Evolutionary advantage of homosexuality: Super Uncles

[Neil]

This thread got me convinced that evolution doesn't work.

Of course not.  'Working' would imply a goal or purpose.  The only purpose of evolution is to entertain Me.

[Pat]

Oh, no I couldn't do that, I always try to respect the integrity of the young women who share my company (and she asked me not to tell anyone - and I haven't! not anyone in real life, at least).

Was she a free woman?

Yes.

[Razgovory]

I find myself in agreement with CC. Human sexuality simply varies too much over time and between cultures to have any simple genetic origin.

I'm generally unimpressed with all flavours of evolutionary psychology, for the same reason. No doubt on some very basic level, human sexuality is genetic - the sex drive is very basic, after all. How it is expressed in actual behaviour is very complex, varies from place to place and over time.

Well that's probably because Evolutionary Psychology is at best bullshit pseudoscience and at worst actively harmful.

[Pat]

In so far as it is deterministic, it is harmful. As long as one keeps in mind that culture comes first, and biology second, it's not harmful at all. It is also a much-needed weapon against total relativism.

[Queequeg]

If this is a reference to the Onan story in the Bible, it is a complete misunderstanding of it.

I knew that, in the story, God is angry at Onan for not impregnating his dead brother's wife, but I always presumed that the Jews shared the early Christian "foible" about spilling seed, as "sperm is precious, and loss of it entails loss of vitality, masculinity or life force" is a pretty common belief.    Was I wrong?

[garbon]

What about wet dreams?

[Josquius]

This thread got me convinced that evolution doesn't work.

If it did, Pat and Tyr would be gay, so they would not procreate.

That being said they are unlikely to ever have any sex (whether gay or straight) so maybe there is God/Mother Nature/Super-Dawkins who runs these things after all.

Quite amusing that you would come to say this here in reply to a post where I said that many gays get very defensive about any suggestion homosexuality may not be genetic.

[Grallon]

Quite amusing that you would come to say this here in reply to a post where I said that many gays get very defensive about any suggestion homosexuality may not be genetic.

Fear of re-education HA! 


The most compelling theory I've seen is a combination between nurture and hormonal imbalance in-utero.  The main agurment was a statistical index of higher % of homosexual males in families containing several male offsprings.  If I recall correctly the idea was that the uterus, drenched with testosterone from previous pregnancies, would imprint the foetus with too much of it... 

As anecdotal eveidence I've bedded a brother whose younger brother was also gay (and cute but he escaped my grasp  ) - and both were between an older brother (straight) and a sister (straight).  I also know another family where 3 of the boys are gay... 

Perhaps it doesn't mean anything but I find it more plausible than blind genetics, the disease theory or the absurd 'lifestyle' accusation from conservatives....




G.

[Malthus]

If this is a reference to the Onan story in the Bible, it is a complete misunderstanding of it.

I knew that, in the story, God is angry at Onan for not impregnating his dead brother's wife, but I always presumed that the Jews shared the early Christian "foible" about spilling seed, as "sperm is precious, and loss of it entails loss of vitality, masculinity or life force" is a pretty common belief.    Was I wrong?

As far as I know, yes.

The 'sin of Onan' is that he cut his brother's line out of the inheritance by deliberately refusing to impregnate his dead brother's wife. There was, as far as I know, no injunction against "wasting" sperm generally in Judaism modern or ancient - the Christian sin of "Onanism" is based on a misunderstanding of the point of the Onan tale.

[Martinus]

grallon, perhaps this is true, but at least anecdotally I have not seen a higher occurrence of gays among multi-children families. I am the only child and many gay guys I know are as well.

[Neil]

Fear of re-education HA! 

The most compelling theory I've seen is a combination between nurture and hormonal imbalance in-utero.  The main agurment was a statistical index of higher % of homosexual males in families containing several male offsprings.  If I recall correctly the idea was that the uterus, drenched with testosterone from previous pregnancies, would imprint the foetus with too much of it... 

As anecdotal eveidence I've bedded a brother whose younger brother was also gay (and cute but he escaped my grasp  ) - and both were between an older brother (straight) and a sister (straight).  I also know another family where 3 of the boys are gay... 

Perhaps it doesn't mean anything but I find it more plausible than blind genetics, the disease theory or the absurd 'lifestyle' accusation from conservatives....

So then it's preventable?  Awesome.

[Grallon]

Grallon, perhaps this is true, but at least anecdotally I have not seen a higher occurrence of gays among multi-children families. I am the only child and many gay guys I know are as well.

I know - I'm an only child too - and in my biological family there are only girl siblings.  *shrug* If there's a *need* for an explanation - and judging by Neil's chronic and multi-headed fears about it there is - then one that doesn't portray me as 'sick' or 'deviant' is the one I'll choose.





G.

[Eddie Teach]

As far as I know, yes.

The 'sin of Onan' is that he cut his brother's line out of the inheritance by deliberately refusing to impregnate his dead brother's wife. There was, as far as I know, no injunction against "wasting" sperm generally in Judaism modern or ancient - the Christian sin of "Onanism" is based on a misunderstanding of the point of the Onan tale.

That's just silly, his brother's line is dead and the child is his regardless. 

[Malthus]

As far as I know, yes.

The 'sin of Onan' is that he cut his brother's line out of the inheritance by deliberately refusing to impregnate his dead brother's wife. There was, as far as I know, no injunction against "wasting" sperm generally in Judaism modern or ancient - the Christian sin of "Onanism" is based on a misunderstanding of the point of the Onan tale.

That's just silly, his brother's line is dead and the child is his regardless. 

It's a matter of adoption. The child is, legally, the dead brother's and continues the clan line.

This means that the child, if male, inherits the portion that would go to the dead brother.

In some patriarchal societies, only men have full rights of inheritance; if the man dies childless, the widow has no legal access to inheritance. A so-called "levirate marriage" is, if you like, a social safety net for her (she would naturally act as guardian for the property).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

Note that as Judiasm evolved it discards the concept as unneccessary.

However, in patriachal times Onan is required by law to enter into a levirate marrage with his dead brother's wife. He does so, and happily fucks her every night (she's a beauty), but "spills his seed on the ground" - i.e., has sex with her in a way designed not to make her pregnant. His intent is - selfishness. To keep *all* of the inheritance for himself, offering her (though guardianship of her son) none at all.

That's his "sin" - basically, being a selfish asshole.

Some commentators, ignorant of this social background to the story, it is spun as being a warning that God hates wanking - "Onanism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onanism

This is a famous complete misunderstanding. Apparently, some early Talmudic scholars came to it first, and it was then eagerly picked up by early Christians; obviously, most modern denominations of Judaism do not hold to it (there is zero biblical support for the notion) and wanking, in Judaism, is not considered an issue - though in some forms of Christianity, it is. 

[crazy canuck]

I am very disappointed in you people.  A reference is made to the Monty Python classic hit "Every Sperm Is Sacred" and nobody posts a picture, a link or even a witty comment.  All you do is argue about the specifics of ancient Jewish inheritance law and whether it is prohibited to wank.

Thank God Chicago had an earthquake.  At least that thread as a chance at some entertainment value.