The evolution of homosexuality: A new theory | Richard Prum | Big Think

The evolution of homosexuality: A new theory | Richard Prum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard evolutionary theory may not tell the full story of human sexuality, says Yale professor Richard Prum.

Same-sex attraction may have evolved to contribute to female alliances, and male-male sexual attraction may have also evolved to enhance female freedom of choice, posits Prum.

Richard Prum is the author of The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World. Read more about Prum's theory of same-sex evolution here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD PRUM:

Richard O. Prum is an evolutionary ornithologist with broad interests in avian biology. He is the William Robertson Coe Professor of Ornithology at Yale University, and the Head Curator of Vertebrate Zoology at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History. His latest book is The Evolution of Beauty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:

Richard Prum: Diversity in sexual attraction found in people is a fundamental aspect of human biology, yet it's actually been poorly described or poorly theorized in previous evolutionary biology.

I don't know if people know so much about sociobiology specifically, but one way to get at that might be to talk about the definition of fitness and how that lead to certain views about the inevitability of adaptation as a strong force; The beauty happens theory is the idea that ornament evolves merely because it's attractive or beautiful. The beauty happens idea is contrasted with the more popular theory that comes from Alfred Russell Wallace about the evolution of ornament as a kind of practical indicator of mate quality.

The aesthetic view of evolution provides some really interesting insights into the evolution of human sexuality, and in particular human sexual diversity.

So individuals that are attracted to the same sex are frequently imagined to evolve because they provide help to their kin, that is, if there are some people in any social group that are non-reproductive because of their sexual preferences then they will be helping with raising of their nieces and nephews. This is sort of the "helpful uncle" hypothesis. The problem with that idea is that it should actually lead to a kind of asexual phenotype or an asexual behavior; it doesn't actually describe the evolution of sexual attraction itself.

Well the aesthetic view of evolution proposes that we should put subjective experience—that is, the nature of animal and human desire—at the center of our scientific explanation. So in order to explain same sex attraction in people we need to actually ask: how could same sex attraction actually evolve?

Well, in the book I propose that human same sex attraction evolved specifically because it contributed to female sexual autonomy or to the freedom of choice. What I mean by that is that in the case of female/female sexual relationships they could contribute to female alliances that could protect females from sexual coercion by male hierarchical groups. At the same time I propose that male/male sexual attraction could have evolved because any social situation in which males have multiple sexual outlets would have contributed to female freedom to move among individuals in that social system and to avoid coercion and sexual violence. This is a new aesthetic theory of the evolution of same-sex behavior in people, and I think it's one that deserves really serious consideration as we move forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW BIG THINK:

[Woodenspade]

But hey, that's just a theory. A gay theory. Thanks for watching

[ChildofGodforevr]

I was hypnotized by his eyebrows and therefore got absolutely nothing out of what he said. 😂😂😂😂

[mishlina]

To anyone who says that he needs to organise his thoughts, guys, this is what it feels like during lectures in uni when you do a scientific degree😂 you understand every word he says, you nod, but then it ends and you only have one question... what?🤔

[FraserMacDonald]

This guy needs to organize his thoughts. If he has a point, it's hidden in a mess of rambling nonsense. .

[ariokubo]

evolution and homosexuality? the chrisitans are gonna love this one

[TheRandomView]

As a gay man, I honestly think this guy has no idea what he is talking about. A random hypothesis is not a theory.

[psychologyenjoy]

This man blinked once during the entire video... 😂

[naut_nigel]

im gay, but I have a feeling he has no *fkng* clue what the heck he's talking about and is just proposing random ideas that sound nice and make sense in his head lmbo. Something are just not worth trying to explain

[majeedmamah]

Take a shot everytime he says "uhh"

[TheChach]

Pure sophistry. Unless this book has some evidence, this is just storytelling.

[eg]

That was the hardest 3 minute video to sit though...

[TheMambomd]

I don't believe you can disprove the helpful uncle/aunt hypothesis by saying it likely would have produced an asexual personality. If a homosexuality trait came about as random genetic mutations, let's say.. Then the question would be what kept those traits in the gene pool? And the answer could be a helpful uncle trait which could be mutually exclusive and mutualistic to a homosexual trait. Just my two cents. I love these discussions.

[Thatb-ykcw]

Being gay has always been a thing periodtt this world is just homophobic and cruel

[raylewis]

Homosexual acts, orientation, even long-term relationships occur in all warm-blooded species (mammals and birds) with predictable regularity. A recent study show up to 20% of female seagulls have same-sex tendencies in life-long relationships. It happens in every family. All humans have a bloodline relationship with lbgtqi.

[baselalkhatib]

He has no idea what he is talking about

[brianortiz]

A lot of people seem to be confused. What I got was:
Homosexual developed because
- attraction to a “fit” same-sex partner is driven by the human need to protect, raise, and nurture offspring despite no ability to reproduce

However, aesthetic evolutionary theory says that evolution among human attraction supposedly must take in sexual attraction for reproduction and connection hand in hand. (Possibly the fallacy in of itself where human attraction /must/ require the ability sexually reproduce). He proposes then that:
Female partners are able to be sexually independent and take care of their kin without having to worry about a dominating male to take their autonomy through sexual coercion. Thus granting the female choice in who to develop offspring with

And

Males with the “abundant” choice of female sexual partners have also decided to “choose” the best partner in respect to female autonomy and independent choice in having a partner to raise offspring and share power.

[dominioh]

This comment section is a perfect example of how when people don't agree with an idea they try to make the person or people who came up with the idea look bad.

[HippopotamusPencil]

"The Aesthetic view of evolution proposes that we should put *subjective experience* ... at the centre of our scientific explanations."
This was where I burst out laughing. This is at best pseudo-scientific gibberish.

[someautisticguy]

You don’t need a theory for why ppl are gay. Some ppl just are.

[JudgeHill]

I’m very, very confused. I can’t grasp his point. And for sure, “putting subjective experience” at the centre of any scientific enquiry sounds suspect to me.