Skip to content
June 12, 2013 / JayMan

Gay Germ Fallout?

Readers here will recall my recital of Greg Cochran’s hypothesis that obligate male homosexuality is caused by a pathogenic agent, likely a virus (please see 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Homosexuality (the “gay germ” hypothesis)). This is by far the most likely explanation for male homosexuality (see my post above and links therein for an explanation of why this is so). OK good, but if that’s so, what happens if people find out about this? As with knowledge of HBD, the existence of a “gay germ” is likely to be an explosive subject, with real ramifications for society and how people treat gay men. Cochran touched on this issue in a post (Heads exploding), in which he sought opinions on how knowledge of the true cause of homosexuality (be it a pathogen or not) would affect society. I offered my thoughts there:

Assuming the culprit is a virus, I suspect that once infected, homosexuality is irreversible. Our best bet for now then would be a vaccine that prevents new infections. My fiancée is rather adamant about one concern should it be discovered that homosexuality is an infection: gays will be treated as pariahs. Imagine the idea going around that gays carry a disease that makes your children gay? She would not be surprised if there were calls to quarantine gays for the “good of society.”

I have to say I can’t put it past people. A lot depends on the mode of transmission.

Think of the treatment gays receive. Much of it, at times, has been awful. But, truth be told, the situation for gays is much better today than it was in the past. And in America, treatment of gays is much better in some regions as opposed to others (as one can see by comparing these two maps):

Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

Legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. Blue = legal, Red = illegal

ColinWoodard_AmericanNations_map

As well, treatments of gays varies significantly by race. In my earlier post, A Gay Germ? Is Homophobia a Clue?, I suggested that homophobia may be an evolved response to the presence of the gay pathogen, as a way of shielding sensitive people (young boys) from infection. Homophobia exhibits substantial heritability, being about 50% heritable (as opposed to the <11% for homosexuality itself). As well, the people who are the least homophobic tend to be White liberals – primarily those of Northwestern European ancestry. That is, the people that went down the “special evolutionary path” as described by HBD Chick. As far as I know, data on the heritability of homophobia comes from NW European-derived peoples. Perhaps then these unique people have shed their “natural” aversion to homosexuality as they evolved higher levels of social tolerance in general (largely captured by the trait openness to experience, which may lead to Western liberals’ downfall – also here). This may explain the heritability we see.

This implies that if there is some intolerance of gays in the West, there is even more intolerance elsewhere. See my next comment over at Cochran’s:

I will add that should the world find out that homosexuality is caused by a virus, the backlash in the West will be one thing, but it’ll probably be nothing compared to what happens in the rest of world. There are a lot of groups that I can’t see losing much sleep over “doing what they have to do” to protect people from the gay germ…

This is borne out by events in Russia. See a new piece from The Atlantic:

russiagay-bannerWhy Is Russia So Homophobic?

The Russian Duma unanimously approved a law on Tuesday that prohibits the distribution of homosexual “propaganda” to minors. Holding gay pride events, speaking in defense of gay rights, or equating gay and heterosexual relationships can now result in fines of up to $31,000.

The argument that a young person can be “propagandized” into turning gay may seem outdated (not to mention an overestimation of the power of propaganda), but it’s actually not out of place in modern Russia.

“Children maimed by pedophiles jump out of windows, they take their own lives. Pedophilia is an attempt on a child’s life!” cried one St. Petersburg lawmaker when a similar ban in that city passed last year, seemingly confusing homosexuality and child molestation. Madonna was recently sued for speaking in favor of gay rights during a St. Petersburg concert. When a 23-year-old man in Volgograd revealed he was gay to some drinking companions last month, they beat him, shoved beer bottles in his anus, and crushed his head with a stone.

In the Soviet Union, homosexuality was a crime punishable by prison and hard labor, and Stalinist anti-gay policies persisted throughout the 60s and 70s. Gays were considered “outsiders,” and homosexuality was thought to be the domain of pedophiles and fascists.

Measures like the propaganda ban show that many Russians still haven’t shed that view, even decades after the fall of the regime that kept homophobia in place.

“When the Stalin anti-homosexual law was repealed in 1993, there was no amnesty for those still sitting in prison for sodomy,” wrote history professor Dan Healey, an expert on homosexuality in Russia, on Facebook.

Only 16 percent of Russians today say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with 42 percent in nearby (and also formerly communist) Poland.

I suspect that knowledge of the gay germ would be devastating for gays. This would be especially so in the non-Western world, where, bereft of ideas of human rights, there would be little to stop hostile backlash.

Indeed, a scatterplot featured in this article seems to support the notion that NW outbreeding is involved in tolerance for homosexuality:

religious-homosex-graph (1)

The most tolerant countries are the ones with the lowest historical levels of inbreeding. The least tolerant countries have the highest historic levels of inbreeding. This pattern of tolerance by outbreeders seems to hold for aspects about people, a trait many have lamented as the Achilles Heel of NW Europeans.

Edit: note that the above plot is essentially the same as this one, from the World Values Survey (WVS), simply rotated 90 degrees. Religiosity negatively correlates with average IQ (as plotted here), while the acceptance of homosexuality correlates with the “traditional vs self-expression” dimension from the WVS (more tolerant scoring higher on self-expression). I have previously noted that this is roughly correlated with historical rates of inbreeding, with historical outbreeders being the most tolerant and least concerned with “traditional” values. (See my post An HBD Summary of the Foundations of Modern Civilization).

If the “gay germ” is real – which it almost certainly is – and if widespread knowledge this will be bad for gays – as I suspect it will, then I realize by talking about this, I am acting to potentially hasten this backlash. But, as with HBD in general, I think, ultimately, the truth is important. As Cochran notes, one day, someway, somehow, the true cause will be known. Discovery of the pathogen will allow for the prospect of developing a vaccine for it, which would greatly ameliorate its impact. I admit, that’s a long-term prospect, and in between, things are likely to be rough, but if we must get there, we need to get started. One can only hope I am wrong about the impact of this knowledge…

About these ads

116 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Hindu Bio Diversity / Jun 13 2013 1:05 AM

    That might explain “real homosexuality” (in both men and women) by which I mean someone who was sexually attracted to the same sex since early childhood, but it doesn’t explain bisexuality or someone who has sex with the same sex but doesn’t identify as guy or even bisexual.

    That you see a lot of in sex segregated cultures where the sexes are socially segregated until marriage (often arranged), as well as in same sex boarding schools.

    You also see this amongst men and women in prison and sailors at sea for long periods of time.

    • JayMan / Jun 13 2013 10:42 AM

      That might explain “real homosexuality” (in both men and women) by which I mean someone who was sexually attracted to the same sex since early childhood, but it doesn’t explain bisexuality or someone who has sex with the same sex but doesn’t identify as guy or even bisexual.

      Indeed. Nor was it intended to.

  2. Amber / Jun 13 2013 1:39 AM

    Honestly, I think if it were a disease, it would have been uncovered already in all of the research into AIDS.

    • JayMan / Jun 13 2013 10:40 AM

      Not necessarily. You’d be surprised what you won’t find when you don’t look for it. It is the only sensible explanation we have at the moment…

    • Ed the Department Head / Jun 13 2013 9:13 PM

      It wasn’t know until recently that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria. Likewise, they now know that 40% of lower back pain is caused by bacterial infection: http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2013/05/12/acne-bacteria-to-blame-for-back-pain/ .

    • JayMan / Jun 13 2013 9:14 PM

      Indeed.

    • Global Thought Crime / Jun 16 2013 3:27 AM

      It wasn’t know until recently that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria.

      This is not true. It was known prior to about 1940 or there abouts, but then it disappeared down the memory hole for a long while.

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 8:44 AM
  3. Staffan / Jun 13 2013 7:00 AM

    In a way this is similar to deaf culture and their varying attitudes to the Cochlea implant.

    For what it’s worth I saw a documentary about a Sami guy on TV and he noted how tolerant of gays the Sami are compared to the Swedes – and Swedes are very tolerant. There may be some interaction of genes and climate involved in this. (Russia has a different more continental climate.)

    • JayMan / Jun 13 2013 10:36 AM

      Interesting.

  4. 1000s / Jun 13 2013 8:32 AM

    Can you go into why the evolutionary explanation is impossible?

    How much does homosexuality reduce your fitness by?

    How often would gays need to reproduce for the gay genes to stick around?

    • JayMan / Jun 13 2013 10:35 AM

      See this paper. Even a tiny fitness disadvantage – which a lack of sexual interest in women certainly is – would result in the extinction of the relevant genes in fairly short time (in about 200 generations in the case of a 1% fitness hit).

    • m / Jun 14 2013 1:37 AM

      In addition to reading the paper provided by JayMan, mosey on over to gc’s West Hunter blog (at which JayMan comments regularly), and read all the gc posts on homosexuality, starting with “Depths of Madness.”

  5. James V. Kohl / Jun 13 2013 11:17 AM

    The Mind’s Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/kohl.htm is an award-winning review and book chapter in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality. It details the molecular mechanisms for the development of sexual orientation in species from microbes to man. Although it’s not an easy read, it has unequalled explanatory power in the context of animal models. For example see the work pubished earlier this week on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution and sex differences in flies. http://elife.elifesciences.org/content/2/e00640

    It’s theoretically possible that viruses could also alter the microRNA/messenger RNA balance and contribute to sexual orientation, but for now we have facts that explain genetic predispositions and epigenetic effects on sexual orientation with across species examples.

    • JayMan / Jun 13 2013 6:13 PM

      It’s theoretically possible that viruses could also alter the microRNA/messenger RNA balance and contribute to sexual orientation

      It’s not just theoretical that pathogens can affect sexuality. Who says it has to be through RNA?

      but for now we have facts that explain genetic predispositions and epigenetic effects on sexual orientation with across species examples.

      Genetic predisposition? No. “Epigenetics?” No.

    • m / Jun 14 2013 1:09 AM

      OMG, talk about coincidence. Not two hours ago I was scanning papers and read, “From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior” . One author of that —JV Kohl. Interesting read.

      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=kohl+%2B+binstock&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

      I

  6. Anon / Jun 13 2013 11:54 AM

    What about applying Koch’s postulates to gay germ theory?

    “1. A nucleic acid sequence belonging to a putative pathogen should be present in most cases of an infectious disease. Microbial nucleic acids should be found preferentially in those organs or gross anatomic sites known to be diseased, and not in those organs that lack pathology.

    2. Fewer, or no, copy numbers of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease.

    3. With resolution of disease, the copy number of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should decrease or become undetectable. With clinical relapse, the opposite should occur.

    4. When sequence detection predates disease, or sequence copy number correlates with severity of disease or pathology, the sequence-disease association is more likely to be a causal relationship
    .
    5. The nature of the microorganism inferred from the available sequence should be consistent with the known biological characteristics of that group of organisms.

    6. Tissue-sequence correlates should be sought at the cellular level: efforts should be made to demonstrate specific in situ hybridization of microbial sequence to areas of tissue pathology and to visible microorganisms or to areas where microorganisms are presumed to be located.

    7. These sequence-based forms of evidence for microbial causation should be reproducible. “

  7. Luke Lea / Jun 13 2013 6:15 PM

    Re: your wife’s concern (“Imagine the idea going around that gays carry a disease that makes your children gay”) I think are misplaced.

    Homosexuality is not highly heritable last I heard. What is the chance that the male offspring of a male homosexual will be gay, compared to the general population? Even if gayness is caused by a germ or some other foreign agent which somehow screws with one’s embryonic/hormonal development, it is not passed down in one’s semen. You have to catch it in some other way.

    • JayMan / Jun 13 2013 6:26 PM

      Homosexuality is not highly heritable last I heard. What is the chance that the male offspring of a male homosexual will be gay, compared to the general population? Even if gayness is caused by a germ or some other foreign agent which somehow screws with one’s embryonic/hormonal development, it is not passed down in one’s semen. You have to catch it in some other way.

      It’s probably not caught in utero. Most likely, the pathogen is acquired at some point in early childhood. It’s quite possible it is a common virus, but only results in homosexuality in a minority of the infected. Hence, it possible that homosexuals are quite hazardous to young children with regard to this (depending on how the pathogen is transmitted).

    • Anon / Jun 14 2013 10:26 AM

      If it is pathogen, why hasn’t it been detected? What it would act on?

      Saying 1.Pathogen! 2.Magic! 3.Gay! is not enough, you need to at least outline how it could act.

      There are some studies that make mice act gay, perhaps something could be learned from this?

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 10:35 AM

      @Anon:

      If it is pathogen, why hasn’t it been detected?

      Because no one is looking for it.

      What it would act on?

      Saying 1.Pathogen! 2.Magic! 3.Gay! is not enough, you need to at least outline how it could act.

      See Greg Cochran’s lengthy discussion of the topic.

    • Alex J. / Jun 14 2013 2:48 PM

      Even if it’s caused by a virus, are adult gays infectious? I don’t think FDR was transmitting polio. Might catching a cold when you are 3 give you a 0.4% chance of becoming gay (three year olds catch a lot of colds)?

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 2:51 PM

      @Alex J.

      Good question. The answer is unknown at this time.

  8. Ed the Department Head / Jun 13 2013 9:26 PM

    What about the thesis that it is hormonal?

    • JayMan / Jun 13 2013 9:35 PM
    • m / Jun 14 2013 1:19 AM

      “It’s probably not caught in utero. Most likely, the pathogen is acquired at some point in early childhood. It’s quite possible it is a common virus, but only results in homosexuality in a minority of the infected. Hence, it possible that homosexuals are quite hazardous to young children with regard to this (depending on how the pathogen is transmitted).”

      If the virus that caused the damage is a common childhood virus, then the homosexual adult or adolescent or even the gay little boy will be not be the one to infect the uninfected. They are no longer carriers as we develop immunity to most childhood infections.

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 1:21 AM

      If the virus that caused the damage is a common childhood virus, then the homosexual adult or adolescent or even the gay little boy will be not be the one to infect the uninfected. They are no longer carriers as we develop immunity to most childhood infections.

      Quite possibly. Mode of transmission and progression of the infection remains unclear, but with some constraints.

  9. Chip Smith / Jun 14 2013 12:19 AM

    What does Cochran mean when he says that sexually antagonistic selection is pretty much ruled out by GWAS surveys?

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 12:42 AM

      This.

    • m / Jun 14 2013 1:29 AM

      I think he means this:

      http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Drabant-Poster-v7.pdf

      And, this: take a look at #9 under ” References and Resources” of the above—it’s a reference to the huge Sanders’ Northwestern GWAS on male sexual orientation, the gay brothers’ study. Ten year+ study of large sample size. They gave a poster presentation at the SF convention that Drabant’s group attended. Their research results are expected to be published in about 3 or 4 months.

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 1:32 AM

      Indeed. Thanks!

  10. Chip Smith / Jun 14 2013 12:39 AM

    One thing I need to be convinced of is that preferential male homosexuality actually resulted in a fitness disadvantage in our recent past, given cultural pressures and the absence of birth control. Couldn’t it have been that gay men exhibited qualities that were attractive to women and that (absent culturally acceptable alternatives) they had children at the same (or higher) rates than straight men — perhaps initially in families with resources sufficient to ensure enough descendants to carry the trait forward? How would we even know?

    The grandparents will tell you there were no gays when they went to school, but look through their old yearbooks and I bet you can spot the likely candidates. Of course, they will answer, those men are married with children and grandchildren.

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 12:45 AM

      Couldn’t it have been that gay men exhibited qualities that were attractive to women and that (absent culturally acceptable alternatives) they had children at the same (or higher) rates than straight men — perhaps initially in families with resources sufficient to ensure enough descendants to carry the trait forward? How would we even know?

      Think about it: whatever putative advantage gays could have in attracting women, how could being gay help? Wouldn’t it be better to have whatever advantage and not be gay? Even if being gay went hand-in-hand with whatever attractive traits they might have, these things would decouple over evolutionary time.

      Besides, homosexuality simply can’t be genetic, because the heritability is way too low (<11% concordance between twins).

    • m / Jun 14 2013 1:32 AM

      “The grandparents will tell you there were no gays when they went to school, but look through their old yearbooks and I bet you can spot the likely candidates.”

      What kind of grandparents do you have? The word gay didn’t exist but they never said “light in the loafers,” “perv,” “homo,” and the nice words “fairy” or “fruity” ???????? Come on!

  11. Chip Smith / Jun 14 2013 1:35 AM

    “Wouldn’t it be better to have whatever advantage and not be gay?”

    I would say that it shouldn’t matter if the dominant cultural environment enforced sufficient rates of reproduction. And it could have been a relatively recent turn, perhaps being part of the Mathusian break that Greg Clark talks about. That would fit with a surfeit of resources being sufficient to promote descendance.

    And it’s my understanding that the <11% concordance figure is a subject of ongoing debate. I know there are studies that find significantly higher MZ concordance, including some that attempt to correct for the selection bias that confounded the high estimates that were initially reported decades ago. I know you're inclined to rule out a genetic factor, but I still wonder whether there could be a genetic predisposition that only becomes manifest under certain environmental conditions.

    If it is pathogenic (and I certainly think there's a good chance it is), I think some of the social implications about which you express concern would be somewhat diminished if it turned out that some other highly valued traits are hatched in like manner. I'm thinking of an event where the (hypothetically proven) claim that "homosexuality is cause by germs" might be rejoined by saying, "yeah, well so is musical virtuosity … or _____." Is there speculation to this effect — that some relatively rare but socially valued traits might reduce to pathogenic etiology?

    Thanks for the links. I can't sleep.

    • m / Jun 14 2013 1:50 AM

      “I’m thinking of an event where the (hypothetically proven) claim that “homosexuality is cause by germs” might be rejoined by saying, “yeah, well so is musical virtuosity … or _____.” Is there

      speculation to this effect — that some relatively rare but socially valued traits might reduce to pathogenic etiology?”

      I don’t believe any studies have ever established that gay men are brighter or more talented than straight men. The arts have always drawn people who are willing to give up the security of a regular pay check. Take the example of two kids in high school, both of whom are talented on stage, both the stars of the high school musicals and dramatic plays every year. One is gay, one is straight.

      The straight kid is much less likely to pursue a career in acting by dropping everything and heading for Hollywood or New York or by first majoring in college in theater. Why? Because he knows that succeeding in that field is a shot in the dark. His career choice takes into consideration the fact that one day he wants to be married and have kids. The gay kid? Hey, no such dreams are in his field of vision. Plus, the gay kid understands that there are a lot of other gay kids in HW and New York…so why not take a chance? Nothing to lose.

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 1:55 AM

      Satoshi Kanazawa did an excellent study of intelligence and homosexuality. He found weak support for an association between male homosexuality and IQ. (He did find some support for an association between female same-sex attraction and IQ, though.) But even still, there is the question if whether any such finding is a real association or the result of greater honesty about/acceptance of homosexuality among the higher IQ.

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 8:09 AM

      I would say that it shouldn’t matter if the dominant cultural environment enforced sufficient rates of reproduction. And it could have been a relatively recent turn, perhaps being part of the Mathusian break that Greg Clark talks about.

      No matter what “cultural environment”, gay men, on the whole, would reproduce less. There’s no way the trait could gain a foothold, much less persist for too long.

      That would fit with a surfeit of resources being sufficient to promote descendance.

      You seem to be assuming gay men would have superior resources…

      And it’s my understanding that the <11% concordance figure is a subject of ongoing debate. I know there are studies that find significantly higher MZ concordance, including some that attempt to correct for the selection bias that confounded the high estimates that were initially reported decades ago.

      That low figure comes from large twin registry studies. That is by far the most reliable way to gauge the trait’s heritability. The genetic explanation simply does not work.

      If it is pathogenic (and I certainly think there’s a good chance it is), I think some of the social implications about which you express concern would be somewhat diminished if it turned out that some other highly valued traits are hatched in like manner. I’m thinking of an event where the (hypothetically proven) claim that “homosexuality is cause by germs” might be rejoined by saying, “yeah, well so is musical virtuosity … or _____.” Is there speculation to this effect — that some relatively rare but socially valued traits might reduce to pathogenic etiology?

      See m’s comment on that….

      Thanks for examining alternatives. We should look at other explanations. The only thing is when we do that, none of them seem to work…

  12. Chip Smith / Jun 14 2013 1:42 AM

    “What kind of grandparents do you have?”

    I’m recalling an actual conversation with my wife’s grandparents. (Mine were dead before I was born.) My mother said the same thing and she was shocked when the Village People were outed, as were countless unassuming Americans. The “sissies” and “fairies” that my father hated … usually had wives and kids.

    • m / Jun 14 2013 1:52 AM

      Wow. What state are your folks from?

      BTW, the sissies and fairies in my town (Northern CA, but a very conservative town back in the day) headed for the cities.

  13. Mark F. / Jun 14 2013 4:16 AM

    I can’t agree that genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality (the overall evidence still suggests a small to moderate genetic factor), and if homosexuality is at least partially genetic, wouldn’t having kids at a rate above replacement level be enough to keep the trait going? With strong social pressure, a gay man can have sex enough times with a woman to have as many children as he wants, even if he doesn’t enjoy it much.

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 7:43 AM

      I can’t agree that genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality (the overall evidence still suggests a small to moderate genetic factor)

      A very small genetic factor. One that keeps getting smaller with additional examination…

      and if homosexuality is at least partially genetic, wouldn’t having kids at a rate above replacement level be enough to keep the trait going?

      Did homosexuals have kids over the replacement value? Overall, the trait would be a fitness hit. That would have selected it out over evolutionary time. It certainly couldn’t have rose to 3% prevalence…

  14. Chip Smith / Jun 14 2013 8:41 AM

    “Wow. What state are your folks from?”

    West Virginia. And my strong impression from conversations with oldsters is that this sentiment — the obliviousness — was fairly common until relatively recently. That Liberace movie touches on this.

  15. Chip Smith / Jun 14 2013 8:58 AM

    JayMan,The summary of the larger studies (from the registries) showing low concordance is impressive, but I wonder if they go far enough to distinguish “same sex attraction” from preferential homosexuality. Do concordance rates change when degrees are taken into account?

    And what about the possibility that the genetic contribution is showing up less because it is in fact rapidly diminishing. Generational differences in the weight of concordance would test this.

    What I want to rule out is the possibility that a genetic factor could have been introduced under certain conditions only to evaporate as moral and technological preconditions change.

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 9:46 AM

      JayMan,The summary of the larger studies (from the registries) showing low concordance is impressive, but I wonder if they go far enough to distinguish “same sex attraction” from preferential homosexuality. Do concordance rates change when degrees are taken into account?

      Good question.

      Typically, being more inclusive in your criteria results in higher heritability estimates.

      And what about the possibility that the genetic contribution is showing up less because it is in fact rapidly diminishing. Generational differences in the weight of concordance would test this.

      It’s not clear that it is rapidly declining. Even still, a trait declining in the population would still show the same heritability when studied with twins.

      What I want to rule out is the possibility that a genetic factor could have been introduced under certain conditions only to evaporate as moral and technological preconditions change.

      Whatever that factor would be, it’s hard to see how it could have risen to 3% prevalence. Only selection could have done that, and it’s hard to see how the trait could have been selected for.

  16. anon666 / Jun 14 2013 11:23 AM

    The Philippines is an interesting outlier in that chart. A friend of mine has been living there for the past couple years, and he has indeed conveyed the impression that the culture is simultaneously extremely religious and yet far more tolerant of homosexuality than most other cultures. Birth control is considered bad, but nobody has any problems with gays. I wonder if this social acceptance precedes the introduction of Christianity. Thailand is also known for its tolerance of sexual deviation, specifically trannies. I don’t think such tolerance exists in Malaysia or Indonesia, however. I’d be interested to know if tolerance of homosexuality was once a SouthEast Asia-wide phenomenon, but that Islam was more powerful than Roman Catholicism in terms of wiping that tolerance out.

    • m / Jun 14 2013 12:45 PM

      The SouthEastAsia “phenomenon” is interesting, indeed. That includes pathogen connections.

    • JayMan / Jun 14 2013 1:11 PM

      Indeed.

  17. m / Jun 14 2013 1:35 PM

    JayMan,

    I mentioned above the Northwestern GWAS Sanders’ study of gay brothers, that they presented a poster presentation at last year’s conference in SF but that their paper hasn’t been published yet–it hasn’t, but here’s the abstract:

    http://www.ashg.org/2012meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f120122263.htm

    Genome-wide linkage scan of male sexual orientation. A. R. Sanders1,2, K. Dawood3, G. Rieger4, J. A. Badner2, E. S. Gershon2, R. S. Krishnappa5, A. B. Kolundzija6, S. Guo7, G. W. Beecham7, E. R. Martin7, J. M. Bailey8 1) NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL; 2) University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; 3) Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA; 4) Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; 5) East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN; 6) Columbia University, New York, NY; 7) University of Miami, Miami, FL; 8) Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

    As with many other psychological traits, sexual orientation appears genetically complex, with important genetic and environmental factors. Family and twin studies have consistently demonstrated that genetic contributions are important for the development of sexual orientation in men. Previous research has found evidence for linkage to chromosome Xq28 in some studies focusing on pairs of homosexual brothers, but not in other such studies. To map loci for sexual orientation, and to appraise for potential replication of previous findings, we have conducted a genome-wide linkage scan using genotypes from the Affymetrix 5.0 SNP array on 410 independent pairs of homosexual brothers in 385 families, a sample set independent from previous studies. We classified subjects as homosexual based on both their self-reported sexual identity (“homosexual”) and sexual feelings (Kinsey score of 5-6, indicating predominant or exclusive attraction to men). After rigorous quality control steps, we performed non-parametric linkage analysis using MERLIN. The strongest linkage peak, with multiple two-point LOD scores over 3.5 (maximum 4.0) and multipoint support, was in thepericentromeric region of chromosome 8, overlapping with the second strongest linkage peak in the next largest reported linkage scan of 155 independent pairs of homosexual brothers in 146 families. Our second strongest linkage region was on chromosome X with a maximum two-point LOD score of 2.65 at Xq28, the previously reported linkage region. Our findings, taken in context with previous work, suggest that genetic variation in each of these regions contributes to development of the important psychological trait of male sexual orientation.

    I am remembering what Cochran said: geneticists look for genetic causes because “that’s what they do.” Notice the omnipresent “sexual orientation appears genetically complex” right off the bat. Isn’t that a way of saying, “We haven’t identified a genetic cause after all our studies so it must be pretty darned complicated”?

    Notice also the “important environmental factors”…which translated means, “genes don’t actually cause the homosexuality…they are simply acted upon by something in the darned environment…but we don’t investigate those possible environmental things here.” (I’ve read Bailey, whose name is on this study, and he has been more direct about it being “something in the environment” w/out, of course, saying a “germ, a toxin” etc. and he has explicitly said that by “environment” he doesn’t mean social causes. In fairness to them, they don’t know, no one “knows” but they always avoid the use of “germ, bug” even as a “possibility.” Maybe they fear no more NIH money for continued studies? If you look at the initial website set up for this study, you can see they had to do (or perhaps, chose to do) all sorts of PR with the gay community to even begin the study. The final sentence of the abstract says nothing, but says nothing in a way that they’ll get more money.

    Anyway, back to the findings in the abstract. Do any of the numbers rise to statistical significance?
    Perhaps they can glean from the data something that leads them somewhere. It just seems they’re taking the long way around the course.

  18. Gottlieb / Jun 15 2013 11:32 AM

    I don’t like these theory, show me the exogamy is a solution for all problems. Well, Brazil, my country, is one of the most exogamic nation of the world, but there higher violence, corruption and nepotism. Here, the people is very passive. The media and elite push the gay agenda and pass the idea that the people are very tolerant about the homossexuality, but is only an ilusion.
    Exogamy only, don’t explain the failure of great majority of mixed race countries, specially about the crime, corruption and nepotism rates. I think that the most important are the ”personality traits” selection. Nordic people are exogamic and have less neuroticism, more openness and conscientiousness. Amish people are very endogamic but also are much more conscientious.(specially in group but they aren’t bad with others) Conscientiousness is the principal trait for tolerance (or ”tolerance”).
    Now about ”germ gay”. Well, i think that we need open our minds for other possibilities, some very simple and fool. For example, the possibility of the homossexuality is a social construction. Really, in a human species there are many different phenotypes and genotyphes necessarilly don’t means that are hereditary, probably some personality and hormonal traits make possibly some people choice specific behaviour. Is a genetic expression, all us have one, obviously. In other words, don’t there a explaination for homossexuality or ‘non-heterossexuality’ because simply don’t one explaination. The persistence of the ”genes or traits” is simply, they don’t exist. In History, in times of more tolerance, some people with some specifically traits emerge and choice this behaviour. If, the germs explain homossexuality so, why others behaviours it can influence?? But many others don’t emerge, enviroment influence??
    For example, are more chance that the men in 30′ years without one spouse or girlfriend choice the gay or bissexual behaviour.
    Non- heterossexuality behaviour is a little aleatory, obviously little hereditary but much more epigenetics. I’m believe that many ‘hetero’ men and women have genetic expression for ‘sexual experimentation’ but for environmental reasons finish married younger. Today, many women to be experiment non-heterossexuality behaviour.
    Be hetero or homo or bi is a social construction, very different than race. Determine ”masculine brain” or females are bad in math are all genetic social constructions. Females were selected for other traits. However, minority of women are good in math and tend to be more ‘masculine’ than others. They are minority simply because were not selected. But, yet still exist.

    • JayMan / Jun 15 2013 9:51 PM

      I don’t like these theory, show me the exogamy is a solution for all problems. Well, Brazil, my country, is one of the most exogamic nation of the world, but there higher violence, corruption and nepotism.

      You misunderstand. Head on over to HBD Chick’s. Inbreeding and outbreeding do not do anything on their own, other than altering the selective pressures. A people who have been marrying cousins for a long time will go down a different evolutionary path than those who marry out.

      And, for that matter, “outbreeding” need not mean “race mixing”. If two groups who were historic inbreeders marry each other, the traits common to both groups will tend to be retained.

      Nordic people are exogamic and have less neuroticism, more openness and conscientiousness. Amish people are very endogamic but also are much more conscientious.(specially in group but they aren’t bad with others) Conscientiousness is the principal trait for tolerance (or ”tolerance”).

      The more important question is why do those peoples have those traits?

      For example, the possibility of the homossexuality is a social construction.

      Take a trip to Greenwich Village in New York City and then get back to me on that.

      Really, in a human species there are many different phenotypes and genotyphes necessarilly don’t means that are hereditary, probably some personality and hormonal traits make possibly some people choice specific behaviour.

      You may want to see this post (All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable).

  19. Dan / Jun 15 2013 1:14 PM

    See my lengthy rebuttal on the next thread, ‘fallout shelter’.

  20. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 11:38 AM

    ”You misunderstand. Head on over to HBD Chick’s. Inbreeding and outbreeding do not do anything on their own, other than altering the selective pressures. A people who have been marrying cousins for a long time will go down a different evolutionary path than those who marry out.
    And, for that matter, “outbreeding” need not mean “race mixing”. If two groups who were historic inbreeders marry each other, the traits common to both groups will tend to be retained.”

    Please, I’m not as dumb as well…
    I’m just anticipating how people will interpret it, when this theory is popularized.

    As I said, the most important are the personality traits and intelligence level. The Amish are closed, but do not treat each other as enemies as some people do. The main idea of ​​this theory is that it gives me is always bad inbreeding and outbreeding is always good. The Nordics are one people less tribalist world, but the less tribalist, but in return are very naive and are destroying their societies with this” goodness” exaggerated.

    ”The more important question is why do those peoples have those traits?”

    These people have these traits because selected. Now you came into contradiction, I questioned why these people produce certain traits, as if it did not, and asks me to read this post. I have read and knew. There are environmental factors, only gene expression. What we call the environment, in fact, genes are not apparent.
    I think of our DNA as a large swimming pool, some of our genes are on the margin while others are at the bottom of the pool.
    I do not really like the germ theory because it attempts to pathologize homosexuality. Interestingly, other animals also exhibit this behavior. Does the germs are also influencing?
    Homosexuality is a social construction, as the breed is also. But both are also biological constructs. Culture and biology are closely related.

    If germs are able to influence our behavior in this way, then they must be very powerful about other behaviors that present. We are all the time interacting with them. Since deviant behavior to behavior within the norm could also be influenced.
    Would be what, zombies?

    The germ theory disregards anatomical characteristics fundamental to understand what is ‘not heterosexuality’. For example, it is known that gay men have more brain structure similar to that of women and the opposite is true for lesbians.
    It may be true that germs may have some influence on their behavior, but can also be a coincidence, no causal relationship.

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 12:03 PM

      I’m just anticipating how people will interpret it, when this theory is popularized.

      There’s only so much we can do about that. Our best course of action is to be as accurate about the facts as possible.

      I do not really like the germ theory because it attempts to pathologize homosexuality

      Whether or not you like it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is true. Don’t pretend that it does.

      Interestingly, other animals also exhibit this behavior. Does the germs are also influencing?

      The only other animal that exhibits obligate homosexuality are sheep. And likely a pathogen is to blame there, if not the very same pathogen.

      Homosexuality is a social construction, as the breed is also. But both are also biological constructs. Culture and biology are closely related.

      Indeed.

      Saying that something is “socially constructed” doesn’t really add much to the discussion. To say that something is socially constructed doesn’t mean that that construction is arbitrary, with no correspondence to the natural world – as people who utter those claims imply when they do so.

      If germs are able to influence our behavior in this way, then they must be very powerful about other behaviors that present. We are all the time interacting with them. Since deviant behavior to behavior within the norm could also be influenced.

      Indeed. That’s a wide-open area of research.

      For example, it is known that gay men have more brain structure similar to that of women and the opposite is true for lesbians.

      I’m not so sure that will hold up upon scrutiny.

      But even if it does, are you saying that pathogens can’t alter the morphology of their hosts? For an extreme example of this, see here (graphic image).

      It may be true that germs may have some influence on their behavior, but can also be a coincidence, no causal relationship.

      Possible, but doubtful, as per the evidence for the gay germ.

  21. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 11:45 AM

    Danmit,

    corrections=

    ”THERE AREN’T -ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS”

    ”What we call the environment, in fact, genes are not apparent.”

    What we call the environment, in fact, ARE GENES NOT APPARENT”

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 12:05 PM

      ”THERE AREN’T -ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS”

      ”What we call the environment, in fact, genes are not apparent.”

      What we call the environment, in fact, ARE GENES NOT APPARENT”

      To a degree, but not completely. I wouldn’t go as far as saying environment has no effect.

  22. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 1:01 PM

    Jay man,
    you are wanting to assume that all of our traits need to be inherently advantageous””. There are all traits that will be directly beneficial.
    The man, especially the West, need to name things to rank them. This is important. In a philosophy class I attended, the teacher said that the man is always in search of the line, because we know that it does not exist naturally in nature. Sometimes, I suggest, science and all its empiricism, would submerge some of their principles.
    I’m not here trying to invalidate science, far from it completely, but I think we tend to work mechanically in a Aristotelian way sometimes.

    I’m telling you this because both you and Cochran are assuming central, that all our behavioral traits evolved because they are advantageous, visually remarkable. I think there will always be so, sometimes the effect is null and the other end will be indirectly beneficial.

    I thought some things through without connection. It seems that intelligence is mostly inherited along the maternal line. I know some gay and have the general impression that tend to be smarter than average. Of course, I did not measure their IQS, but I think there are several other subtypes of intelligence. Another impression I have is, the more masculine a man is less intellectually it will tend to be.
    Anyway, I think homosexuality is concerned, it is a consequence of selection. Just as smart parents are more likely to have children with autism. Autism does not cause intelligence, it is a consequence of it, and somehow, some forms of autism are the maintenance of certain cognitive traits very special.

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 1:21 PM

      I’m telling you this because both you and Cochran are assuming central, that all our behavioral traits evolved because they are advantageous, visually remarkable. I think there will always be so, sometimes the effect is null and the other end will be indirectly beneficial.

      This is not an assumption; this is a fact of evolution. Traits exist because they were advantageous in the past (and perhaps remain so in the present), or are traits that were advantageous in past environments that “misfire” in new ones (e.g., Western liberal attitudes towards children).

      It seems that intelligence is mostly inherited along the maternal line.

      Nope.

      I know some gay and have the general impression that tend to be smarter than average.

      Satoshi Kanazawa did an exhaustive study of that and found little support for it, at least in men. Even then there’s the issue if gays are smarter or are smarter gays more likely to identify as such?

      Anyway, I think homosexuality is concerned, it is a consequence of selection.

      Impossible.

      Just as smart parents are more likely to have children with autism. Autism does not cause intelligence, it is a consequence of it, and somehow, some forms of autism are the maintenance of certain cognitive traits very special.

      This is likely the result of mutational load. This is not a possible explanation for homosexuality.

  23. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 1:28 PM

    1- Exactly, but I’m sorry, it’s not like you are seeking it.
    This germ theory, as I said before, it is a speculation, but not only that, there are numerous other factors, genetic and ”environmental” that must be taken into account.
    I get the impression that you are trying to interpret the human being, as a series of separate subtypes. I mean, always present homosexual sexual behavior x, effeminate, never fall in love with a woman while heterosexual will be the opposite. Of course I know you do not think so, but often unconsciously tend to think this way or another way.
    Humans are both subtypes that for many reasons, some obvious some not, break up. And it is a continuity, so there subtype effeminate gay, masculine gay, bi types …. hetero types.

    Dan said something very interesting, both anal intercourse, oral sex as heterosexual, also there is no advantage but are practiced with great frequency by humans.

    2-Asperger syndrome is a disease? People die of homosexuality?
    Will the people Sambia is sick? Can we not learn anything from a person with Down syndrome?
    I changed a lot of my viewpoints believe, since I thought it absolutely right and absolutely wrong there. Much is or may be relative.

    3-But there are other animals that are hermaphrodites. Only the sheep? Are you sure? ” Required” Behavior?
    Well, you are wanting to find the causes of the disease called homosexuality. Well, I think the term disease is misused here. Disease for me is what hurts, presents a progressive behavior and can lead to death. But as with everything, there are some cases (or many cases) in which the concept is definitely relative.
    Again, if germs are able to cause these changes in some people, then they may be able to do many other things about human behavior. But like I said, if a guy born with a nasal voice, female, is of small stature and has a more feminine face and body, it is probably already on reproductive disadvantage. And these traits are not the germs that cause.

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 2:42 PM

      This germ theory, as I said before, it is a speculation, but not only that, there are numerous other factors, genetic and ”environmental” that must be taken into account.

      Cochran’s hypothesis is the only one that can explain all the facts.

      Dan said something very interesting, both anal intercourse, oral sex as heterosexual, also there is no advantage but are practiced with great frequency by humans.

      Dan is greatly overstating the drawbacks of these things, evolutionarily (as if sperm was an expensive resource). Importantly, he seems to be missing a key point about sex for humans (it’s fun). Kissing, hugging, touching various body parts during sex, etc would all seem to fall under his category.

      But there are other animals that are hermaphrodites.

      Obviously, were talking about animals with two distinct sexes. In such species, sexual preferences for individuals of the same sex is unknown.

      Only the sheep? Are you sure?

      Yes (also here and here). Sheep are the only animals where an exclusive homosexual orientation is present.

      Well, you are wanting to find the causes of the disease called homosexuality. Well, I think the term disease is misused here. Disease for me is what hurts, presents a progressive behavior and can lead to death.

      By any meaningful sense of the word, obligate homosexuality is a disease. I don’t stress this fact, though.

      But like I said, if a guy born with a nasal voice, female, is of small stature and has a more feminine face and body, it is probably already on reproductive disadvantage. And these traits are not the germs that cause.

      Maybe. Not as disadvantaged as he would be in having no interest in women whatsoever. Please keep in mind it is that trait that we’re trying to explain.

      The human species has evolved to prioritize heterosexual behavior for obvious reasons, but that does not mean that gays are a deviation or error. They just part of human neurodiversity.

      First of all, it’s important to note that trying to investigate the cause of homosexuality doesn’t mean that I am casting any moral judgement on the phenomenon. It is what it is.

      By the nature of evolution, homosexuals are distinctly “damaged”.

      Why do so many men have sex with animals on the farm? Because male sexual thought is primarily focused on the pursuit of pleasure.

      Is it “so many” men? How prevalent is bestiality?

      as I think it is homosexuality, which
      may be indirectly beneficial
      or
      may appear in a neutral

      There is no possible indirect benefit of homosexuality. It’s definitely not selectively neutral. Even if so, that would imply a 3% by genetic drift alone, which is doubtful.

      The idea that germs influence our behavior, not only deviant, is revolutionary and difficult to believe.

      There are documented cases of this happening. An argument from incredulity is not an argument.

      It’s interesting how you do not want to realize that some people simply prefer to do this or that thing. I think the same thing about liberals, why they act like that? What’s WRONG with them?

      Why do people want to do what they want to do? I’m trying to explain an evolutionary mystery, and all facts in nature have explanations.

      Nope, why?? Explain please, i’m here for learn.

      About IQ, see here. IQ is inherited from both parents.

  24. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 1:49 PM

    4-But what did you say differently?
    Adds enough because you’re starting from paternalistic ideas, typical of the West, on the behavior, said as the ideal or the right. In fact, if we select our personality traits then also selected our tastes and habits, which are related to the first.
    The human species has evolved to prioritize heterosexual behavior for obvious reasons, but that does not mean that gays are a deviation or error. They just part of human neurodiversity. If they are here today then something must be advantageous to the group. The germ theory suggests that the only explanation for homosexual behavior is the presence of bacteria or fungi parasites.
    Again. That may be true, why not?
    INTO PIECES … because anatomical traits androgynous hormones ‘changed’ and brain physiology should also influence considerably. After all, if I have a female brain then by logic, have a tendency to feel attracted to a man. (Not me, LOL)

    5-No doubt

    6-Like I said, even without the example of brain morphology, will still remain the hormones and anatomy. That is, if you are not born with any attractive male, will pragmatically to the other side. Why do so many men have sex with animals on the farm? Because male sexual thought is primarily focused on the pursuit of pleasure.

    In this case

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/stds-and-miiiind-control/

    turn to gene expression. Some traits are not apparent or are not immediately apparent to the human development, individually speaking course.

    7- Why doubful?

  25. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 2:00 PM

    The germ theory could be reversed. We know that the homosexual is promiscuous sexual behavior. We know that homosexuals are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases. Then, the germs could increase the promiscuous behavior. One possibility.
    The germs could in fact be exchanged by means of sexual behavior, or are not germs that cause sexual behavior deviant behavior promiscuous but which causes the transmission of germs.
    But germs do not explain the traces of many effeminate homosexuals, who were genetically inherited.

  26. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 2:28 PM

    8-I think you do not understand me. I did not say that advantageous traits are a possibility, I know they are facts and more, obvious facts, there is nothing to argue about it. But what I notice is that you’re deliberately with little desire to conceive the facts, also quite obvious that there are traces or we can say, a puzzle of different traits, as I think it is homosexuality, which
    may be indirectly beneficial
    or
    may appear in a neutral

    The idea that germs influence our behavior, not only deviant, is revolutionary and difficult to believe.

    Still on the case reported in HBD CHICKS that you sent me. Again, that will be all Greek brothel prostitutes began to act this way or that?

    I already knew that syphilis caused some mental disorders, but syphilis is a disease. Homosexuals are not in a condition of patients are normal people, variables within your group as all groups usually.
    It’s interesting how you do not want to realize that some people simply prefer to do this or that thing. I think the same thing about liberals, why they act like that? What’s WRONG with them?
    Does it have any germ that causes this in them? Does it have any germ that prevents them from seeing reality more foolish than any young child can notice? Many gays are liberal is not it?

    9- Nope, why?? Explain please, i’m here for learn.

    http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/schizo.htm (lol, sound funny like that)

    10-I have the impression, as I said before, almost certain that the more masculine a man is less intelligent it will tend to be.

    11- Why is impossible??

    12- Because while autism is a biological, homossexualism is a epigenetic. Autism is a condition, homossexualism necessarily no…

  27. philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 4:18 PM

    I think there’s another hypothesis, other than pathogen, that deserves serious consideration here: sexual conditioning. Look how overconsumption of Internet erotica is creating doubts about sexual orientation. This is a really interesting presentation about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvyejdlmKpE&feature=youtu.be Mentions interesting research.

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 4:25 PM

      I think chrisdavies09′s comment gets to the point:

      in the case of homosexuality, if a male has absolutely no innate sexual attraction to the physical characteristics another human male’s body, and is only sexually aroused by female bodies, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that he can be ‘conditioned’ in to desiring sexual activity with another male.

      And as I said:

      1. There’s little evidence of that happening.
      2. Evolution would not allow it, because individuals who could be swayed to having no interest in the opposite sex would be clearly selected out. This is why the people worried about porn are on really shaky ground. Because of the primacy of sexual attraction and functioning, evolution would have made failure of the system rare.

      I think most of that stuff about “conditioning” is bunk anyways, see Razib Khan.

    • philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 4:27 PM

      Your reply is so rapid that you could not possibly have considered the link I gave you. No need to defend your position until you find time to do that. :-)

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 5:02 PM

      I just did. It contained nothing of which I wasn’t already aware.

      He even uttered “fire together, wire together.” Steven Pinker was very unforgiving to this logic in The Blank Slate.

      All of his evidence came from non-human animals (mostly rats), case studies of problem individuals (which is of only limited utility), and surveys with questionable sampling.

      I stand by my previous response. There is no good evidence for “conditioning” of sexuality in humans. It’s interesting that he invoked “fire together, wire together” and yet at the same time noted that sexuality seems to develop much the same way every time. That is, there are tight constraints on possible developmental outcomes. That in itself should have us doubt the reliability of his ideas.

      For the porn thing, I’m doubtful it’s a problem, but I think it’s OK to question the issue and research it. But, as for “conditioning” being behind homosexuality, that’s complete rubbish, for the reasons I stated previously.

    • philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 5:18 PM

      Don’t you find it interesting that scientists were able to condition male rats to prefer same sex partners in just 14 days? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22564860) Given that sexual conditioning arises in the area of the brain that “learns” from “rewards,” given that Internet porn offers unlimited “rewards” (spurts of dopamine with every novel erotic visual), and given that this mechanism (the reward circuitry) has been strongly conserved over mammalian species, how can you be so confident that these are “just” rodent experiments? I think it’s great to develop new theories, outside the box, but there’s no reason that more than one mechanism can’t be at work here.
      BTW, the phenomenon of escalating to porn that doesn’t match one’s underlying orientation is surprisingly common. Consider this post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 6:22 PM

      Don’t you find it interesting that scientists were able to condition male rats to prefer same sex partners in just 14 days? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22564860)

      They were also full of mind-altering drugs. I’m not sure injecting the rats with brain chemicals qualifies are pure “conditioning”.

      Fundamentally, these are rats, not humans.

      Given that sexual conditioning arises in the area of the brain that “learns” from “rewards,” given that Internet porn offers unlimited “rewards” (spurts of dopamine with every novel erotic visual), and given that this mechanism (the reward circuitry) has been strongly conserved over mammalian species,

      It’s a wonderful hypothesis, but I’m not sure that’s how it even works in humans. We may see things happening in the brain, but it’s a far cry from saying that we know exactly what’s going on, especially since we have a hard time observing brain activity in the general population in normal (real world) settings.

      how can you be so confident that these are “just” rodent experiments?

      I’m unconvinced. More research is needed, and should be conducted.

      Let’s just say I’d be much more convinced if they had experimental evidence of such conditioning in humans (which would be unethical experiments to carry out).

      BTW, the phenomenon of escalating to porn that doesn’t match one’s underlying orientation is surprisingly common. Consider this post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson

      And they’re also full of “manwho” stories – these are essentially glorified anecdotes. How do we know these men weren’t gay to start with?

      As Razib Khan notes, the overwhelming bulk of stories of problems with porn come from people who have problems with it. That doesn’t tell us whether the porn caused the problems or if they were troubled to begin with.

    • philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 7:29 PM

      JayMan: You’re right that research is needed, but the mind altering drugs were not just random mind-altreing drugs They mimic sexual arousal (which, even in humans is tied to D2 receptors). Novelty, surprise, anxiety (“Am I turning gay because I’m watching tranny porn?”), arousal, and seeking (for the perfect shot to finish to, for example) all raise dopamine. In other words, unlike our ancestors, we can elevate dopamine with porn and keep it up for hours. Isn’t it important to note that young porn users are reporting morphing sexual tastes in widespread “anecdotes?”
      We know these porn users were not gay to begin with because their tastes return to earlier tastes when they stop using porn for weeks.
      So far researchers are not even asking the right questions, with the possible exception of Jim Pfaus (http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/Pfaus_Sexual_Reward_2012.pdf). Moreover, plasticity is much higher in adolescents – and research to test sexual conditioning of adolescents would be completely unethical. So all we have is research on other mammals…and, apparently, closed minds.
      In any case, if evolution “permits” virgin rodents to be altered so easily, it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 8:06 PM

      Novelty, surprise, anxiety (“Am I turning gay because I’m watching tranny porn?”), arousal, and seeking (for the perfect shot to finish to, for example) all raise dopamine. In other words, unlike our ancestors, we can elevate dopamine with porn and keep it up for hours.

      Interesting, but not necessarily meaningful.

      Isn’t it important to note that young porn users are reporting morphing sexual tastes in widespread “anecdotes?”
      We know these porn users were not gay to begin with because their tastes return to earlier tastes when they stop using porn for weeks.

      We don’t know anything of the sort. We only know what they tell the researchers, which is highly suspect, to say the least.

      Moreover, plasticity is much higher in adolescents

      “Plasticity” is another psychological buzzword that has more reality in psychology circles than it does in the real world, at least as far as support for it goes.

      and research to test sexual conditioning of adolescents would be completely unethical. So all we have is research on other mammals

      Just because our only research options are bad doesn’t mean that that evidence gains any more weight. See Gary Taubes on obesity research.

      In any case, if evolution “permits” virgin rodents to be altered so easily, it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.

      I’m not putting my eggs in that research basket either – it’s very easy to get the results you want with animal research (not saying they cooked their data, but…).

      it’s tough to argue that humans are somehow immune from sexual conditioning because evolution wouldn’t permit it.

      1. It’s unlikely
      2. It hasn’t yet been proved, at this time.

      Look as far as sexual “conditioning” goes, we have to declare it is a big maybe at this point. A tenuous maybe. I’m open to seeing more evidence, as always.

    • philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 8:26 PM

      Skepticism is healthy, the differences between adolescent and human brains is no longer theoretical. The adolescent brain is far more sensitive to dopamine than the adult brain (and has higher levels of dopamine and DeltaFosB- transcription factor that is behind both sexual conditioning and addiction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854191/?tool=pubmed). It evolved to learn, remember, and seek thrills with significantly greater response than the adult brain. Needless to say, learning about sex is its top priority – in all adolescent mammals. This is not theoretical. Check the research. Never before has the human adolescent brain been pounded with hypersexual synthetic stimuli, available 24/7 for free. None of us can be confident of its impact, and waiting around for science that can’t be done on humans before considering the implications of all the research on brain plasticity from other animals is a bit like an ostrich, no?

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 8:44 PM

      the differences between adolescent and human brains is no longer theoretical.

      True, but this doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means.

      Never before has the human adolescent brain been pounded with hypersexual synthetic stimuli, available 24/7 for free. None of us can be confident of its impact, and waiting around for science that can’t be done on humans before considering the implications of all the research on brain plasticity from other animals is a bit like an ostrich, no?

      Nope, it’s proper scientific procedure, as always.

      Look, if you can’t demonstrate what you’re claiming conclusively in humans, then at the end of the day, what do you have? Supposition, that will always remain so until you have evidence. We need to be especially wary of neuroscience claims, as this recent article explains so well.

      I’m keeping an open mind, and I will say that I don’t share the concern that you seem to have. But in the mean time, this remains unsubstantiated.

    • philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 9:25 PM

      So does your theory, of course. It seems that some hypotheses are more welcome here than others. ;-) I like your zealotry, but keep an open mind.

    • JayMan / Jun 16 2013 9:44 PM

      @philosophe22:

      Cochran’s hypothesis remains unconfirmed, I will grant you.
      There are key differences however:

      1. The problem which Cochran’s hypothesis seeks to explain is a known phenomenon which is as yet unexplained. The “brain on porn” theory is positing something brand new which itself is not verified.
      2. Viable alternative explanations for the phenomenon (male homosexuality) are lacking.
      3. Known examples (in humans) of the mechanism Cochran proposes exist, both pathogen causing fitness-reducing traits and of pathogenic effects on behavior and sexuality. By contrast, the known examples of the mechanism in the “conditioning” model are in animals or only questionably existing in humans (e.g., in the drug addiction).

      In short, the “brain on porn” bit is working itself out of a hole to start with. This doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily wrong (it might not be), but it has a ways to go.

  28. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 5:22 PM

    Jay man,
    ”conditioning” is a genetic expression remember, i believe that. The genes in a margin of a pool and the genes in a bottom. The genetic select this non-aparent genes how the ambience is favorable, or not, and the personality traits present important contribution to this. For example, paranoid people tend to distrut of all.

    • philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 5:28 PM

      I’m not sure if I understand Gottleib, but I think its likely that genetic vulnerability to conditioning is indeed a factor. This trait would allow mammals to adapt to local/changed conditions that affect mating options…but too much plasticity would be a drawback if, as is the case for today’s humans, a supernormal version of a natural reward shows up in the form of endless, novel, erotica.

  29. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 5:30 PM

    Philosopher22,
    but if many people are ”influenced” by porn, so many people have predisposition to this behaviour.
    The theory of bissexuality is much more interesting now.

    • philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 5:36 PM

      Hmmm…not sure I see that. My guess is that many people are predisposed to find sexual cues arousing, and that some, especially if they engage in chronic overconsumption, will seek for more and more extreme material (because they are gradually numbing their response to pleasure). Eventually, they will end up where they didn’t expect to end up…with erotica that doesn’t match where they started out. Am I right that you’re still assuming this is a consequence of widespread bisexuality? I don’t think that has anything to do with it. People escalate to all kinds of porn, including minor porn even if they were not born pedophiles. If you can’t get an erection without seeking more shocking material (which appears to be becoming more common), then you’ll watch anything – for fear of “losing it if you don’t use it.” This is a consequence of not understanding how conditioning and addiction can alter the sensitivity of some brains to pleasure.

    • Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 6:40 PM

      Philosophe22,
      probably also there these possibility to genetic ‘vulnerable’ but only for the people easily supple.
      I think that there are some traits can be awakened during the process of conditioning or many people repress their instinct to fit to social norm and the ”conditioning influences” this types.

  30. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 5:42 PM

    Many people people do this but many others, even though the arrangement pornography, do not. These people have no curiosity to see or find it demeaning.
    I think this is related but bisexuality. If you get excited watching scenes non-heterosexual or homosexual then it may indicate something about you. Not a neurotypical straight classic.

    • philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 5:44 PM

      That’s possible, but doesn’t explain the widespread support of people escalating to all kinds of weird porn that is weird for other reasons (not because of gender fluidity). Sample stories here: http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.TOLERANCE.pdf

  31. philosophe22 / Jun 16 2013 5:45 PM

    * not “support,” but “reports”

  32. Gottlieb / Jun 16 2013 7:38 PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

    This germ theory will make part of this all studies about sexual orientation (not counting the other theories still little studied)

    Still about the ”greek prostitute”.
    The account of Hbd chicks gave me the idea that the woman with syphilis, drugged or doped with some strong medication. For many gay men, we can see that, homosexuality is not only” sex with a person of the same sex.” A whole set of behavioral traits, preferably androgynous.
    We must do as Temple Grandin. For you to try to understand the behavior of a cow, you need to think like a cow.

  33. Luke Lea / Jun 22 2013 9:08 AM

    What about the possibility of external environmental shocks which are not germ related? Something that interferes with androgen/testosterone ratio (or whatever hormones control) at a certain, perhaps very brief moment in eve-devo process. There might be a window that is open for only a day, or an hour, or a minute even. Maybe the mother is exposed to something for a brief moment, a food additive, an unlucky event triggered by radiation, some strange element or chemical in the environment. Why does it have to be a germ? And why do you think it comes into play after birth? Just wondering.

    • JayMan / Jun 22 2013 11:31 AM

      What about the possibility of external environmental shocks which are not germ related? Something that interferes with androgen/testosterone ratio (or whatever hormones control) at a certain, perhaps very brief moment in eve-devo process.

      Greg Cochran wrote an excellent post on why that’s unlikely. In short, because of the huge fitness hit involved, natural selection would have made such a mode of failure rare. Homosexuality wouldn’t be as common as 3% of all men. You need an agent that “fights back” evolutionarily, and only a pathogen will do.

      The reason it’s likely something that occurs after birth – in childhood – is because of the low concordance in twins (11%). It can’t be too late either; it has to be early enough so that it can account for the effeminate behaviors often observed in boys who go on to become gay.

  34. Luke Lea / Jun 22 2013 12:30 PM

    Maybe we should consider the fact (I think it is a fact) that between one and two percent of all births are intersexual — i.e., not clear whether the baby is a male or a female, sometimes with surgical decisions made on the spot. Whatever interfered with these people’s sexual develoment it happened before birth. (For all I know some of them grow up to be classed as gay — bull dikes maybe.) So why haven’t these mistakes been eliminated? And if developmental mistakes of this magnitude are possible why not subtler effects? Admittedly some intersexuals are xxy, but I don’t think they all are are they?

  35. James B. Shearer / Jun 22 2013 11:14 PM

    The argument that there can’t be gay genes because of the fitness impact isn’t entirely convincing. Such genes could have other positive effects. Like the sickle cell gene.

    • m / Jun 23 2013 12:30 AM

      Go to the blog West Hunter. Find the topic “homosexuality” listed in the right hand margin. You will find several posts on the topic along with many comments. Read them. Within the posts, you’ll find the answer to why it isn’t “like the sickle cell gene” at all from someone who knows a lot about evolution and who has explained many times why it “can’t be like the sickle cell gene. Of course, Jayman knows a lot about evolution too, but I think he’d point you to that place as well because the answer to your point is already spelled out there in detail in those posts.

      And/Or, try these: http://entitledtoanopinion.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cochranrants.pdf

  36. James B. Shearer / Jun 23 2013 2:18 AM

    The comments by Cochran linked by m above don’t even mention the sickle cell gene. He does not discuss genes (like the sickle cell gene) where one copy is good but two copies is bad. In such cases the fact that two copy individuals have lousy fitness doesn’t necessarily mean the gene will go away. Perhaps there are good reasons to doubt the existence of gay genes but the fact that male homosexuals have greatly reduced fitness isn’t sufficient.

  37. James B. Shearer / Jun 23 2013 10:44 AM

    Regarding the second link by m above saying sickle like genes have only been observed when they protect against malaria isn’t exactly proof that they can’t arise in other situations. To some extent I am nitpicking but saying the gay germ hypothesis is almost certain (as JayMan does in the next post) is a pretty strong statement particularly when a big part of the argument appears to be that you have eliminated all the other possibilities.

    Btw is part of the gay germ hypothesis a claim that the germ benefits from turning people gay?

    • JayMan / Jun 23 2013 12:05 PM

      @James B. Shearer:

      You’re talking about heterozygote advantage. Cochran does indeed address it. GWAS analysis rule it out.

      Btw is part of the gay germ hypothesis a claim that the germ benefits from turning people gay?

      No. That’s likely a side effect.

  38. James B. Shearer / Jun 23 2013 12:26 PM

    If the germ doesn’t benefit then the argument that evolution hasn’t been able to eliminate the bad effects because the germ is evolving also doesn’t apply. So the damage could be just as well be caused by some random environmental factor.

    • JayMan / Jun 23 2013 12:33 PM

      If the germ doesn’t benefit then the argument that evolution hasn’t been able to eliminate the bad effects because the germ is evolving also doesn’t apply.

      The sexual orientation effect could be an integral side effect. That is, having a person be gay may not help the pathogen spread, but it is an inevitable result of the infection of whatever brain system the pathogen attacks in the course of doing whatever it does to survive.

      Just as having the host randomly fall asleep doesn’t help the narcolepsy virus spread…

  39. James B. Shearer / Jun 23 2013 5:07 PM

    Just as having the host randomly fall asleep doesn’t help the narcolepsy virus spread…

    I was wondering about that. On the other hand it is easy enough to imagine ways more gay sex could help a gay germ spread.

    • JayMan / Jun 23 2013 5:34 PM

      Not really. Most gay men were clearly gay before having gay sex. Indeed, many, if not most, were “different” in youth. Gay sex is not likely the primary mode of transmission.

      Indeed, it is possible that adult gay men aren’t even contagious.

  40. Homophobe / Jun 27 2013 9:44 AM

    The greatest biggot against gays, is not any person at all but nature itself. Gays aren’t even allowed to have actual sex with each other. Their acts of simulated sex aren’t allowed to produce children, two gays are not permitted make another person that is a combination of themselves, and homophobic nature cruelly decides that their recreactional activities should bring high levels of disease and, in the whole of human history until recently, extraordinary levels of death? This is all so homophobic on the part of nature.

    Why is nature such a bigoted, intolerant hater, so full of homophobia and small-mindedness?

  41. mixedraced / Jul 16 2013 11:27 AM

    Could a germ be making people gay to benefit somehow? If so why?

    • JayMan / Jul 16 2013 12:14 PM

      The sexual orientation change is likely a side effect.

  42. Gottlieb / Jul 31 2013 7:16 PM

    I try to understand how you want to prove that male homosexuality is caused by infestation while making a text that says that female bisexuality is natural, advantageous and has been selected in some way.
    I read the Evo and Proud, a text on the occurrence of light eyes and hair in Europeans. Something struck me this text.
    These features appeared or were selected primarily on women and were later passed to men, so that nowadays, a higher percentage of women have eyes and hair than men.
    I continue with the idea that there may be no causal link between infestation and homosexuality. And I still think that homosexuality is a combination of traits that were selected for some reason advantageous now been selected is a way of thinking a bit wrong, it passes an idea of passivity. Not that heterosexual men selected homosexuals to be friends of their women. Is that many gay and bisexual men, a number of issues,
    personality, intelligence, social pressure, willingness to believe in God or not, married and had children.
    Like Blue Eyes is a feminine trait that was passed to the men, or light skin, so does sexual deviancy, which is abundant and natural in women, and appears in the minority in the opposite sex.
    Of course, the two cases are exactly alike and result in proportion, but the idea is exactly the same.

    • Gottlieb / Jul 31 2013 10:15 PM

      And finally, the explanation for homosexuality persists is the same way that light eyes continue to exist, even though there isn’t a great advantage in having them. Both traits are initially female and overflowed the border of the sexes appearing in the male population, and, clear eyes have the advantage aesthetics only.

    • JayMan / Aug 1 2013 12:01 AM

      @Gottlieb:

      I continue with the idea that there may be no causal link between infestation and homosexuality. And I still think that homosexuality is a combination of traits that were selected for some reason advantageous now been selected is a way of thinking a bit wrong, it passes an idea of passivity. Not that heterosexual men selected homosexuals to be friends of their women. Is that many gay and bisexual men, a number of issues,
      personality, intelligence, social pressure, willingness to believe in God or not, married and had children.

      Math my friend, math. Sure, homosexual men married and had children. But, on the whole, they always did so at a lower rate than heterosexual men. This would have led any genes for such traits to have been selected out.

      The other aspect you mention, sexually antagonistic selection, has been ruled out by GWAS analysis. It doesn’t happen.

      What you’re saying simply does not work.

  43. Gottlieb / Aug 1 2013 9:39 AM

    So your math must be wrong because it is not possible to say that natural selection selected bisexuality in women and not in men. It is not possible why? What is GWAS?
    His theory is sounds like with the theories of Sigmund Freud who managed a fantastic reverse mode operandi of scientific empiricism to complete the conclusion before proving their evidence or better, before selecting their evidence. I repeat that I do not doubt that it may be true that you guys are theorizing, but for now just know that changing sexual choice occurs with some animals. There is also to think humans are so similar so with the sheep (not the socio-political sense). If true then the anthropocentrism, will be the next ISM to fall to the ground.
    Another problem in their approach, in my simple opinion, an opinion that you want to contribute and do not criticize. Not everything is caused by selection. Have you ever thought about the real possibility that the brothers of homosexuals and bisexuals are more fertile?
    The deviant sexual behavior is not the only trait that appears in the minority in the human species, we also know about left-handedness. You must take into consideration a number of possibilities before concluding that sexual behavior is caused by infestation.
    On the moral issues raised in relation to the hypothetical possibility of this theory to be correct. I think to suggest a vaccine is improbable, because you’re leaving to the parents and not the infected, the choice of immunization or not.
    As a result, scientists should work with the possibility of drugs that control impulsive behavior homosexual, which in my opinion is similar to obsessive compulsive disorder and make available those who want to use them for this purpose.
    Even if homosexuality is actually a selectable trait and not an extra sexual selection, then, as I said earlier, we have a heterogeneous population, like any other, in that some people are more predisposed to engage fully in deviant behavior while others, because of their personality traits, tend to control his impulses and carry a heterosexual life. You could also explain to me why asexuals exist today?

    • JayMan / Aug 1 2013 11:38 AM

      @Gottlieb:

      So your math must be wrong because it is not possible to say that natural selection selected bisexuality in women and not in men.

      The “gay germ” hypothesis doesn’t talk about male bisexuality (which is rare anyway) or female bi/homosexuality, it talks only about obligate male homosexuality. That problem is fundamentally different from those others mentioned.

      Another problem in their approach, in my simple opinion, an opinion that you want to contribute and do not criticize. Not everything is caused by selection.

      Traits come to prevalence only through selection (everything starts out as a rare mutation).

      Have you ever thought about the real possibility that the brothers of homosexuals and bisexuals are more fertile?

      It’s unclear if that is the case. Further, the impact for family would have to be huge to counteract the fitness loss sustained by the homosexuals themselves.

      The deviant sexual behavior is not the only trait that appears in the minority in the human species, we also know about left-handedness. You must take into consideration a number of possibilities before concluding that sexual behavior is caused by infestation.

      Left-handedness appears to the product of frequency-dependent selection; that is, there is an optimum point in the population for the trait to exist, and so it balances there. Homosexuality is always a fitness deficit, so couldn’t be the result of frequency-dependent selection.

      Read Cochran’s posts on the topic – or for that matter, read the commentary to this post. All these things and more have been considered.

      I think to suggest a vaccine is improbable, because you’re leaving to the parents and not the infected, the choice of immunization or not.

      If it is a virus, a vaccine is the most likely solution.

      You could also explain to me why asexuals exist today?

      It’s not clear that they do.

  44. Gottlieb / Aug 1 2013 2:17 PM

    ”The “gay germ” hypothesis doesn’t talk about male bisexuality (which is rare anyway) or female bi/homosexuality, it talks only about obligate male homosexuality. That problem is fundamentally different from those others mentioned.”

    Well, I know several gay. (Humanities you can find everything and especially WEIRD class, of which I am part). Has a special once told me that all gays are actually bisexual. Therefore, bi and gay men are exactly the same or very close, what changes is the self designation. I think anyone, even a parasite compel a man to give the anus if he has his own penis as a toy. And nowadays, with the increasing availability of casual sex, anyone with a little money can get a bitch and satisfy their physiological needs.

    ”Traits come to prevalence only through selection (everything starts out as a rare mutation).”

    Do not know why the Ashkenazi would be so stupid to select genetic diseases that they have today. Well, they’re not selected, because nobody is as crazy enough to do this. Is there any vantage, cognitive, fertility, whatever, that makes homosexuality continue to exist.

    ”It’s unclear if that is the case. Further, the impact for family would have to be huge to counteract the fitness loss sustained by the homosexuals themselves.”

    Yes, in ‘this case’ I agree with you.

    ”Left-handedness appears to the product of frequency-dependent selection; that is, there is an optimum point in the population for the trait to exist, and so it balances there. Homosexuality is always a fitness deficit, so couldn’t be the result of frequency-dependent selection.

    Read Cochran’s posts on the topic – or for that matter, read the commentary to this post. All these things and more have been considered.”

    I’ve read, but all were considered to arrive at a single conclusion?
    I’m left-handed, bad for me, Buaaaaaa
    Cochran did not have any study on the incidence of left-handedness in the Ashkenazi Jewish population? This could explain a number of issues regarding the same.

    ”If it is a virus, a vaccine is the most likely solution.”

    But has the moral question of personal choice, should not be borne by the person himself to decide that?
    I think for you to consider homosexuality as a disease before need to totally destroy the assumptions of Freud.

    ”It’s not clear that they do.”

    But it is clear that they no longer do.

    • JayMan / Aug 1 2013 4:11 PM

      @Gottlieb:

      Well, I know several gay. (Humanities you can find everything and especially WEIRD class, of which I am part). Has a special once told me that all gays are actually bisexual. Therefore, bi and gay men are exactly the same or very close, what changes is the self designation.

      Your friend is full of you know what.

      Do not know why the Ashkenazi would be so stupid to select genetic diseases that they have today. Well, they’re not selected, because nobody is as crazy enough to do this. Is there any vantage, cognitive, fertility, whatever, that makes homosexuality continue to exist.

      The Ashkenazi diseases are result of heterozygote advantage, thanks to intense selection for intelligence. No such genes exist involved in homosexuality, as GWAS would have found it.

      GWAS (Genome Wide Association Studies) have been employed to search for genes involved in homosexuality. They rule out sexually antagonistic selection and heterozygote advantage.

  45. Gottlieb / Aug 1 2013 5:27 PM

    He’s not my friend. An acquaintance, so I’ll be using a repellent?

    I did not suggest that the genes for intelligence (or” intelligence”), whatever, of the Ashkenazi could also be” gay gene”, or some of them, I quoted an example of selection with deleterious effects in an attempt to explain that are not all the traits of human behavior that are the result of selection.

  46. Gottlieb / Aug 1 2013 5:29 PM

    They also found genes of female bisexuality is not?

Trackbacks

  1. No one building a fallout shelter? | JayMan's Blog
  2. I’m thuper ecthited for Shabbat! |
  3. linkfest – 06/16/13 | hbd* chick
  4. Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs | JayMan's Blog

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approve by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 672 other followers

%d bloggers like this: