![how to have gay sex without being gay vice how to have gay sex without being gay vice](https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/story/201312/rahul_660-2_121213060206.jpg)
![how to have gay sex without being gay vice how to have gay sex without being gay vice](http://styrowing.com/images/David-J-Hickton-1.jpg)
Finally, both of these assumptions underlying previous research on SSB are reinforced by a heteronormative worldview under which SSB is seen as aberrant, perhaps explaining where these assumptions came from and why they were so rarely questioned. As far as we can tell, no such evolutionary scenario has been considered for SSB.
![how to have gay sex without being gay vice how to have gay sex without being gay vice](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-760w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2022-03/220322-family-research-council-mn-1500-3bcd4b.jpg)
Second, for other traits that are as widespread across so many species as SSB, biologists often consider the evolutionary possibility that the trait evolved just once or a few times in the species’ common ancestor, rather than many independent times. In other words, DSB can be costly too, and it is rarely clear whether mating with an individual of the same sex is comparatively costlier than any other reason why sexual behavior may not lead to reproduction. However, animals often mate many times to produce just a few offspring, and acts of DSB frequently do not result in reproduction for a whole host of reasons. While DSB can certainly lead more obviously to higher fitness through the production of offspring, these comparisons assume that DSB is highly efficient. The costliness of SSB is often emphasized in comparison to the benefits of having sex with an individual of a different sex (different-sex sexual behavior or DSB).
![how to have gay sex without being gay vice how to have gay sex without being gay vice](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F3B6/production/_118709326_1950sbodybuilder976.jpg)
But are these assumptions well-founded? We argue that they are not, and that they are perhaps rooted more in cultural norms than in scientific rigor.įirst, the costs of SSB are often assumed to be high because engaging in SSB leads individuals to waste time, energy and resources without obvious gains in fitness. Moreover, most scientists who study SSB tend to focus exclusively on its presence in a single species of interest, leading to the unacknowledged assumption that SSB evolved independently in each of the animal species in which it is observed. As a “paradox,” SSB is assumed by biologists to be so obviously costly that it must either yield tremendous benefits or be otherwise impervious to elimination by natural selection. In a theoretical perspective published in Nature Ecology and Evolution, we reflect on the hypotheses proposed by biologists to explain SSB, and on the widespread but unquestioned assumptions that underlie them.Ĭommon to all the hypotheses proposed to explain SSB is the characterization of SSB as an “evolutionary paradox” because it persists without obviously contributing to an animal’s survival or reproductive success (what biologists call “fitness”). In recent decades, numerous hypotheses have been proposed and tested to understand why animals engage in these sexual behaviors that do not directly lead to reproduction. Such same-sex sexual behavior (SSB)* can include, for example, mounting, courting through songs and other signals, genital licking or releasing sperm, and has been observed in over 1,500 animal species, from primates to sea stars, bats to damselflies, snakes to nematode worms. For a very long time, scientists have known that animals engage in sexual behavior with individuals of the same sex.