June 13, 2010
Sneaky deceptive gay alphas?
While I never liked the term "fag hag" or the superficial stereotypical thinking surrounding the whole meme, an article in Scientific American discusses the latest research results. Not only are women who are attracted to gay men not as ugly as commonly supposed, but according to one expert, their existence has encouraged and facilitated gay men having unique access to women -- thus confounding the traditional evolutionary notions about the "alpha male" always getting the pick of the flowers.
This has been called the "sneaky f*cker" hypothesis:
She's also apparently never heard of biologist John Maynard Smith's "sneaky f*cker" evolutionary hypothesis for male homosexuality, which posits that gay men in the ancestral past had unique access to the reproductive niche because females let their guards down around them and other males didn't view them as sexual competitors. We're not infertile, after all, just gay.Such deception raises several questions. First, whether such "gay" men are in fact "really" gay, because regardless of society's labels, the successful impregnation of women by men constitutes heterosexual behavior. So they would technically have to be bisexual.
Second, whether they are "fag hags" or not, why would females be letting down their guard? Is that really what's going on? Or are they actually attracted to the apparent non-attraction? And if so, and if something then occurs, then doesn't that mean that the non-attraction is a deception? A subterfuge? Why would that be going on?
And why would other males not regard them as competitors? Are they seen as analogous to eunuchs? In the distant past, eunuchs were used to guard female harems, and the reason they were trusted was simple: they were seen as lacking the proper male equipment. It never seems to have occurred to the sultans who owned the harems that many castrated males actually can have sex. But perhaps this didn't matter as much as the fact that they could not render a woman pregnant. Still, eunuchs were automatically trusted not to act as men with women, and if similar thinking has been applied to apparently (or obviously) "gay" men, a reproductive loophole results, for the simple reason that all uncastrated men have testicles -- whether they're gay or not. Thus, gay men may have been placed in a situation analogous to a man believed falsely to be a eunuch and placed in a harem.
Definitely sneaky. But would it necessarily be hereditary? If so, then wouldn't it follow that gay men should never be trusted around women?
Should we care?
Naturally, I'm puzzled. (And because I'm going to be gone all day, I haven't the time to consider the implications for gay conversion therapy* or raise the question of whether the cuckolded straight alpha males are getting it in the butt.)
*Assuming there is a "gay gene," wouldn't anti-gay religious conservatives be helping to perpetuate it -- and promoting what they claim to oppose?
Glad I didn't make these "rules."
posted by Eric on 06.13.10 at 10:00 AM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood