Scolar JP Rushton argued that Negroids/Blacks and Mongoloids/Orientals, were at opposite ends of an evolutionary spectrum involving IQ, behavior & sexuality, with Caucasoids/Whites falling in between. But Rushton never compared the races in sexual orientation.

In 2012, Gallup did a poll:

The poll of 121,290 individuals, the largest U.S. survey of its kind, found that 3.4 percent of all Americans identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The figures were higher for people of color, with 4.6 percent of blacks identifying themselves in that manner, followed by 4.3 percent of Asians, 4 percent of Hispanics and 2.2 percent of non-Hispanic whites.

One problem is the Asian is a meaningless term since it includes the largely Caucasoid Americans of Indian ancetry, however assuming the majority of Asians polled were Oriental (i.e. East Asians), it suggests that both Orientals and Blacks are more gay than Whites (and assuming Whites are less homophobic than Blacks and Orientals, and thus more likely to admit being gay, the difference is probably even larger than the poll suggests).

The fact that Blacks and Orientals are both more gay than Whites is difficult to explain with Rushton’s theory which predicts that Blacks and Orientals are at opposite extremes on evolutionary sexual traits, with Whites falling in between.

How do we explain this? One possibility is that gayness is largely not genetic.

Another possibility is that Blacks and Orientals are at opposite extremes afterall. Perhaps there are two types of gay men. Those who become gay because they’re too masculine for women, and those who become gay because they’re not masculine enough for women. That is, macho men (i.e. Blacks) want a partner who is more feminine than they are, but not too much more feminine. If a man is hyper-macho, then a woman will be too feminine for him, causing him to be gay.

At the opposite extreme, more feminine men (i.e. East Asians), might want a partner who is more masculine than them. Since women are not masculine enough, this may cause them to be gay.

By contrast, men who are not extremely masculine or extremely feminine (i.e. Whites) might find women the ideal partner and thus have the lowest rates of gayness.

This is admittedly incredibly speculative, but it would support Rushton’s pattern of Whites being in between Blacks and East Asians. Blacks can be too masculine to be straight, East Asians can be too feminine to be straight, and Whites are once again in the middle.

Advertisements