I thought this was surprisingly oversimplified talk by Dawkins, He must full well know that there is no one, isolated gay gene, but that gay(and hetero/bi) behavior/sexuality is much more likely a very complex mix of many genes that determine hormones, lust, love and many other things, and I'm also surprised he doesnt bring up misfiring. Sexual and emotional lust is a complex set of things, and as anyone thats ever been in love could attest to, a very powerful and complicated thing..

That one in 10 simply falls in love/wants to have sex with with the wrong* sex could be a natural frequency thats basically hard to keep down. maybe the mistakes* are simply cancelled out by the usefulness of sexual lust and behavior. What I mean is, we basically have genes that say "Make a body that really, really likes sex and that wants to fuck anything that moves.. wait uh, I mean only of the same species and opposite sex are in also a fertile state" and that the first part of that instruction is by far the most important.

It might be far more dangerous for a gene(for its long term survival) to produce hetero-or-nothing sexuality than to produce bodies whose sexual lust misfires 1 in 10 times.


*Keep in mind that I'm using words like "mistake" and "wrong" as in "its a mistake/wrong to be gay if you want to reproduce" and not in any political way.

I agree it is oversimplified by Dawkins here but not sure for what audience this is intended. I think he was leaning to what you were talking about with his third hypothesis.
His first hypothesis I must be misunderstanding, because simply babysitting the kids would not pass the gene onto them unless those children were the result of his second hypothesis.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

I thought this was surprisingly oversimplified talk by Dawkins, He must full well know that there is no one, isolated gay gene, but that gay(and hetero/bi) behavior/sexuality is much more likely a very complex mix of many genes that determine hormones, lust, love and many other things, and I'm also surprised he doesnt bring up misfiring. Sexual and emotional lust is a complex set of things, and as anyone thats ever been in love could attest to, a very powerful and complicated thing..
That one in 10 simply falls in love/wants to have sex with with the wrong sex could be a natural frequency thats basically hard to keep down. maybe the mistakes are simply cancelled out by the usefulness of sexual lust and behavior. What I mean is, we basically have genes that say "Make a body that really, really likes sex and that wants to fuck anything that moves.. wait uh, I mean only of the same species and opposite sex are in also a fertile state" and that the first part of that instruction is by far the most important.
It might be far more dangerous for a gene(for its long term survival) to produce hetero-or-nothing sexuality than to produce bodies whose sexual lust misfires 1 in 10 times.

Keep in mind that I'm using words like "mistake" and "wrong" as in "its a mistake/wrong to be gay if you want to reproduce" and not in any political way.

So gay = too much of a pussy to hunt?

hah, after re reading what I wrote and what I meant and rather what the reference from what was said in the video. To much confusion. Fresh video of dawkins are welcome by me.

>> ^BoneRemake:

hah, after re reading what I wrote and what I meant and rather what the reference from what was said in the video. To much confusion. Fresh video of dawkins are welcome by me.


?? wut?