QuotePotential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction
ScienceDaily (Feb. 4, 2010) — Male homosexuality doesn't make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable, but because homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men, shouldn't the genes for this trait have been extinguished long ago? What value could this sexual orientation have, that it has persisted for eons even without any discernible reproductive advantage?
One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the "kin selection hypothesis." What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being "helpers in the nest." By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.
Two evolutionary psychologists, Paul Vasey and Doug VanderLaan of the University of Lethbridge, Canada tested this idea for the past several years on the Pacific island of Samoa. They chose Samoa because males who prefer men as sexual partners are widely recognized and accepted there as a distinct gender category -- called fa'afafine -- neither man nor woman. The fa'afafine tend to be effeminate, and exclusively attracted to adult men as sexual partners. This clear demarcation makes it easier to identify a sample for study.
Past research has shown that the fa'afafine are much more altruistically inclined toward their nieces and nephews than either Samoan women or heterosexual men. They are willing to babysit a lot, tutor their nieces and nephews in art and music, and help out financially -- paying for medical care and education and so forth. In a new study, the scientists set out to unravel the psychology of the fa'afafine, to see if their altruism is targeted specifically at kin rather than kids in general.
They recruited a large sample of fa'afafine, and comparable samples of women and heterosexual men. They gave them all a series of questionnaires, measuring their willingness to help their nieces and nephews in various ways -- caretaking, gifts, teaching -- and also their willingness to do these things for other, unrelated kids. The findings, reported on-line this week in the journal Psychological Science, lend strong support to the kin selection idea. Compared to Samoan women and heterosexual men, the fa'afafine showed a much weaker link between their avuncular -- or uncle like -- behavior and their altruism toward kids generally. This cognitive dissociation, the scientists argue, allows the fa'afafine to allocate their resources more efficiently and precisely to their kin -- and thus enhance their own evolutionary prospects.
To compensate for being childless, each fa'afafine would have to somehow support the survival of two additional nieces or nephews who would otherwise not have existed. "If kin selection is the sole mechanism by which genes for male same-sex sexual attraction are maintained over time," the fa'afafine must be "super uncles" to earn their evolutionary keep, explains Vasey. Consequently, Vasey suggests "that the fa'afafine's avuncularity probably contributes to the evolutionary survival of genes for male same-sex sexual attraction, but is unlikely to entirely offset the costs of not reproducing."
Do these findings have any meaning outside of Samoa? Yes and no. Samoan culture is very different from most Western cultures. Samoan culture is very localized, and centered on tight-knit extended families, whereas Western societies tend to be highly individualistic and homophobic. Families are also much more geographically dispersed in Western cultures, diminishing the role that bachelor uncles can play in the extended family, even if they choose to. But in this sense, the researchers say, Samoa's communitarian culture may be more -- not less -- representative of the environment in which male same-sex sexuality evolved eons ago. In that sense, it's not the bachelor uncle who is poorly adapted to the world, but rather the modern Western world that has evolved into an unwelcoming place.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20sciencedaily%20%28ScienceDaily:%20Latest%20Science%20News%29
Thought I'd post this article, especially as I recall we have speculated about something similar in the past here on Languish.
Except that gay men are among the most selfish creatures on the planet.
Old and stupid. It's like what's the evolutionary advantage for being born with schizophrenia? Sometimes something goes wrong in the womb. Happens all the time.
That argument can be made for any individual belonging to a social species that stays celibate/does not breed, not necessarily just for homosexuals.
I think you've posted threads on this subject a half dozen times or so. :hmm:
I think the premise that genes can only survive if they offer a selective advantage is wrong. That would suggest that all genetic disorders would eventually die out, something that is patently not true.
Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2010, 07:44:43 AM
I think the premise that genes can only survive if they offer a selective advantage is wrong. That would suggest that all genetic disorders would eventually die out, something that is patently not true.
You can thank modern medicine for that. ;)
Marty, have you been doing the schtick so long you can't do without? Or are you actually concerned about all these fag-oriented issues?
G.
Quote from: The Larch on February 09, 2010, 07:56:40 AMYou can thank modern medicine for that. ;)
I don't get it. :huh:
Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2010, 08:08:39 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 09, 2010, 07:56:40 AMYou can thank modern medicine for that. ;)
I don't get it. :huh:
What I mean is that a lot of genetic deficiencies that wold have prevented people from reproducing back in the day are not life threatening anymore, so individuals with them can still live up to reproductive age and breed. Mankind is, in some aspects, special regarding evolution, as it has been able to bypass natural selection in many ways.
How about Samoan lebiangs, not as helpful?
the gay-gene if it exists is just a malfunctioning gene, nothing more, nothing less. All these articles trying to drag a meaning for it out of someone's ass just scream insecurity.
TGDR
Quote from: Tamas on February 09, 2010, 08:27:24 AM
the gay-gene if it exists is just a malfunctioning gene, nothing more, nothing less. All these articles trying to drag a meaning for it out of someone's ass just scream insecurity.
:hmm:
I dunno, man. I wouldn't go rushing to teh gay uncle theory, but it seems to play a role in a sufficiently large number of mammalian and primate species that I wouldn't be surprised if it had some role.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 09, 2010, 08:32:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 09, 2010, 08:27:24 AM
the gay-gene if it exists is just a malfunctioning gene, nothing more, nothing less. All these articles trying to drag a meaning for it out of someone's ass just scream insecurity.
:hmm:
I dunno, man. I wouldn't go rushing to teh gay uncle theory, but it seems to play a role in a sufficiently large number of mammalian and primate species that I wouldn't be surprised if it had some role.
Or rather, it is not a gene, but a cultural thing.
Like when we had two male dogs: they were always busy biting holes into our fence to get to the neighboring females for some good old time. Then one of them became so old and was small to begin with, that he could not score anymore, so at one time I saw him trying to climb on the other male. Funniest part was that I (seemed to) saw the utter shock on this other dog's eye.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 09, 2010, 08:32:20 AM
:hmm:
I dunno, man. I wouldn't go rushing to teh gay uncle theory, but it seems to play a role in a sufficiently large number of mammalian and primate species that I wouldn't be surprised if it had some role.
Homosexual behavior is seen in more tetrapod species than not. There is no way in all cases it is just some kind of aberration. That is literally impossible.
Quote from: Tamas on February 09, 2010, 08:36:02 AM
Like when we had two male dogs: they were always busy biting holes into our fence to get to the neighboring females for some good old time. Then one of them became so old and was small to begin with, that he could not score anymore, so at one time I saw him trying to climb on the other male. Funniest part was that I (seemed to) saw the utter shock on this other dog's eye.
Bullshit anecdote. Some male dogs just like other male dogs, while some female dogs just like other female dogs. There is a lot of study on sexual orientation in ungulates, I actually know a Michigan pre-med student who works on creating bulldyke sheep through hormonal treatments.
For Example. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYspUQ9mvz4)
This is a good video on it, actually. (http://lhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggl5ZGaJFFM)
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 08:37:41 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 09, 2010, 08:32:20 AM
:hmm:
I dunno, man. I wouldn't go rushing to teh gay uncle theory, but it seems to play a role in a sufficiently large number of mammalian and primate species that I wouldn't be surprised if it had some role.
Homosexual behavior is seen in more tetrapod species than not. There is no way in all cases it is just some kind of aberration. That is literally impossible.
Why? You see all sorts of disorders that span numerous species.
Quote from: The Larch on February 09, 2010, 08:13:36 AM
What I mean is that a lot of genetic deficiencies that wold have prevented people from reproducing back in the day are not life threatening anymore, so individuals with them can still live up to reproductive age and breed. Mankind is, in some aspects, special regarding evolution, as it has been able to bypass natural selection in many ways.
They managed to survive thousands of years before modern medicine though.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 08:45:46 AM
Why? You see all sorts of disorders that span numerous species.
Not something as frequent or as seemingly important as homosexuality, though.
The idea that it is a disorder is really kind of nuts though. The DSM IV kicked it out, and I don't think it is possible that something as big as being attracted to another gender is not somehow positive for the gene-pool; it is so drastic a change that there must be some reason for it.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 08:57:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 08:45:46 AM
Why? You see all sorts of disorders that span numerous species.
Not something as frequent or as seemingly important as homosexuality, though.
The idea that it is a disorder is really kind of nuts though. The DSM IV kicked it out, and I don't think it is possible that something as big as being attracted to another gender is not somehow positive for the gene-pool; it is so drastic a change that there must be some reason for it.
DSM IV kicked it out for political reasons not for medical. Other paraphilic disorders are still there.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2010, 08:49:36 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 09, 2010, 08:13:36 AM
What I mean is that a lot of genetic deficiencies that wold have prevented people from reproducing back in the day are not life threatening anymore, so individuals with them can still live up to reproductive age and breed. Mankind is, in some aspects, special regarding evolution, as it has been able to bypass natural selection in many ways.
They managed to survive thousands of years before modern medicine though.
What do you mean?
Quote from: The Larch on February 09, 2010, 09:01:07 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2010, 08:49:36 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 09, 2010, 08:13:36 AM
What I mean is that a lot of genetic deficiencies that wold have prevented people from reproducing back in the day are not life threatening anymore, so individuals with them can still live up to reproductive age and breed. Mankind is, in some aspects, special regarding evolution, as it has been able to bypass natural selection in many ways.
They managed to survive thousands of years before modern medicine though.
What do you mean?
*popcorn*
Quote from: The Larch on February 09, 2010, 09:01:07 AM
What do you mean?
Genetic disorders have been around longer than history has, so you can't attribute their survival to modern medicine. I think Zanza is right; survival of a particular trait doesn't necessarily mean it offers an evolutionary advantage.
As to the subject at hand, I don't know if it does offer such an advantage or not. I just don't agree with Martinus' a priori assumption that it must.
I don't think it's a bit surprising that gay men would in general be more attentive and supportive of their nieces and nepthews than straight men--after all, they usually don't have children of their own to take care of. But I suspect that the same would hold true for others who don't have children of their own. Heck, look my wife and me--we don't have kids of our own yet, and we spend a lot of time helping out with her sister's kids, but I'm sure we won't as much once we have our own.
Doesn't this entire idea hinge on gay men not being allowed to adopt back in the stone age? I'd like to see some evidence for that.
Why is there an assumption that it's a genetic condition? There's not a great deal of evidence for this.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:00:27 AM
DSM IV kicked it out for political reasons not for medical. Other paraphilic disorders are still there.
Psychological, not medical. Really, sexual assault is sexual assault no matter how you slice it; for it to remain classified a paraphilic disorder, it needs to interfere with an individual's ability to normally function in society. Once society's adapted to largely tolerate a given behavior, that behavior's ceased to be a disorder within the mores of that society.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 08:37:41 AM
Homosexual behavior is seen in more tetrapod species than not. There is no way in all cases it is just some kind of aberration. That is literally impossible.
Bisexual maybe, I don't know about homosexual.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:00:27 AM
DSM IV kicked it out for political reasons not for medical. Other paraphilic disorders are still there.
I really don't think it makes sense. Homosexual encounters account for a staggeringly high percentage of all sex in some species, even ones with far greater gender sexual dimorphism. Giraffes have way more gay sex than straight sex. You really think that is all just some sort of accident?
Probably just evolutionary garbage left over from an ancestor.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 09:17:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:00:27 AM
DSM IV kicked it out for political reasons not for medical. Other paraphilic disorders are still there.
I really don't think it makes sense. Homosexual encounters account for a staggeringly high percentage of all sex in some species, even ones with far greater gender sexual dimorphism. Giraffes have way more gay sex than straight sex. You really think that is all just some sort of accident?
Blind watchmaker?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 09, 2010, 09:15:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:00:27 AM
DSM IV kicked it out for political reasons not for medical. Other paraphilic disorders are still there.
Psychological, not medical. Really, sexual assault is sexual assault no matter how you slice it; for it to remain classified a paraphilic disorder, it needs to interfere with an individual's ability to normally function in society. Once society's adapted to largely tolerate a given behavior, that behavior's ceased to be a disorder within the mores of that society.
It still causes stress amongst the those with the condition, so it should be a disorder.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:41:47 AM
It still causes stress amongst the those with the condition, so it should be a disorder.
That is a low bar you are setting.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:41:47 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 09, 2010, 09:15:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:00:27 AM
DSM IV kicked it out for political reasons not for medical. Other paraphilic disorders are still there.
Psychological, not medical. Really, sexual assault is sexual assault no matter how you slice it; for it to remain classified a paraphilic disorder, it needs to interfere with an individual's ability to normally function in society. Once society's adapted to largely tolerate a given behavior, that behavior's ceased to be a disorder within the mores of that society.
It still causes stress amongst the those with the condition, so it should be a disorder.
By that criterion, my job ranks pretty high on the disorder list. ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2010, 10:00:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:41:47 AM
It still causes stress amongst the those with the condition, so it should be a disorder.
That is a low bar you are setting.
It is the Bar set by the DSM IV. A disorder is a condition that causes enough stress that it inhibits daily life.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2010, 09:07:10 AM
Genetic disorders have been around longer than history has, so you can't attribute their survival to modern medicine. I think Zanza is right; survival of a particular trait doesn't necessarily mean it offers an evolutionary advantage.
As to the subject at hand, I don't know if it does offer such an advantage or not. I just don't agree with Martinus' a priori assumption that it must.
Doesn't this often come down to them having positive baggage?
e.g. a set of genes caused a messed up trait which destroys someones chance of survival.
Some of these genes taken without the others however greatly increase the chance of survival. Though some kids will end up with the negative side of the genes some will end up with the positive and so the genes are carried on.
Gay uncle stuff- meh, old news.
Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2010, 07:44:43 AM
I think the premise that genes can only survive if they offer a selective advantage is wrong. That would suggest that all genetic disorders would eventually die out, something that is patently not true.
It's also wrong in a sense that the genetic disorders may in fact be in the process of dying out. Evolution is not just something that happened a long time ago and got finished, and now we're all perfectly pruned of any undesirable traits.
Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2010, 07:44:43 AM
I think the premise that genes can only survive if they offer a selective advantage is wrong. That would suggest that all genetic disorders would eventually die out, something that is patently not true.
No, natural selection depends on mutations. Mutations happen all the time. Natural selection does not create super animals that are immune to mutation and so genetic disorders will always occur.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 10:26:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2010, 10:00:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:41:47 AM
It still causes stress amongst the those with the condition, so it should be a disorder.
That is a low bar you are setting.
It is the Bar set by the DSM IV. A disorder is a condition that causes enough stress that it inhibits daily life.
You said stress--not stress that inhibits daily life. Virtually anything can qualify as the former. Homosexuality doesn't induce stress that inhibits daily life--at least for most people (and those for which it does probably could use counseling, but the cure isn't to change their sexuality, but help them accept it).
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 10:26:32 AM
It is the Bar set by the DSM IV. A disorder is a condition that causes enough stress that it inhibits daily life.
Eh, I still think this is a bit of a red herring. Being lefthanded once caused people a lot of stress, but that was largely societal, no?
Anyway, I did a paper on this for a seminar on sexual selection a few years ago. Tis interesting. In some species it is caused by stress on the parents. In others it seems to play a more positive role.
Blount B. 1990. Issues in bonobo (pan paniscus) sexual behavior. American Anthropologist 92 (3): 702-714.
Braithwate L. 1981. Ecological studies of the black swan III: Behaviour and social organization. Australian Wildlife Research 8:135-146.
Camperio-Ciani A., F. Corna, C. Capiluppi. 2004. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society 271(1554): 2217-21.
Field K., T. Waite. 2004. Absence of female conspecifics induces homosexual behaviour in male guppies. Animal Behavior 68 (6): 1381-1389.
Mann, J. Establishing trust: socio-sexual behaviour and the development of male-male bonds among the Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. In Summer V., P. Vasey, editors. Homosexuality in animals. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006 p. 107-130.
Meek L., K. Schulz, C. Keith. 2006. Effects of prenatal stress on sexual partner preference in mice. Physiology & Behavior 30 (2):133-138.
Roughgarden J. Evolution's rainbow: diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2004 p. 474
Shearer M., L. Katz. 2006. Female-female mounting performance among goats stimulates sexual performance in males. Hormones and Behavior 50:33-37.
Smuts B., J. Watanabe. 1990. Social relationships and ritualized greetings in adult male baboons (papio cynocephalus anubis).
Vasey P., B. Chapais, C. Gauthier. 1998. Mounting interactions between female macaques: testing the influence of dominance and aggression. Ethology 104: 387-398.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2010, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 10:26:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2010, 10:00:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:41:47 AM
It still causes stress amongst the those with the condition, so it should be a disorder.
That is a low bar you are setting.
It is the Bar set by the DSM IV. A disorder is a condition that causes enough stress that it inhibits daily life.
You said stress--not stress that inhibits daily life. Virtually anything can qualify as the former. Homosexuality doesn't induce stress that inhibits daily life--at least for most people (and those for which it does probably could use counseling, but the cure isn't to change their sexuality, but help them accept it).
I clarified. I suppose a cure for lots of paraphilia would be just have them accept it. But most people don't find this acceptable.
A mental disorder is just a mental quirk which is deemed to be undesirable.
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2010, 11:54:48 AM
A mental disorder is just a mental quirk which is deemed to be undesirable.
Nope. The psychological definition takes into account such things as being able to function in the society, which is more objective than "undesirable".
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2010, 11:58:56 AM
Nope. The psychological definition takes into account such things as being able to function in the society, which is more objective than "undesirable".
That definition places homosexuality as even more of a mental illness in many parts of the world.
And many people with actual mental problems are fully capable of functioning in society.
I prefer my definition. What counts as a mental illness and what doesn't tends to be pretty arbitrary.
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2010, 11:58:56 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2010, 11:54:48 AM
A mental disorder is just a mental quirk which is deemed to be undesirable.
Nope. The psychological definition takes into account such things as being able to function in the society, which is more objective than "undesirable".
And since you're too gay to function, I would say that you have a disorder.
So Marty, whose nest are you helping out in anyway? :P
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 10:26:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2010, 10:00:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:41:47 AM
It still causes stress amongst the those with the condition, so it should be a disorder.
That is a low bar you are setting.
It is the Bar set by the DSM IV. A disorder is a condition that causes enough stress that it inhibits daily life.
So then it's simply a case by case basis. everyone handles "stress" differently. for example: I have struggled with all sorts of "identity issues" throughout my life. Never has it been so stressful that it interfered with my daily life (other than in banal annoying ways). I'm a whiner, but not a big whiner. That's the real difference.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2010, 08:16:44 AM
How about Samoan lebiangs, not as helpful?
Usually would have had their own kids, whether they wanted to or not
I'm a terrible uncle. :yeah:
I find it very unlikely that there should be a gay uncle gene. It is quite possible, however, that some men are
made into gay uncles. I proposed this theory here not long ago:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 20, 2009, 01:57:50 PM
Are you suggesting we could also eliminate homosexuality through education? Perhaps then Neil might be merciful.
While I do not have a personal interest in the subject, I am quite open to the possibility that homosexuality has a lot to do with cultural and environmental factors (which is not to say it is self-chosen).
One could imagine, for example, too many men in a tribe and not enough women. Instead of the tribe being ripped apart by violent conflict over women, some men take the roles of women, thus 1) bowing out of the competition 2) performing the role of women which is in short demand, along with the tasks associated with that role. For the individual, this has the advantage of not being killed in violent competition over women and from an evolutionary perspective he will be helping the survival of his genes as he will be contributing to the cohesion and strength of the tribe, i.e. his family and extended family, which, if torn apart by internal conflict, could easily be driven off its land/killed/enslaved by a stronger tribe. Presumably this would work at a sub-conscious level and be triggered by group dynamics and workings of the cultural super-ego beyond the understanding of individuals (I'm not talking about our modern nation-wide cultural super-egos but the ones arising individually, and quite literally organically, as soon as people are grouped together).
It is interesting to note that a significant amount of tribal cultures practice ritualized homosexuality, i.e. homosexuality incorporated into the cultures and traditions as shaped by generations of experience, and presumably filling certain functions. 22%, if I recall correctly, of melanesian tribes practice ritualized homosexuality. There is correlation between ritualized homosexuality and low-productivity habitats, which indicates homosexuality can also have a role of counteracting over-population (*).
Essentially, my hypothesis is that homosexuality is genetic and innate in all men, but it is only triggered in specific circumstances. One would expect a priest living in celebacy being denied women having this mechanism triggered. One would also expect it to trigger in all-male or male-dominant environments (such as adolescent boys in a boarding school).
Maybe I'm wrong, but at least it's interesting to speculate about.
(*)
(This is tangential, but what I mean is that the sexual drive is not directed towards women, which would produce babies, but elsewhere: an example of this being taken to an extreme would be the Etoro tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro); reducing fertility might at a glance seem counter-intuitive from an evolutionary perspective but if you take the Malthusian dynamics into consideration it makes sense and one finds many examples of cultures counteracting overpopulation in various ways; other examples of measures to counter-act overpopulation is the practice of penile subinsicion found among various primitive peoples all over the world, which allows sperm to escape from the base of the penis outside of the vagina, and the practice among polynesians to ritually suicide-journey into the ocean, which occasionally led them to new lands, which is how they came to populate some quite remote islands in the Pacific and, presumably, even Madagascar across the Indian ocean.)
Marti's intolerant rant about people who are intolerant coming in 5....4.....3......
Reading through my old post, I see there are two possible interpretations of "performing the role of women which is in short demand, along with the tasks associated with that role." Perhaps some clarification is in order.
The first possible interpretation is that of performing the works associated with the female role: cooking, sewing, etc. One should expect strict separation between gender roles - feminism is a very modern invention, and would be nonsensical in a tribe reliant on specialization and separation of labour. If there is a surplus of men, and a shortage of women, one can not expect men to perform women's roles without making them feel like women; making them into women.
Hence: Making men into women is evolutionarily beneficial when there is a surplus of men and a shortage of women. It brings female work into the tribe, which is in short demand. There will be a surplus of men able to fulfill the roles associated with men, already, and one would expect the man being made into a homosexual to be the one at the bottom of the male hierarchy; i.e. a man offered comparatively little respect by other men because he is a poor hunter for example. So the cost of losing him as a man is small.
The second interpretation is filling the sexual task associated with the female role - that of the receiver. This role would also be in short demand. Making a man into a woman would, therefore, bring additional cohesion, by reducing competition for females by taking one man out of the competition, and offering him to another man, thus allowing a pair to be formed between two men who would otherwise be alone and frustrated. This reduces the risk of war over women which would rip the tribe apart. Even if the men who came out on the bottom of the competition for women would (presumably) be weak males they are still a source of discontent that can be exploited by one of the stronger males wishing to seize power in the tribe.
Well, this is my own theory. Let me know what you think of it.
Executive summary?
No.
:(
What primitive society would have a shortage of women? That's what wars are for.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2010, 02:49:26 PM
What primitive society would have a shortage of women?
Mohammedans and Chinamen.
Well OK: Homosexuality is innate in all men, but is only activated in some men when it is beneficial to the tribe, under certain circumstances. This would explain homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2010, 02:49:26 PM
What primitive society would have a shortage of women? That's what wars are for.
Presumably a society too weak to wage war for women.
No, I meant the wars culled the number of men, so there were always more women. And societies too weak to go to war tended to end up dead or enslaved.
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 02:51:26 PM
Well OK: Homosexuality is innate in all men, but is only activated in some men when it is beneficial to the tribe, under certain circumstances. This would explain homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective.
And so in modern society homosexuals are "activated" so that merchants of expensive male grooming products have a viable market?
It is activated by TELEFON.
Most homosexuals report being homosexual long before they join the navy and are switched on
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on February 09, 2010, 01:19:14 PM
So then it's simply a case by case basis. everyone handles "stress" differently. for example: I have struggled with all sorts of "identity issues" throughout my life. Never has it been so stressful that it interfered with my daily life (other than in banal annoying ways). I'm a whiner, but not a big whiner. That's the real difference.
Took a while to get back to it, but this. Pretty much any DSM IV container will give lots of blanket warnings about how severity of the symptoms need to be interpreted and admissions that diagnoses are all subjective and should be administered by experts to increase reliability.
@Raz: Homosexuality can induce stress in the individual, but the stress is largely from unrealistic expectations of societal rejection; in that vein, it's closer to a social anxiety disorder, treating the patient by helping them reconcile their perception of society's rejection with reality while trying to impress a more positive self-image.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2010, 03:02:47 PM
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 02:51:26 PM
Well OK: Homosexuality is innate in all men, but is only activated in some men when it is beneficial to the tribe, under certain circumstances. This would explain homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective.
And so in modern society homosexuals are "activated" so that merchants of expensive male grooming products have a viable market?
You obviously didn't read my real argument. "Presumably this would work at a sub-conscious level and be triggered by group dynamics and workings of the cultural super-ego beyond the understanding of individuals." There are many ways for this mechanism to trigger. I gave some examples of circumstances where it would be likely for it to trigger, but those are, of course, mere examples to illustrate the general principle.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2010, 03:01:33 PM
No, I meant the wars culled the number of men, so there were always more women. And societies too weak to go to war tended to end up dead or enslaved.
We are talking about hunter-gathereres, on the move. There are many ways for a small group of hunter-gatherers to avoid being dead or enslaved without being sufficiently strong enough to take on another tribe in war for women. And war is risky business which could easily cause the whole tribe to be wiped out. This would be a much safer solution to the same problem.
Also, there are many ways one could imagine there being more men than women. They can have lost women to other tribes, in war, or women might have defected to a stronger tribe.
Also, it is not unheard of for families to give birth to six girls or six boys in a row. A small tribe could easily produce considerably more boys than girls just by the roll of the dice.
And anyway - we are talking about evolutionary time-frames here. Millions of years. It need not have been very common - just common enough.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 09, 2010, 03:06:34 PM
Most homosexuals report being homosexual long before they join the navy and are switched on
Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable. People lie to themselves, and people lie to others.
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 03:38:20 PM
And anyway - we are talking about evolutionary time-frames here. Millions of years.
Evolutionary time frames for the human species is in the thousands of years and shorter.
Quote from: citizen k on February 09, 2010, 03:45:56 PM
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 03:38:20 PM
And anyway - we are talking about evolutionary time-frames here. Millions of years.
Evolutionary time frames for the human species is in the thousands of years and shorter.
OK sure I agree, but that's not the sense I was using the word in the context of what you quote. I was just trying to illustrate how over an evolutionary time frame of millions of years it would certainly be common enough for there to be more men than women, for this to give rise to evolutionary solutions.
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 03:38:20 PM
You obviously didn't read my real argument. "Presumably this would work at a sub-conscious level and be triggered by group dynamics and workings of the cultural super-ego beyond the understanding of individuals." There are many ways for this mechanism to trigger. I gave some examples of circumstances where it would be likely for it to trigger, but those are, of course, mere examples to illustrate the general principle.
On the contrary I did read it. In fact I thought enough of it to ridicule it by pointing out that your explanation for the trigger of homosexuality does not explain what triggers homosexuality in a modern society. You simply missed the point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2010, 03:51:21 PM
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 03:38:20 PM
You obviously didn't read my real argument. "Presumably this would work at a sub-conscious level and be triggered by group dynamics and workings of the cultural super-ego beyond the understanding of individuals." There are many ways for this mechanism to trigger. I gave some examples of circumstances where it would be likely for it to trigger, but those are, of course, mere examples to illustrate the general principle.
On the contrary I did read it. In fact I thought enough of it to ridicule it by pointing out that your explanation for the trigger of homosexuality does not explain what triggers homosexuality in a modern society. You simply missed the point.
I daresay you are the one to have missed the point, seeing as I did give examples of how this mechanism could be triggered in modern society. You are obviously labouring under a misunderstanding of my argument of one sort of the other, and by assuming you had not read my post I was being charitable - the alternative is that you read it but did not understand it.
This theory's been around for a while, I've posted it many times before. It's basically a gay version of the human grandmothering/menopause thing.
To a couple of the comments: Yi, they've not found anything that they think is a lesbian gene, there is a reasonable candidate for a gay male gene. Pat, I think you talk a lot of shit a lot of the time.
Sheilbh,
The thing that makes me wonder about such a thing as a gay gene is historical societies where homosexuality was more prevalent and in fact the norm - say Sparta or Greece.
Its unlikely that all males had such a gene in those societies and then the gene just died out suddenly.
Also, it doesnt really explain bisexual males.
I wonder if it is just that we all have preferences. For example I dont find all women attractive. I have certain preferences for who I find sexually attractive. Could dividing society into gay and straight be an artificial divide. Could it be that we all find certain things attactive or not and those certain things vary greatly among individuals?
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 03:55:29 PM
I daresay you are the one to have missed the point, seeing as I did give examples of how this mechanism could be triggered in modern society. You are obviously labouring under a misunderstanding of my argument of one sort of the other, and by assuming you had not read my post I was being charitable - the alternative is that you read it but did not understand it.
Now that Marti is posting less it is good to see someone come in to fill the void.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2010, 04:34:16 PMCould it be that we all find certain things attactive or not and those certain things vary greatly among individuals?
Of course not. If we all found different things attractive, there would be all sorts of different porn designed to cater to those various tastes.
Wait...
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2010, 04:34:16 PM
The thing that makes me wonder about such a thing as a gay gene is historical societies where homosexuality was more prevalent and in fact the norm - say Sparta or Greece.
Its unlikely that all males had such a gene in those societies and then the gene just died out suddenly.
Homosexuality doesn't exist. It is a 19th century invention of psychology. What exists is sexuality and sodomy (and other same-sex positions). I do not know of any society in which that has ceased to exist, though there have been throughout time different cultural relations and reactions to it, that's without doubt.
Now you say how, if there were a gay gene, did homosexuality die out? I don't think it did I think there was a cultural shift but what's remarkable is that it survived those shifts. I suppose my objection is two fold: first of all I think you need something very deep indeed to survive systematic repression of the sort witnessed in a number of societies and number of periods. But more it seems to me that it's unlikely that any of the psychological reasons I've heard of explain the variety of forms of homosexuality in a number of very different cultures and different periods when the psychological meaning of things would be, necessarily, different.
This, on the other hand, makes reasonable sense. It's based on a widely accepted theory that there is no biological/physical reason for a woman to stop having children. However generally speaking women aren't able to after a certain age. Now why that's the case when - despite what's a popular myth - women survived for far longer than 35-40 is I believe still disputed, but the most common theory is that it's better for her to help her daughters and grand-children survive than to just keep popping them out. At some point the evolutionary benefit shifts from a personal instinct to one that's social.
This is based on the fact that some scientists think they've identified a gay gene (the vast majority think male homosexuality is biological in cause - I've been to a few lectures by behavioural biologists (Bristol's specialty) and that was treated as a given by the scientists, students and so far as I could tell the work behind it all) that men who have this gene, who are more likely to be gay, and gay men are likely to have more fecund female relatives than controls of normal men. I think it also ties in with the whole younger brother theory that a woman would - biologically and not consciously - be best served by having a child who won't necessarily compete with all her other children. The big gay uncle to her grandma.
QuoteCould dividing society into gay and straight be an artificial divide. Could it be that we all find certain things attactive or not and those certain things vary greatly among individuals?
Oh I think undoubtedly it is. We have sexuality. That's all.
Quote from: The Brain on February 09, 2010, 09:10:53 AM
Doesn't this entire idea hinge on gay men not being allowed to adopt back in the stone age? I'd like to see some evidence for that.
Of course gay men adopted kids in the stone age. Haven't you seen
Beast Master?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent6.flixster.com%2Fphoto%2F10%2F96%2F07%2F10960796_tmb.jpg&hash=5dbb6bd4bd7d612b425f44e8afa22fb7da81be2d)
Think there might be a distinction to be made between "preference" and "action". Seems fair that a lot of men in prison would prefer to be with Emily Blunt than a toothless Ed Norton-lookalike, but when his choices are restricted he'll still chose the second over the first. Similarly, entirely likely that certain cultural factors can let certain "things" out that most people in other societies find extremely unpleasant. I think Pat's theory is actually largely spot-on here; the Greeks seem to have adopted pederasty partially in an attempt to control birth rates, and would also explain the practices' prevalence in areas humans find relatively difficult to thrive in.
With that said, I think even the Greeks had some notion of gender preference; Aristophenes' (in)famous story of the creation of Man in the Symposium is mostly an explanation of why certain men/women prefer the company of men/women.
QuoteThink there might be a distinction to be made between "preference" and "action". Seems fair that a lot of men in prison would prefer to be with Emily Blunt than a toothless Ed Norton-lookalike, but when his choices are restricted he'll still chose the second over the first. Similarly, entirely likely that certain cultural factors can let certain "things" out that most people in other societies find extremely unpleasant.
Definitely.
All this talk about gays is often very confused with no exact definition of what gay is. Is it someone who is actually attracted to men no matter whether they act upon this or not or is it someone who actually acts gay and has sex with their own gender. The two groups do have a large overlap but there are outliers from both.
It ties in with the old cliche 'homosexuality isn't a choice' - of course it is. If you define it in one of these ways.
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 02:07:24 PM
I find it very unlikely that there should be a gay uncle gene. It is quite possible, however, that some men are made into gay uncles. I proposed this theory here not long ago:
While I do not have a personal interest in the subject, I am quite open to the possibility that homosexuality has a lot to do with cultural and environmental factors (which is not to say it is self-chosen).
I'd agree....however I often find many gays get really really violently defensive about the prospect of such for some bizzare reason.
Also, I'm not totally sure I buy the argument that gay men are automatically somehow incapable or incredibly unlikely of fathering children. My mom and I are reasonably sure my dad is a closeted homosexual. I find it hard to believe that a paleolithic man with natural inclinations towards being attracted to men would not, at some point in his life, end up doing it with a female.
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2010, 05:26:07 PM
I'd agree....however I often find many gays get really really violently defensive about the prospect of such for some bizzare reason.
Probably the unhappy history of having homosexuality alternatively treated as a "sin" or as a "treatable pathology" has something to do with it.
Gay people are, understandably, not happy with the notion that homosexuality is a "condition" that can (presumably) be "corrected", and labeling it as something influenced by cultural and environmental factors could support such a contention. If it is genetically determined it is part of inherant nature - you can't change your genes.
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2010, 05:26:07 PM
It ties in with the old cliche 'homosexuality isn't a choice' - of course it is. If you define it in one of these ways.
I'm a huge fan of the French, Brunnetes, Alain Delon in particular, but for all his shirtless escapades in Plein Soleil, my Johnson was about as flaccid as when I watched *THAT* scene in About Schmidt.
Conversely, I tend to avoid watching movies with Eva Green with friends unless I'm wearing the loosest possible pants.
That's an anatomic thing, not a choice.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 05:23:39 PM
I think Pat's theory is actually largely spot-on here; the Greeks seem to have adopted pederasty partially in an attempt to control birth rates, and would also explain the practices' prevalence in areas humans find relatively difficult to thrive in.
Do you have any evidence the Spartans attempted to reduce birth rates. The population of Spartan men was always a concern for them. Women were praised for the number of boys they could produce and girls were socialized to serve the State by producing young males who could become warriors.
On top of that they had a whole people serving as their slaves to provide all the material necessities Spartan men and women needed. The only thing the men needed to worry about was being a great warrior and the only thing a woman had to worry about was making healthy strong children.
Your observation makes no historical sense.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 05:44:02 PM
I'm a huge fan of the French, Brunnetes, Alain Delon in particular, but for all his shirtless escapades in Plein Soleil, my Johnson was about as flaccid as when I watched *THAT* scene in About Schmidt.
Conversely, I tend to avoid watching movies with Eva Green with friends unless I'm wearing the loosest possible pants.
That's an anatomic thing, not a choice.
That would be the other definition of sexuality there, not the one that is a choice.
I'm a straight man but if I wanted to (and could find enough gay men with suitably low standards) I could start just having sex with men. I wouldn't be happy and I'd probally have to be a bottom but I'd be 'gay'.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2010, 05:49:48 PM
Your observation makes no historical sense.
Aristotle attributed the invention of Pederasty to the Cretan King Midas as a form of population control in the Politics. The Spartans may have continued the practice after it stopped making sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2010, 05:49:48 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 05:23:39 PM
I think Pat's theory is actually largely spot-on here; the Greeks seem to have adopted pederasty partially in an attempt to control birth rates, and would also explain the practices' prevalence in areas humans find relatively difficult to thrive in.
Do you have any evidence the Spartans attempted to reduce birth rates. The population of Spartan men was always a concern for them. Women were praised for the number of boys they could produce and girls were socialized to serve the State by producing young males who could become warriors.
On top of that they had a whole people serving as their slaves to provide all the material necessities Spartan men and women needed. The only thing the men needed to worry about was being a great warrior and the only thing a woman had to worry about was making healthy strong children.
Your observation makes no historical sense.
On the contrary, it does, taken as Greece as a whole, and not just Sparta, which was a part of the larger Greek culture.
Greek high-culture was only possible as long as there was a surplus of resources not eaten up by an increase in population. More specifically: It is only possible to dedicate a life to philosophy, mathematics or other metaphysics of no physical gain, if one can be reasonably sure one does not risk starving by not getting a real job.
Greek culture is a consequence of the greek economy. Cultivation of olive trees started in Crete in Minoan times, and soon spread to the rest of Greece. Olive oil was very valued - by Homer it is called liquid gold. Indeed it is still used for many things in mediterranean culture. The Greeks planted olive trees, let their slaves harvest them, and make the olive oils, and then they went on their ships to trade the olive oil throughout the mediterranean. They had a lot of spare time. But it wasn't very good to let the population balloon to eat up all the wealth.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 06:05:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2010, 05:49:48 PM
Your observation makes no historical sense.
Aristotle attributed the invention of Pederasty to the Cretan King Midas as a form of population control in the Politics. The Spartans may have continued the practice after it stopped making sense.
King Midas was not from Crete. And you are making even less sense now. What does this have to do with your theory that the Spartans engaged in homosexuality to reduce their populations. Also, why did king midas for that matter - given his lengendary wealth.
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 06:07:43 PM
On the contrary, it does, taken as Greece as a whole, and not just Sparta, which was a part of the larger Greek culture.
Greek high-culture was only possible as long as there was a surplus of resources not eaten up by an increase in population. More specifically: It is only possible to dedicate a life to philosophy, mathematics or other metaphysics of no physical gain, if one can be reasonably sure one does not risk starving by not getting a real job.
Greek culture is a consequence of the greek economy. Cultivation of olive trees started in Crete in Minoan times, and soon spread to the rest of Greece. Olive oil was very valued - by Homer it is called liquid gold. Indeed it is still used for many things in mediterranean culture. The Greeks planted olive trees, let their slaves harvest them, and make the olive oils, and then they went on their ships to trade the olive oil throughout the mediterranean. They had a lot of spare time. But it wasn't very good to let the population balloon to eat up all the wealth.
Given that Sparta did not trade olive oil this explanation makes no sense. Dont dodge the question about Sparta by referring to something unrelated to Sparta.
Sparta was part of the larger Greek culture. And you'll note that while the Spartans did encourage fecundity they also disposed of a rather large quantity of the children in various eugenic measures.
By Midas, I meant Minos.
Traditions very often last long after they are useless, or downright harmful to a society. Shouldn't have to provide examples of that.
Basically, Sparta filled a niche in the larger greek society. Without the wealth of the rest of Greece, there'd be no Sparta.
Also, CC, you may be mis-characterizing the nature of Spartan, and probably general Greek, pederasty. It was partially considered a way to prevent young men from doing stupid shit like getting very young women pregnant; once they reached a certain age, Greek men were expected to take a wife and start pumping out babies, ESPECIALLY in Sparta.
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. :)
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2010, 05:51:50 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 05:44:02 PM
I'm a huge fan of the French, Brunnetes, Alain Delon in particular, but for all his shirtless escapades in Plein Soleil, my Johnson was about as flaccid as when I watched *THAT* scene in About Schmidt.
Conversely, I tend to avoid watching movies with Eva Green with friends unless I'm wearing the loosest possible pants.
That's an anatomic thing, not a choice.
That would be the other definition of sexuality there, not the one that is a choice.
I'm a straight man but if I wanted to (and could find enough gay men with suitably low standards) I could start just having sex with men. I wouldn't be happy and I'd probally have to be a bottom but I'd be 'gay'.
Ooooh keeeeey :huh: :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2010, 06:23:22 PM
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. :)
Sorry to disappoint you, but last time I had casual sex was about week ago. With a very good-looking 19 year old girl.
19 is the hottest age, so I think I speak for everyone when I say pics or it didn't happen.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 06:18:14 PM
Also, CC, you may be mis-characterizing the nature of Spartan, and probably general Greek, pederasty. It was partially considered a way to prevent young men from doing stupid shit like getting very young women pregnant; once they reached a certain age, Greek men were expected to take a wife and start pumping out babies, ESPECIALLY in Sparta.
My guess is that Spartian pederasty had much to do with its military culture and little or nothing to do with population control.
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).
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 06:38:12 PM
My guess is that Spartian pederasty had much to do with its military culture and little or nothing to do with population control.
Well, that too, obviously, and I very seriously doubt it had a major effect either way, at least one that wasn't offset by the Spartan expectations baby-wise. We, unlike the ancient Hebrews, know that sperm isn't some sacred substance that cannot afford to be wasted or misused for non-procreative sex.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 06:38:12 PM
My guess is that Spartian pederasty had much to do with its military culture and little or nothing to do with population control.
Well, that too, obviously, and I very seriously doubt it had a major effect either way, at least one that wasn't offset by the Spartan expectations baby-wise. We, unlike the ancient Hebrews, know that sperm isn't some sacred substance that cannot afford to be wasted or misused for non-procreative sex.
If this is a reference to the Onan story in the Bible, it is a complete misunderstanding of it.
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 06:38:12 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 06:18:14 PM
Also, CC, you may be mis-characterizing the nature of Spartan, and probably general Greek, pederasty. It was partially considered a way to prevent young men from doing stupid shit like getting very young women pregnant; once they reached a certain age, Greek men were expected to take a wife and start pumping out babies, ESPECIALLY in Sparta.
My guess is that Spartian pederasty had much to do with its military culture and little or nothing to do with population control.
exactly so.
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2010, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 06:38:12 PM
My guess is that Spartian pederasty had much to do with its military culture and little or nothing to do with population control.
Well, that too, obviously, and I very seriously doubt it had a major effect either way, at least one that wasn't offset by the Spartan expectations baby-wise. We, unlike the ancient Hebrews, know that sperm isn't some sacred substance that cannot afford to be wasted or misused for non-procreative sex.
If this is a reference to the Onan story in the Bible, it is a complete misunderstanding of it.
He was actually referring to Monty Python and got confused between Catholics and Hebrews.
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2010, 06:23:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2010, 07:39:30 PM
Quote from: Pat on February 09, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 04:42:20 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 06:45:21 PM
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?
What about wet dreams?
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2010, 06:23:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on February 10, 2010, 07:58:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 10, 2010, 12:48:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 06:45:21 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Grallon on February 10, 2010, 08:08:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on February 10, 2010, 08:51:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 10, 2010, 08:24:11 AM
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. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 10, 2010, 10:13:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 10, 2010, 08:24:11 AM
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. :hmm:
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.
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.
Just seems odd to pretend the child is his brother's kid. But I guess they need a workaround if they want to protect women while simultaneously denying them any rights.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 10, 2010, 12:25:32 PM
Just seems odd to pretend the child is his brother's kid. But I guess they need a workaround if they want to protect women while simultaneously denying them any rights.
Exactly.
Plus, a levirate marriage has the advantage that the child, though adopted, has a heritage as close as humanly possible to that the dead brother's kid would otherwise have had.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2010, 12:23:08 PM
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.
Internet Rule #103: in any place where a Monty Python reference is possible, one can safely 'read in' that all possible such references, pictures, jokes and witty comments
have in fact been made, without the necessity of wasting scarce electrons by actually making them. ;)
The concept of Christians being "against" wanking is as much a misinterpretation as the "Onanism" misinterpretation. The beef that Christians have is that they maintain it's impossible to masturbate without fantasizing, and that most likely is the situation where you're fantasizing about someone you're not married to. It's less to do with Onanism than it is to do with fornication. In theory, if you're wanking to your wife, it's all good.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 12:42:25 PM
The concept of Christians being "against" wanking is as much a misinterpretation as the "Onanism" misinterpretation. The beef that Christians have is that they maintain it's impossible to masturbate without fantasizing, and that most likely is the situation where you're fantasizing about someone you're not married to. It's less to do with Onanism than it is to do with fornication. In theory, if you're wanking to your wife, it's all good.
I take it then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's interpretation:
QuoteRoman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church teaches emphatically that the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its primary purpose of procreation and secondary purpose of unification of the husband and wife within the sacrament marriage.[4] In addition, the Church teaches that all other sexual activity—including masturbation, homosexual acts, acts of sodomy, and sex outside of or before marriage (fornication), and the use of any form of contraception or birth control besides Natural Family Planning—is gravely disordered, as it frustrates the natural order, purpose, and ends of sexuality.[5]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists masturbation as one of the "Offenses Against Chastity:"
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.[6]
Pope John Paul II, in his book Theology of the Body, coined the expression, "the nuptial meaning of the body" to describe this divine intention physically expressed in the body.[7] His elucidation of human sexuality is that to fulfill its sacred character, sexual expression must be a complete act of mutual self-giving only possible between a married couple open to the conception of a new child.
Although "t is said that psychology and sociology show that [masturbation] is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young," this does not change the fact that it "is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act" and "that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.'"[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#Roman_Catholicism
Point is that sex = only good if it is "open to procreation". There is nothing here about it being bad because of fantasy. I'd certainly be interested to see a source that said Catholicism officially welcomes married folks wanking.
Again. A Monty Python link would have proved the point more effectively. ;)
I don't let my seed fall to the ground. :goodboy:
Mine gets on the walls and ceiling typically.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 10, 2010, 03:59:51 PM
I don't let my seed fall to the ground. :goodboy:
If the Onan story was added to the bible to day, it would have come with a jingle:
Seed on the ground,
seed on the ground,
looking like a fool
with your seed on the ground.
What's interesting in the quote Malthus posted (and something most catholics seem to forget) is that homosexual acts are considered by the catholic church to be equally sinful and "disordered" as premarital sex, using a condom, using a pill, masturbation or oral sex. :pope:
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2010, 05:43:20 PMProbably the unhappy history of having homosexuality alternatively treated as a "sin" or as a "treatable pathology" has something to do with it.
Gay people are, understandably, not happy with the notion that homosexuality is a "condition" that can (presumably) be "corrected", and labeling it as something influenced by cultural and environmental factors could support such a contention. If it is genetically determined it is part of inherant nature - you can't change your genes.
I think this is part of it but more importantly I think the gene has become identified as 'nature' while other aspects are largely seen as 'nurture'. I think that's wrong and it's simplistic, but the truth is that to a gay person their sexuality is natural and in every sense broadly the same as a straight person's just directed at a different object of desire. So I think some people are defensive about it because there is no other nature or naturalness to them - which is why it would be nice if we could remove those words I think they simplify, confuse and obfuscate the real issue.
Personally I just think sexual desire is hard-wired. I find it far likelier that our sexual desires are mostly hard-wired than anything else but that's because I think sex is primeval; it's an old bit of the human condition however we now dress it up. My own experience is that while we don't have to give in to every urge the desire itself is enjoyably base, but it is base.
QuoteWhat's interesting in the quote Malthus posted (and something most catholics seem to forget) is that homosexual acts are considered by the catholic church to be equally sinful and "disordered" as premarital sex, using a condom, using a pill, masturbation or oral sex.
They're all equal to adultery.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2010, 06:59:36 PMMy own experience is that while we don't have to give in to every urge the desire itself is enjoyably base, but it is base.
Indeed,it is an omnipresent reminder of the reality of our higher selves inhabiting the bodies of monkey creatures.
Quote from: Malthus on February 10, 2010, 01:37:33 PM
I take it then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's interpretation:
To protestants, the Vatican clergy are more creepy old men wearing dresses than theological leaders. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 11, 2010, 11:02:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 10, 2010, 01:37:33 PM
I take it then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's interpretation:
To protestants, the Vatican clergy are more creepy old men wearing dresses than theological leaders. :contract:
To Catholics Protestants are groupuscules beneath notice <_<
QuoteIndeed,it is an omnipresent reminder of the reality of our higher selves inhabiting the bodies of monkey creatures.
Yeah. I love fleshy pleasure. There's nothing so joyous as ourselves at our basinest. Eating and lusting and all the other stuff you imagine Brian Blessed gets up to on a weekend.