This could explain homosexual activity occurring among those who reproduce heterosexually but it doesn't explain the persistence of a segment of the population (2,4,6%?) that seems to lean toward exclusively homosexual attraction. Since this segment doesn't make much of a reproductive contribution you would expect evolution to select it out, but that hasn't been the case. Homosexuality might have some unseen compensatory value in perpetuating the species (some evidence shows women with homosexual relatives are more fertile than average) but so far a precise explanation hasn't been determined. I think similar homosexual population percentages have been found in other species so it's an even wider evolutionary puzzle.
> If this were a true theory it would tend to predict that groups of
> Homo sapiens that perceive themselves to be under threat would tend to
> be more misogynistic and homophobic than groups of Homo sapiens that
> see themselves as having peace and plenty. Indeed, that is what we
> tend to see. Sexual liberalization is very much associated with times
> of peace and plenty in human myth and history. The Pill and Roe v.
Boddi are you just offering this as food for thought, how the overall homosexual activity (not innate homosexual or heterosexual attraction) in a society could wax and wane over time? My comment on reinforcing macho-style institutions wasn't referring to this, it was a response to Brian and Joanna stating that both positions, believing in a static or mutable sexual orientation, could fulfill a desire for control. The former leaves one without needing to the question their sexuality and the latter lets one be active about control in demanding continued socialization/social reproduction of their sexual orientation. So a desire for control alone doesn't seem to explain the prevalence of one position over the other.
Arash