basically lesbian women can express some sexual tendencies towards men; the fact that men, gay or straight, get aroused by pornography specific to their sexuality, while women, gay or straight, get aroused, if mildly, by any action pornography, is in accordance, not disagreement, with the whole idea of female sexual fluidity). Some women will indeed engage in dirty behavior to excite men (I have met and known such women who seem to believe that men are just about kinky, and seem to believe that men function by a simple rule of thumb “the dirtier, the better”; these women are usually insecure and low self-esteem), but I don’t believe that this can account for a lot of the increase in female homosexual behavior; after all, while the idea of two pretty women touching eachother and inviting a passerby to join the fun might be exciting, in real life rather than porn, the idea of fairly masculine women in private moments with anyone is rather repelling (I mean from a straight man’s sexual excitement POV, nothing against anybody).
4) male and female sexuality inversely correlated: it could indeed be true that more masculine populations will tend to produce more lesbians and less gays, while more feminine ones would do the opposite (after all, on average, gays are less masculine than other men, and lesbians are less feminine than other women), but part of this correlation must be that less fertile populations (fewer gays because of fewer younger sons) are also the more developed and permissive (more female homosexual behavior when permitted by virtue of female sexual fluidity alone).
5) are Mediterraneans more masculine (hotter males, less hot females) than Nordics, anybody? It seems to me that Meditteranean guys with Nordic girls are more common than vice versa.
6) I don’t think good looking men should be gay more often than others, though the rest of us are certainly eager to believe it; I, for one, will always heed to any rumors about any pretty guy I find dumb and despicable, especially when I perceive female excitement about him.

Anonymous said...

We can see who gets turned out. Homosexual behaviour does not mean taking turns playing the passive receptive role. Going by prison it's clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men.

Blacks engage in homosexuality in prison, therefore they're more "robustly heterosexual"? That makes no sense.

Predatory heterosexuality seems to be mainly a black thing. White men are outnumbered and targeted in prisons, and are less inclined to engage in predatory homosexuality or homosexuality in general. I don't see how from these facts you infer that white men are "less robustly heterosexual".

The extreme, sadistic, predatory violence and homosexuality seems to be mainly a black phenomenon. White prisons are not known for it.

Here is an article about an American man who was locked up in a South Korean prison. He notes that the predatory violence and homosexuality rampant in black dominated prisons are absent in South Korean prisons:

"Nothing much happens in prison, but the details are fascinating. As Mr. Thomas describes it, violence is limited to occasional scuffles, and the atmosphere of terror and intimidation in American prisons is absent. Although consensual sex occurs, usually for pay, rape is unknown. It’s no “Midnight Express.” In an unspoken arrangement, gangs keep order in exchange for privileges."

Sean said...

If Blacks engage in predatory dominant role homosexuality (ie using men as a substitute for women) in prison, when they are locked up for years without women that means they are robustly taking the mans active role. Yes that does make sense. And a very high proportion of black men have been in prison. That might explain why black men are more likely to report engaging in 'homosexuality'. Homosexuality can mean very different things. As for Hispanics, the (prison gang) Mexican Mafia's rule number 1 is that a gang member can't be homosexual, but they make use of 'punks'

Anonymous said...'s clear there is a difference in black and white sexuality. I think that's because white men are in less robustly heterosexual than black men."

Oh, get real. When I think of the black fags that hit on me in college...ugh..

NARTH data shows that blacks are much higher in both homosexuality, and bisexuality, than whites. You could explain away the "bisexual" figures by prison --eg (dominant) gay on the inside, straight on the street -- but not the exclusive homosexuality. There are a LOT of gay blacks (and Mexicans) out there.

Without intervention from the prison authorities Aryan Nations could hold *entire prisons* with just a dozen guys. The bulk of the white guys couldn't do it but the toughest white guys in an *organized* group could - easily

I think you mean Aryan Brotherhood. Aryan Nations is a white supremacist group on the outside, the Brotherhood was founded in prison... originally for self-defense against the homosexual attacks of blacks.

Of course, since all the founding members were criminals, they soon became a criminal gang in their own right... one of the most dangerous of all time.

champix information said...

Blanchard's transsexualism typology (also Blanchard autogynephilia theory (BAT) and Blanchard's taxonomy) is a psychological typology of male-to-female transsexualism created by Ray Blanchard through the 1980s and 1990s, building on the work of his colleague, Kurt Freund. Blanchard divides male-to-female (MtF or M2F) transsexuals into two different groups: "homosexual transsexuals", who are attracted to men, and "non-homosexual transsexuals", who are "autogynephilic" (sexually attracted to the thought or image of themselves as a woman). The typology does not purport to identify the cause of transsexualism in natal males, but it has some implications for the cause—specifically, that the cause of transsexualism may not be the same for both groups.

JayMan said...

Here you go, a follow-up:

The Evolution of Female Bisexuality « JayMan's Blog

Anonymous said...


Your impressions are false Stacy.

1. Mediterraneans, Southern Europeans and North Africans have lower rates male homosexuality than NorthWest Europeans, with Germany having the highest rates of homosexuality in all of Europe.

2. There is no negative correlation between Judaeo-Christian tradition and homosexuality since some of the highest rates of homosexuality are in Majority Christian countries. After all, it was the Judaeo-Christian West the created the gay rights movement.

3. Satoshi Kanazawa and multiple other researchers have empirically shown that physical attractiveness correlates negatively with exclusive homosexuality in either sex. Uglier and shorter men are consistently more likely to gay in every part of the world, which makes perfect sense if good looks signals good genetics. Handsome men (all else being equal) consistently attract and sleep with more women than uglier men:

The few handsome gay men are more likely to actually be bisexual, while the opposite is for ugly gay men. The myth that handsome men are more gay is likely a product of sexual jealously.