Bi-sexuality in women?

Thunder · 1st February 2010, 08:32 AM

In the last decade there seems to be a marked increase in the number of women and girls who consider themselves to be "bi-sexual" or even "lesbian".

Even in high school.

Now, while I accept that lesbianism is real, and many women do indeed feel no sexual attraction to the male body and instead feel one towards fellow women, it seems to be that the growth in female bi-sexuality is less an issue of women coming out of the closet and expressing their long suppressed feelings, and more an issue of women's particular biology and social mindset.

Women, are MUCH more social with each other then men. They support each other, very emotionally. They seek advice from each other, they comfort each other. They hug each other, a WHOLE lot more than men do to each other.

Men are a much more independent creature, for whatever hunter/gatherer reasons, and women are clearly more of a group biology.

So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.

And then, we have all these women gathering around, comforting each other on their issues with men. How mean and cruel and uncaring men are to them. How men only care about getting laid. How hard is to see women take all this to the next step and say: "hey, we all have trouble with men, why not just hang out with each other instead?"

I can see it. I really can. How about you?

GreyICE · 1st February 2010, 08:40 AM

Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this.

There's just a double standard when it comes to discussing it in public.

Also, teenager = bundle of hormones.

I'd say there's a good number of Daddy's money lesbians, or LUGs in college, but I can't really pin down why (also, "I'm a lesbian, but I keep sleeping with men!" which I chalk up to some people seriously straining credibility on actually being sentient organisms).

barrymore · 1st February 2010, 08:47 AM

OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce?

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

Sun Countess · 1st February 2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.

A very far leap, if you ask me. One that I've never taken, and one that I'll never take. Because I'm just not sexually attracted to women.

How far a leap is it for men hanging around together, playing aggressive sports, and getting all sweaty with each other to kissing and touching sexually?

Adam Ferguson · 1st February 2010, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

They hug each other, a WHOLE lot more than men do to each other.

Interesting thesis, now visit a Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu club and see if you feel the same!

Rasmus · 1st February 2010, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by barrymore

OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce?

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

Exactly!

That's why colony forming insects like ants or bees are all but extinct!

No, wait ....

GreyICE · 1st February 2010, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by barrymore

OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce?

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

Really, does this nonsense have to come up every time anyone says the word 'homosexuality?'

CatInTheBag · 1st February 2010, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by barrymore

OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce?

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

Because never, in all of history, have same sex couples had children, be it through surrogacy, artificial insemination, or just plain old ugly bumping.

BenBurch · 1st February 2010, 09:33 AM

Kinsey said that bisexuality was just about as common in men.

It's just still taboo.

Probably always will be.

Sun Countess · 1st February 2010, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by barrymore

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction?

I know a lot of lesbians who've managed to reproduce. Actual biological offspring! It's amazing. However did they do it......

Quote:

I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

Lesbians have managed to pass their genes on to offspring just fine, when they so choose. I don't understand the bit about passing on their knowledge or feelings (aside: how does one pass on feelings, and why would that even be important?) to kin, unless they proselytize. Somehow, proselytizing and kin just don't mix. I talk to my kin. It's actually socially acceptable to talk with one's kin on a regular basis. Preferable, actually.

Oh wait. I'm guessing you think proselytizing is one step in the whole recruiting process that I've heard so much about, just never from actual gay men and women who are too busy living decent lives......

GreyICE · 1st February 2010, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Kinsey said that bisexuality was just about as common in men.

It's just still taboo.

Probably always will be.

Kinsey was full of crap. It was groundbreaking crap that asked questions that no one had ever asked before, but it was still crap.

The Kinsey scale is serious woo-woo. His guesses as to where people fall into that spectrum are a tad, um... nonsense. His idea that the population was distributed into each category on a kind of a bell curve because he liked that idea was terrible.

ETA: seriously, not all statistical findings result in bell curves...

BenBurch · 1st February 2010, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Kinsey was full of crap. It was groundbreaking crap that asked questions that no one had ever asked before, but it was still crap.

The Kinsey scale is serious woo-woo. His guesses as to where people fall into that spectrum are a tad, um... nonsense.

More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality.

GreyICE · 1st February 2010, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality.

Oh come on. His guess was that 10% were purely het (0) and 10% were totally homo (6), and the rest were somewhere in the middle.

It hurts just to think about.

Seriously, find me some decent number of studies that back this idea up, somehow, somewhere.

I admit that his idea of sexuality as fluid was groundbreaking, but his charts and numbers were very... um... innovative.

barrymore · 1st February 2010, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Exactly!

That's why colony forming insects like ants or bees are all but extinct!

No, wait ....

Please explain further. Fact: a group of lesbian women or a group of gay men would not be able to reproduce. So how would communities help?

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Really, does this nonsense have to come up every time anyone says the word 'homosexuality?'

I share your disdain for those who rail against homosexuality. Fortunately, that was not the purpose of my argument.

Originally Posted by CatInTheBag

Because never, in all of history, have same sex couples had children, be it through surrogacy, artificial insemination, or just plain old ugly bumping.

I am not interested in whether it happens or not. Of course, it does!

What I am interested in (and what I addressed in my initial reply) is what the relationship is between homosexuality and evolution. Surrogacy and artificial insemination do not seem like strong enough reproduction methods compared to opposite sex couples who can multiply like wildfire on a whim (see: the Duggars).

If you do not agree, please explain so that we can both understand better.

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

I know a lot of lesbians who've managed to reproduce. Actual biological offspring! It's amazing. However did they do it......

I was addressing homosexuality from a genealogical perspective. Some say that people are born gay and that it is "found" in the genes. I do not know--I am not arguing for or against either perspective. But if it is genealogical, any reproduction methods are going to affect the concentration of these genes, most likely in an adverse fashion.

Quote:

Lesbians have managed to pass their genes on to offspring just fine, when they so choose. I don't understand the bit about passing on their knowledge or feelings (aside: how does one pass on feelings, and why would that even be important?) to kin, unless they proselytize. Somehow, proselytizing and kin just don't mix. I talk to my kin. It's actually socially acceptable to talk with one's kin on a regular basis. Preferable, actually.

I was referring to the flip-side of the homosexuality argument in this case: namely, that it arises from environmental and social factors. If homosexuals have less children than opposite-sex couples, it seems to me that environmental and social factors would be in favor of heterosexuality versus homosexuality, and given enough time, the world would become almost completely heterosexual. Again, this is IF the environmental/social explanation of sexuality is valid, which I am not arguing for or against.

Based on that, I say that if natural societal factors are against homosexuality in an evolutionary sense, then the only way to fend for itself would be to actively discuss sexuality and encourage people to think about sexuality outside of the status quo (the SQ being heterosexuality). Proselytize may have been too strong of word--I was certainly not implying that legions of homosexual people are going out to try and convert heterosexuals (as we all know, the opposite is true).

Quote:

Oh wait. I'm guessing you think proselytizing is one step in the whole recruiting process that I've heard so much about, just never from actual gay men and women who are too busy living decent lives......

Get that crap out of here.

I know this is a sensitive subject, but understand that I am trying to have a rather objective discussion about it. I do not use the terms "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian" in any derisive or superficial manner whatsoever, any more than calling someone a heterosexual merely means they have relationships with people of the opposite sex. It's a definition, not a pigeon-hole.

patrick767 · 1st February 2010, 10:22 AM

eh, the main difference is simply that female-female relationships are far more acceptable, at least in western society, than male-male. We all know that to many of we males, two women together is hot. Two men together is icky.

I wonder how far back that double standard goes? The Old Testament says a man lying with a man is an abomination, but unless I'm mistaken doesn't have much to say about women lying together. hmm....

Jorghnassen · 1st February 2010, 10:26 AM

Ah, societal norms. Let me put it in laymen's terms: girl-on-girl action is hot, while a boy who has any sexual attraction to is own gender is gay (doesn't matter if he's also attracted to girls, trucks, guns, shoes, dead animals, or doorknobs...). Or something to that effect. Essentially, guys don't have as much leeway in their choice of sexuality, activities or occupation without catching teh ghey from the point of view of others.

Jorghnassen · 1st February 2010, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by patrick767

I wonder how far back that double standard goes? The Old Testament says a man lying with a man is an abomination, but unless I'm mistaken doesn't have much to say about women lying together. hmm....

If I recall correctly, the standard ancient concept of reproduction is that women only serve as a receptacle for men's seed. Thus man-on-man action is wasting sacred sperm in vain (thus God gets quite irate), while women together, well, they're just lying together. Nothing sacred is wasted.

Sun Countess · 1st February 2010, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by barrymore

Based on that, I say that if natural societal factors are against homosexuality in an evolutionary sense, then the only way to fend for itself would be to actively discuss sexuality and encourage people to think about sexuality outside of the status quo (the SQ being heterosexuality).

Homosexuality doesn't have to "fend for itself." The vast vast majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples. And toward what end would anybody want to "encourage" somebody to think about sexuality outside the status quo? Homosexuality can't be passed on through any amount of encouragement. And it's not passed on genetically through homosexuals reproducing together.

When you talk about gay people having to actively proselytize or encourage people to reconsider their own sexual orientation.....it might be giving other people the wrong idea about your feelings on homosexuality, is all I'm saying. It's not like all the gay people in the world want everyone else to be gay, or want only their "gay genes" to be passed on. But even if everybody suddenly became homosexual, do you think human reproduction would just cease?

You said you saw the advantage in a small portion of homosexual men in a given ancient society, so they could help with hunting and protection. Do you not see another advantage in having a small portion of lesbian women in that same ancient society to help with childrearing? Women used to die pretty regularly during pregnancy and childbirth.

Sun Countess · 1st February 2010, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.

And then, we have all these women gathering around, comforting each other on their issues with men. How mean and cruel and uncaring men are to them. How men only care about getting laid. How hard is to see women take all this to the next step and say: "hey, we all have trouble with men, why not just hang out with each other instead?"

I can see it. I really can. How about you?

How many men really believe that all women are just one pillow fight away from girl-on-girl action? Or is it better to believe it only happens when there's some dude there to videotape the action?

And what exactly goes on at all those mens only clubs and gyms? Hmmmm.....I can picture it. I really can. How about you?

Ziggurat · 1st February 2010, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this.

No, that's just the British.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

barrymore · 1st February 2010, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Homosexuality doesn't have to "fend for itself." The vast vast majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples.

Everything has to fend for itself in an evolutionary sense. ceteris paribus, if something is even marginally less conducive to reproduction than something else, then it will lose out. That is what I am saying. There is no moralizing involved here. I only refer to homosexuality because that is what was presented originally; we could easily talk about sexuality in general as it relates to evolution, and I would get on all the same.

Quote:

And toward what end would anybody want to "encourage" somebody to think about sexuality outside the status quo? Homosexuality can't be passed on through any amount of encouragement. And it's not passed on genetically through homosexuals reproducing together.

The minority always has incentive to question the views of the status quo, if they wish to have greater acceptance. Right now, the status quo in many parts of the world is to suppress homosexuality, regard it as deviancy, and claim that heterosexuality is the "right" thing. Not only does the homosexual minority want to encourage a discussion on sexuality to secure a better life for themselves, but they also want to strengthen the ranks by encouraging people who really are homosexual to recognize that and not feel they have to hide it due to the strength, and sometimes brutality, of the status quo.

Quote:

When you talk about gay people having to actively proselytize or encourage people to reconsider their own sexual orientation.....it might be giving other people the wrong idea about your feelings on homosexuality, is all I'm saying. It's not like all the gay people in the world want everyone else to be gay, or want only their "gay genes" to be passed on. But even if everybody suddenly became homosexual, do you think human reproduction would just cease?

I understand that people may get the wrong idea, and I regret that. However, someone having the wrong idea does nothing to address my argument. If I am wrong, I would be happy to know why. This has nothing to do with my "beliefs" on sexuality, because I nearly have none--people can do whatever the hell they want.

If everybody became homosexual, there would obviously be an evolutionary mechanism in place for that to happen in the first place, so no reproduction would not just cease. But anyways, evolution of a species cannot be considered in isolation just on that species--it must always be considered relative to something (the natural environment, other species, whatever). So the reproduction of this group depends on the environment as a whole, not just on reproduction methods.

Quote:

You said you saw the advantage in a small portion of homosexual men in a given ancient society, so they could help with hunting and protection. Do you not see another advantage in having a small portion of lesbian women in that same ancient society to help with childrearing? Women used to die pretty regularly during pregnancy and childbirth.

I was referring to opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. Typically, the males would go out and hunt, while the women would stay back and tend to the household. Plus, males are more effective at providing security. And the couples could reproduce whenever they want.

A lesbian couple would most likely be at a disadvantage in the hunting and security part, thus putting them at an evolutionary disadvantage. A male-male couple would probably fend better because it is easier for a male to take care of the household than it is for a woman to hunt effectively. However, both couples are reproductively challenged, which puts them at a further disadvantage.

ponderingturtle · 1st February 2010, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality.

He also seemed to have seriously biased his sample group.

ponderingturtle · 1st February 2010, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by barrymore

Please explain further. Fact: a group of lesbian women or a group of gay men would not be able to reproduce. So how would communities help?

Um that is not a fact, for it to be a fact it would have to be true, and it isn't.

It is entirely possible for two people who are not attracted sexualy to eachother very much and would not want to form a pair bond, to have sexual intercourse for the purposes of pregnancy an procreation.

Now you could argue that their history makes them bi, but then there would be very few homsexuals as it is not that remarkable for them to have had heterosexual relationships first after all.

barrymore · 1st February 2010, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Um that is not a fact, for it to be a fact it would have to be true, and it isn't.

It is entirely possible for two people who are not attracted sexualy to eachother very much and would not want to form a pair bond, to have sexual intercourse for the purposes of pregnancy an procreation.

Now you could argue that their history makes them bi, but then there would be very few homsexuals as it is not that remarkable for them to have had heterosexual relationships first after all.

I may have misunderstood you the first time. I took you to imply that communities of lesbian women or gay men (mutually exclusive) could reproduce. Clearly they could not. If you did not mean this, how is your example different from modern society?

Of course if there were only gay couples (woman-woman and male-male, but no woman-male) they could reproduce. I am not arguing otherwise. But there would have to be some mechanism for that state to exist in the first place! I am arguing that the mechanism is the exact opposite, if anything.

ponderingturtle · 1st February 2010, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by barrymore

I may have misunderstood you the first time. I took you to imply that communities of lesbian women or gay men (mutually exclusive) could reproduce. Clearly they could not. If you did not mean this, how is your example different from modern society?

How could you ever get a comunity of exclusively gay men? What happened to create that? You know that a community of strictly heterosexual women couldn't reproduce either, clearly there is some evolutionary problem with heterosexuality.

This is your straw comunity you explain it.

Ivor the Engineer · 1st February 2010, 12:00 PM

What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb?

How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits?

barrymore · 1st February 2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

How could you ever get a comunity of exclusively gay men? What happened to create that? You know that a community of strictly heterosexual women couldn't reproduce either, clearly there is some evolutionary problem with heterosexuality.

This is your straw comunity you explain it.

My whole argument is based on evolution favoring heterosexuals, why would I claim that a one-sex or two-sex homosexual society could exist? The only times I have mentioned it is in response to others in an effort to make sense of unclear arguments (such as Rasmus' remark about colonies).

Evolution just does not kill stuff off because it wants to. I am arguing there is a mechanism for which homosexuality is evolutionarily disadvantaged. Nowhere am I saying some whirly-gig God in the sky is going kill all of them off just because he does not agree with it. I do not see anywhere in the mechanism that I have proposed where there would only be one-sex heterosexuals left. If there is, point it out. If there is not, let's get on with arguing instead of putting words in others' mouths.

barrymore · 1st February 2010, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb?

How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits?

Well, it depends on what the source of the hormones is, of course. Evolution does not have to work directly on a sexuality gene if sexuality is causally correlated with other genetic traits.

Ziggurat · 1st February 2010, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb?

How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits?

What you're suggesting isn't a situation in which genes are irrelevant to determining sexuality, but a situation in which it isn't solely the genes of the individual. For example, hormone production levels by the mother have a genetic component, and the fetus would almost certainly have a genetic component to their sensitivity to hormones.

If sexuality is biological, then there's a genetic component to it, even if that component is not simple (ie, arising out of complex interactions of many genes), even if it depends on the genetics of the mother as well, and even if it depends on environmental factors external to both mother and fetus.

Fiona · 1st February 2010, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by barrymore

If everybody became homosexual, there would obviously be an evolutionary mechanism in place for that to happen in the first place, so no reproduction would not just cease. But anyways, evolution of a species cannot be considered in isolation just on that species--it must always be considered relative to something (the natural environment, other species, whatever). So the reproduction of this group depends on the environment as a whole, not just on reproduction methods.

Yes.

Quote:

I was referring to opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. Typically, the males would go out and hunt, while the women would stay back and tend to the household. Plus, males are more effective at providing security. And the couples could reproduce whenever they want.

Can you cite for the idea that men would "typically go out and hunt". That is not my understanding of how hunter/gatherer societies operate, and I see no reason why it should have been that way in the past. Most such societies get about 80% of their food from gathering and there is no inherent advantage for one gender or the other. Big game is often scavenged, not killed: and small game is a more usual source of meat. So unless you can demonstrate how and why early man lived differently from those kinds of societies today, I think your premise about gender differences and their implications is at best over-egged. The fact is we do not know and we cannot generalise in this way.

What about the development of agriculture: do you suppose that the situation vis-a-vis gender stayed the same? In many agricultural societies there is more division of labour but most of the food is produced by the farmer and very often the farmer is female: it is women's work in fact. The diivision of labour is a feature of settled communities, not of hunter gatherer societies. Both kinds of societies are very variable and the idea of "man the hunter and protector" is a modern imposition with little or no evidence to sustain it.

But let us suppose you are correct: how then do the males provide security given they are away hunting? Perhaps you believe that some of the men stayed home to fight off predators and other groups? In that case the product of the hunt must be held in common by the group: and so must the gathered food. That being the case women are not disadvantaged in any inherent way because they are part of the group: again it seems to me your scenario only has the implications you attribute to it because you assume a hierarchical division of property which is not a feature of hunter/gatherer societies. Is there some other organisation which has the results you assume and which is evidenced?

Or let me take the kind of thinking you propose a stage further: the men who hunt are away a lot and some other men stay home for "security". Who do you think is likely to reproduce more? Just at a guess? On your reasoning the "hunting gene" might well be at a significant disadvantage, don't you think? I wonder why they did not die out. As you say "couples could reproduce whenever they want......" And nothing propinks like propinquity, I am told. Oh and while we are on the subject, how much choice about reproduction do you think early man and early woman actually had? How was that organised? Was it the same in all places and over all prehistoric times?

Quote:

A lesbian couple would most likely be at a disadvantage in the hunting and security part, thus putting them at an evolutionary disadvantage.

Why do you assume early man was organised into couples? I have no certainty about that at all. Do you have evidence for it? Seems to me that is modern imposition, but if I am wrong please show why. It does not even work all that well after millenia of social and cultural transmission of that as an ideal and supported by strong forces such as religion etc. Why do you think it was the usual arrangement in the past ?

Or let us imagine game hunting was a major source of food in some places at some times (say in the far north where the development of a much more pure carnivorous diets was environmentally determined, perhaps) then what is it that makes a lesbian woman less able to participate than a man? What is it about fishing that makes men better at it? Is it their superior stamina? their enhanced ability to withstand the cold because of the extra layer of fat? ...oh wait.

I can quite see a pregnant woman has a problem: but on your scenario the lesbian is not pregnant. The only mechanism I can see which would exclude the lesbian from a hunt is social gender norms. A big game hunt might be a rite of passage for boys and not for girls, I suppose: but that is not day to day stuff and we do not know when it developed nor if it was universal: there is evidence to suggest it is not, and that at least in some places hunting is not gendered.

Quote:

A male-male couple would probably fend better because it is easier for a male to take care of the household than it is for a woman to hunt effectively. However, both couples are reproductively challenged, which puts them at a further disadvantage.

For reasons given I think this needs to be established from the bottom up: I do not accept your premises so I cannot accept your conclusion

But there is another problem with your reasoning which arises from the same source, I think. Hunter gatherer societies are usually small groups and often nomadic. Too many mouths to feed in relation to the productive members is not conducive to survival of the group. And without the group the individual will not survive, for we are a social species. Homosexuals are of positive value for this reason. Even if homosexuality is genetic it is perfectly possible that the group survives better with a proportion of homosexuals and their genes are passed on because they are related to the heterosexual members who also carry those genes. There is no reason at all why they would die out, that I can see.

Ivor the Engineer · 1st February 2010, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What you're suggesting isn't a situation in which genes are irrelevant to determining sexuality, but a situation in which it isn't solely the genes of the individual. For example, hormone production levels by the mother have a genetic component, and the fetus would almost certainly have a genetic component to their sensitivity to hormones.

If sexuality is biological, then there's a genetic component to it, even if that component is not simple (ie, arising out of complex interactions of many genes), even if it depends on the genetics of the mother as well, and even if it depends on environmental factors external to both mother and fetus.

While I agree there can be (and often is) a genetic susceptibility or component to many conditions and behaviours, what if it were found women who eat a lot of oranges in weeks 6-8 of pregnancy have a much higher probability of producing homosexual offspring, while those who eat a lot of apples produce mostly heterosexual offspring? In this case how would it be useful to think of sexuality as being primarily determined by genes?

Ivor the Engineer · 1st February 2010, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

<snip>

But there is another problem with your reasoning which arises from the same source, I think. Hunter gatherer societies are usually small groups and often nomadic. Too many mouths to feed in relation to the productive members is not conducive to survival of the group. And without the group the individual will not survive, for we are a social species. Homosexuals are of positive value for this reason. Even if homosexuality is genetic it is perfectly possible that the group survives better with a proportion of homosexuals and their genes are passed on because they are related to the heterosexual members who also carry those genes. There is no reason at all why they would die out, that I can see.

Not a proponent of the selfish gene theory?

barrymore · 1st February 2010, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

While I agree there can be (and often is) a genetic susceptibility or component to many conditions and behaviours, what if it were found women who eat a lot of oranges in weeks 6-8 of pregnancy have a much higher probability of producing homosexual offspring, while those who eat a lot of apples produce mostly heterosexual offspring? In this case how would it be useful to think of sexuality as being primarily determined by genes?

Well, that is certainly a possibility I suppose, in which case an evolutionary mechanism relating to sexuality would not be valid. I am not disputing that.

I am proposing a mechanism if sexuality is genetic (directly or indirectly). I will do a literature search myself and take a look at what is out there.

Mark6 · 1st February 2010, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

How many men really believe that all women are just one pillow fight away from girl-on-girl action? Or is it better to believe it only happens when there's some dude there to videotape the action?

"All women"? Of course not. Any man (or woman, for that matter) who actually believes it is an idiot.

Having said that, I must point out that I had met a fair number of women who:

a) Preferred hetero sex, but only with a man they really liked
b) If they could not find a really good man, would sleep with each other rather than with some jerk man

What do you call women like that? "Lesbian by necessity"?

(Again, from what I saw, real dyed-in-the-wool dykes either hated above mentioned women, or tried to "fully convert" them -- generally in vain.)

Ivor the Engineer · 1st February 2010, 01:47 PM

Lesbian sex is less risky for a woman compared to heterosexual intercourse. Perhaps bisexual women are just responding to incentives?

Sledge · 1st February 2010, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this.

From experience, no there isn't. PUBLIC school boys might be reasonably infamous for it, but I don't know how much of that is actually true.

kellyb · 1st February 2010, 02:19 PM

My impression around 1995, in 11th grade, was that it suddenly became "trendy" to be bi.

ponderingturtle · 1st February 2010, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Why do you assume early man was organised into couples? I have no certainty about that at all. Do you have evidence for it? Seems to me that is modern imposition, but if I am wrong please show why. It does not even work all that well after millenia of social and cultural transmission of that as an ideal and supported by strong forces such as religion etc. Why do you think it was the usual arrangement in the past ?

It seems that couple bonding or polygyny are the most common forms of human bonding by far. It is not unreasonable that this would be the pattern in human prehistory.

ponderingturtle · 1st February 2010, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

My impression around 1995, in 11th grade, was that it suddenly became "trendy" to be bi.

No, see Queen.

There have been plenty of times that being bi was trendy, if only in some subcultures.

Thunder · 1st February 2010, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this.

really? i had no idea. i really saw no overt homosexual activity in my school.

...though I didn't hang out with the football players in the shower.

but this is interesting. clearly, male bi-sexuality is a lot less tolerated in our society. and yes, girl-on-girl action is a lot more accepted in our society, especially at parties and other social events, then guy on guy.

though, I still think there is something biological to the increased amount of female bi-sexuality then male bi-sexuality. i just can't prove it.

but i will!!!!! muhahahaha!!!

1st February 2010, 08:32 AM	#1
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Bi-sexuality in women? In the last decade there seems to be a marked increase in the number of women and girls who consider themselves to be "bi-sexual" or even "lesbian". Even in high school. Now, while I accept that lesbianism is real, and many women do indeed feel no sexual attraction to the male body and instead feel one towards fellow women, it seems to be that the growth in female bi-sexuality is less an issue of women coming out of the closet and expressing their long suppressed feelings, and more an issue of women's particular biology and social mindset. Women, are MUCH more social with each other then men. They support each other, very emotionally. They seek advice from each other, they comfort each other. They hug each other, a WHOLE lot more than men do to each other. Men are a much more independent creature, for whatever hunter/gatherer reasons, and women are clearly more of a group biology. So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me. And then, we have all these women gathering around, comforting each other on their issues with men. How mean and cruel and uncaring men are to them. How men only care about getting laid. How hard is to see women take all this to the next step and say: "hey, we all have trouble with men, why not just hang out with each other instead?" I can see it. I really can. How about you?
	Last edited by Thunder; 1st February 2010 at 08:34 AM.

1st February 2010, 08:40 AM	#2
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this. There's just a double standard when it comes to discussing it in public. Also, teenager = bundle of hormones. I'd say there's a good number of Daddy's money lesbians, or LUGs in college, but I can't really pin down why (also, "I'm a lesbian, but I keep sleeping with men!" which I chalk up to some people seriously straining credibility on actually being sentient organisms).
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Last edited by GreyICE; 1st February 2010 at 08:43 AM.

1st February 2010, 08:53 AM	#6
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by barrymore OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce? I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize. Exactly! That's why colony forming insects like ants or bees are all but extinct! No, wait ....
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

1st February 2010, 08:58 AM	#7
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by barrymore OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce? I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize. Really, does this nonsense have to come up every time anyone says the word 'homosexuality?'
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

1st February 2010, 09:00 AM	#8
CatInTheBag Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 92	Originally Posted by barrymore OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce? I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize. Because never, in all of history, have same sex couples had children, be it through surrogacy, artificial insemination, or just plain old ugly bumping.
CatInTheBag Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 92

1st February 2010, 08:47 AM	#3
barrymore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 267	OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce? I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

1st February 2010, 08:50 AM	#4
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Quote: So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me. A very far leap, if you ask me. One that I've never taken, and one that I'll never take. Because I'm just not sexually attracted to women. How far a leap is it for men hanging around together, playing aggressive sports, and getting all sweaty with each other to kissing and touching sexually?

1st February 2010, 08:53 AM	#5
Adam Ferguson Scholar Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: UK Posts: 52	Originally Posted by parky76 They hug each other, a WHOLE lot more than men do to each other. Interesting thesis, now visit a Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu club and see if you feel the same!

1st February 2010, 09:33 AM	#9
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,080	Kinsey said that bisexuality was just about as common in men. It's just still taboo. Probably always will be.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

1st February 2010, 09:35 AM	#10
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by barrymore I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I know a lot of lesbians who've managed to reproduce. Actual biological offspring! It's amazing. However did they do it...... Quote: I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize. Lesbians have managed to pass their genes on to offspring just fine, when they so choose. I don't understand the bit about passing on their knowledge or feelings (aside: how does one pass on feelings, and why would that even be important?) to kin, unless they proselytize. Somehow, proselytizing and kin just don't mix. I talk to my kin. It's actually socially acceptable to talk with one's kin on a regular basis. Preferable, actually. Oh wait. I'm guessing you think proselytizing is one step in the whole recruiting process that I've heard so much about, just never from actual gay men and women who are too busy living decent lives......

1st February 2010, 09:37 AM	#11
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by BenBurch Kinsey said that bisexuality was just about as common in men. It's just still taboo. Probably always will be. Kinsey was full of crap. It was groundbreaking crap that asked questions that no one had ever asked before, but it was still crap. The Kinsey scale is serious woo-woo. His guesses as to where people fall into that spectrum are a tad, um... nonsense. His idea that the population was distributed into each category on a kind of a bell curve because he liked that idea was terrible. ETA: seriously, not all statistical findings result in bell curves...
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Last edited by GreyICE; 1st February 2010 at 09:41 AM.

1st February 2010, 09:39 AM	#12
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,080	Originally Posted by GreyICE Kinsey was full of crap. It was groundbreaking crap that asked questions that no one had ever asked before, but it was still crap. The Kinsey scale is serious woo-woo. His guesses as to where people fall into that spectrum are a tad, um... nonsense. More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

1st February 2010, 09:45 AM	#13
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by BenBurch More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality. Oh come on. His guess was that 10% were purely het (0) and 10% were totally homo (6), and the rest were somewhere in the middle. It hurts just to think about. Seriously, find me some decent number of studies that back this idea up, somehow, somewhere. I admit that his idea of sexuality as fluid was groundbreaking, but his charts and numbers were very... um... innovative.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

1st February 2010, 10:21 AM	#14
barrymore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 267	Originally Posted by Rasmus Exactly! That's why colony forming insects like ants or bees are all but extinct! No, wait .... Please explain further. Fact: a group of lesbian women or a group of gay men would not be able to reproduce. So how would communities help? Originally Posted by GreyICE Really, does this nonsense have to come up every time anyone says the word 'homosexuality?' I share your disdain for those who rail against homosexuality. Fortunately, that was not the purpose of my argument. Originally Posted by CatInTheBag Because never, in all of history, have same sex couples had children, be it through surrogacy, artificial insemination, or just plain old ugly bumping. I am not interested in whether it happens or not. Of course, it does! What I am interested in (and what I addressed in my initial reply) is what the relationship is between homosexuality and evolution. Surrogacy and artificial insemination do not seem like strong enough reproduction methods compared to opposite sex couples who can multiply like wildfire on a whim (see: the Duggars). If you do not agree, please explain so that we can both understand better. Originally Posted by Sun Countess I know a lot of lesbians who've managed to reproduce. Actual biological offspring! It's amazing. However did they do it...... I was addressing homosexuality from a genealogical perspective. Some say that people are born gay and that it is "found" in the genes. I do not know--I am not arguing for or against either perspective. But if it is genealogical, any reproduction methods are going to affect the concentration of these genes, most likely in an adverse fashion. Quote: Lesbians have managed to pass their genes on to offspring just fine, when they so choose. I don't understand the bit about passing on their knowledge or feelings (aside: how does one pass on feelings, and why would that even be important?) to kin, unless they proselytize. Somehow, proselytizing and kin just don't mix. I talk to my kin. It's actually socially acceptable to talk with one's kin on a regular basis. Preferable, actually. I was referring to the flip-side of the homosexuality argument in this case: namely, that it arises from environmental and social factors. If homosexuals have less children than opposite-sex couples, it seems to me that environmental and social factors would be in favor of heterosexuality versus homosexuality, and given enough time, the world would become almost completely heterosexual. Again, this is IF the environmental/social explanation of sexuality is valid, which I am not arguing for or against. Based on that, I say that if natural societal factors are against homosexuality in an evolutionary sense, then the only way to fend for itself would be to actively discuss sexuality and encourage people to think about sexuality outside of the status quo (the SQ being heterosexuality). Proselytize may have been too strong of word--I was certainly not implying that legions of homosexual people are going out to try and convert heterosexuals (as we all know, the opposite is true). Quote: Oh wait. I'm guessing you think proselytizing is one step in the whole recruiting process that I've heard so much about, just never from actual gay men and women who are too busy living decent lives...... Get that crap out of here. I know this is a sensitive subject, but understand that I am trying to have a rather objective discussion about it. I do not use the terms "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian" in any derisive or superficial manner whatsoever, any more than calling someone a heterosexual merely means they have relationships with people of the opposite sex. It's a definition, not a pigeon-hole.
	Last edited by barrymore; 1st February 2010 at 10:26 AM.

1st February 2010, 10:22 AM	#15
patrick767 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 194	eh, the main difference is simply that female-female relationships are far more acceptable, at least in western society, than male-male. We all know that to many of we males, two women together is hot. Two men together is icky. I wonder how far back that double standard goes? The Old Testament says a man lying with a man is an abomination, but unless I'm mistaken doesn't have much to say about women lying together. hmm....
patrick767 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 194

1st February 2010, 10:26 AM	#16
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Ah, societal norms. Let me put it in laymen's terms: girl-on-girl action is hot, while a boy who has any sexual attraction to is own gender is gay (doesn't matter if he's also attracted to girls, trucks, guns, shoes, dead animals, or doorknobs...). Or something to that effect. Essentially, guys don't have as much leeway in their choice of sexuality, activities or occupation without catching teh ghey from the point of view of others.
	__________________ "Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert "My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast

1st February 2010, 10:30 AM	#17
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Originally Posted by patrick767 I wonder how far back that double standard goes? The Old Testament says a man lying with a man is an abomination, but unless I'm mistaken doesn't have much to say about women lying together. hmm.... If I recall correctly, the standard ancient concept of reproduction is that women only serve as a receptacle for men's seed. Thus man-on-man action is wasting sacred sperm in vain (thus God gets quite irate), while women together, well, they're just lying together. Nothing sacred is wasted.
	__________________ "Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert "My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast

1st February 2010, 10:42 AM	#18
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by barrymore Based on that, I say that if natural societal factors are against homosexuality in an evolutionary sense, then the only way to fend for itself would be to actively discuss sexuality and encourage people to think about sexuality outside of the status quo (the SQ being heterosexuality). Homosexuality doesn't have to "fend for itself." The vast vast majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples. And toward what end would anybody want to "encourage" somebody to think about sexuality outside the status quo? Homosexuality can't be passed on through any amount of encouragement. And it's not passed on genetically through homosexuals reproducing together. When you talk about gay people having to actively proselytize or encourage people to reconsider their own sexual orientation.....it might be giving other people the wrong idea about your feelings on homosexuality, is all I'm saying. It's not like all the gay people in the world want everyone else to be gay, or want only their "gay genes" to be passed on. But even if everybody suddenly became homosexual, do you think human reproduction would just cease? You said you saw the advantage in a small portion of homosexual men in a given ancient society, so they could help with hunting and protection. Do you not see another advantage in having a small portion of lesbian women in that same ancient society to help with childrearing? Women used to die pretty regularly during pregnancy and childbirth.

1st February 2010, 10:45 AM	#19
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by parky76 So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me. And then, we have all these women gathering around, comforting each other on their issues with men. How mean and cruel and uncaring men are to them. How men only care about getting laid. How hard is to see women take all this to the next step and say: "hey, we all have trouble with men, why not just hang out with each other instead?" I can see it. I really can. How about you? How many men really believe that all women are just one pillow fight away from girl-on-girl action? Or is it better to believe it only happens when there's some dude there to videotape the action? And what exactly goes on at all those mens only clubs and gyms? Hmmmm.....I can picture it. I really can. How about you?

1st February 2010, 11:24 AM	#21
barrymore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 267	Originally Posted by Sun Countess Homosexuality doesn't have to "fend for itself." The vast vast majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples. Everything has to fend for itself in an evolutionary sense. ceteris paribus, if something is even marginally less conducive to reproduction than something else, then it will lose out. That is what I am saying. There is no moralizing involved here. I only refer to homosexuality because that is what was presented originally; we could easily talk about sexuality in general as it relates to evolution, and I would get on all the same. Quote: And toward what end would anybody want to "encourage" somebody to think about sexuality outside the status quo? Homosexuality can't be passed on through any amount of encouragement. And it's not passed on genetically through homosexuals reproducing together. The minority always has incentive to question the views of the status quo, if they wish to have greater acceptance. Right now, the status quo in many parts of the world is to suppress homosexuality, regard it as deviancy, and claim that heterosexuality is the "right" thing. Not only does the homosexual minority want to encourage a discussion on sexuality to secure a better life for themselves, but they also want to strengthen the ranks by encouraging people who really are homosexual to recognize that and not feel they have to hide it due to the strength, and sometimes brutality, of the status quo. Quote: When you talk about gay people having to actively proselytize or encourage people to reconsider their own sexual orientation.....it might be giving other people the wrong idea about your feelings on homosexuality, is all I'm saying. It's not like all the gay people in the world want everyone else to be gay, or want only their "gay genes" to be passed on. But even if everybody suddenly became homosexual, do you think human reproduction would just cease? I understand that people may get the wrong idea, and I regret that. However, someone having the wrong idea does nothing to address my argument. If I am wrong, I would be happy to know why. This has nothing to do with my "beliefs" on sexuality, because I nearly have none--people can do whatever the hell they want. If everybody became homosexual, there would obviously be an evolutionary mechanism in place for that to happen in the first place, so no reproduction would not just cease. But anyways, evolution of a species cannot be considered in isolation just on that species--it must always be considered relative to something (the natural environment, other species, whatever). So the reproduction of this group depends on the environment as a whole, not just on reproduction methods. Quote: You said you saw the advantage in a small portion of homosexual men in a given ancient society, so they could help with hunting and protection. Do you not see another advantage in having a small portion of lesbian women in that same ancient society to help with childrearing? Women used to die pretty regularly during pregnancy and childbirth. I was referring to opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. Typically, the males would go out and hunt, while the women would stay back and tend to the household. Plus, males are more effective at providing security. And the couples could reproduce whenever they want. A lesbian couple would most likely be at a disadvantage in the hunting and security part, thus putting them at an evolutionary disadvantage. A male-male couple would probably fend better because it is easier for a male to take care of the household than it is for a woman to hunt effectively. However, both couples are reproductively challenged, which puts them at a further disadvantage.
	Last edited by barrymore; 1st February 2010 at 11:27 AM.

1st February 2010, 11:32 AM	#22
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by BenBurch More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality. He also seemed to have seriously biased his sample group.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

1st February 2010, 11:36 AM	#23
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by barrymore Please explain further. Fact: a group of lesbian women or a group of gay men would not be able to reproduce. So how would communities help? Um that is not a fact, for it to be a fact it would have to be true, and it isn't. It is entirely possible for two people who are not attracted sexualy to eachother very much and would not want to form a pair bond, to have sexual intercourse for the purposes of pregnancy an procreation. Now you could argue that their history makes them bi, but then there would be very few homsexuals as it is not that remarkable for them to have had heterosexual relationships first after all.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

1st February 2010, 11:43 AM	#24
barrymore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 267	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Um that is not a fact, for it to be a fact it would have to be true, and it isn't. It is entirely possible for two people who are not attracted sexualy to eachother very much and would not want to form a pair bond, to have sexual intercourse for the purposes of pregnancy an procreation. Now you could argue that their history makes them bi, but then there would be very few homsexuals as it is not that remarkable for them to have had heterosexual relationships first after all. I may have misunderstood you the first time. I took you to imply that communities of lesbian women or gay men (mutually exclusive) could reproduce. Clearly they could not. If you did not mean this, how is your example different from modern society? Of course if there were only gay couples (woman-woman and male-male, but no woman-male) they could reproduce. I am not arguing otherwise. But there would have to be some mechanism for that state to exist in the first place! I am arguing that the mechanism is the exact opposite, if anything.
	Last edited by barrymore; 1st February 2010 at 11:44 AM.

1st February 2010, 11:45 AM	#25
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by barrymore I may have misunderstood you the first time. I took you to imply that communities of lesbian women or gay men (mutually exclusive) could reproduce. Clearly they could not. If you did not mean this, how is your example different from modern society? How could you ever get a comunity of exclusively gay men? What happened to create that? You know that a community of strictly heterosexual women couldn't reproduce either, clearly there is some evolutionary problem with heterosexuality. This is your straw comunity you explain it.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

1st February 2010, 12:00 PM	#26
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb? How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits?
	__________________ My Blog.

1st February 2010, 12:01 PM	#27
barrymore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 267	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle How could you ever get a comunity of exclusively gay men? What happened to create that? You know that a community of strictly heterosexual women couldn't reproduce either, clearly there is some evolutionary problem with heterosexuality. This is your straw comunity you explain it. My whole argument is based on evolution favoring heterosexuals, why would I claim that a one-sex or two-sex homosexual society could exist? The only times I have mentioned it is in response to others in an effort to make sense of unclear arguments (such as Rasmus' remark about colonies). Evolution just does not kill stuff off because it wants to. I am arguing there is a mechanism for which homosexuality is evolutionarily disadvantaged. Nowhere am I saying some whirly-gig God in the sky is going kill all of them off just because he does not agree with it. I do not see anywhere in the mechanism that I have proposed where there would only be one-sex heterosexuals left. If there is, point it out. If there is not, let's get on with arguing instead of putting words in others' mouths.
	Last edited by barrymore; 1st February 2010 at 12:02 PM.

1st February 2010, 12:09 PM	#28
barrymore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 267	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb? How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits? Well, it depends on what the source of the hormones is, of course. Evolution does not have to work directly on a sexuality gene if sexuality is causally correlated with other genetic traits.

1st February 2010, 12:20 PM	#29
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,175	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb? How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits? What you're suggesting isn't a situation in which genes are irrelevant to determining sexuality, but a situation in which it isn't solely the genes of the individual. For example, hormone production levels by the mother have a genetic component, and the fetus would almost certainly have a genetic component to their sensitivity to hormones. If sexuality is biological, then there's a genetic component to it, even if that component is not simple (ie, arising out of complex interactions of many genes), even if it depends on the genetics of the mother as well, and even if it depends on environmental factors external to both mother and fetus.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st February 2010, 12:34 PM	#30
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by barrymore If everybody became homosexual, there would obviously be an evolutionary mechanism in place for that to happen in the first place, so no reproduction would not just cease. But anyways, evolution of a species cannot be considered in isolation just on that species--it must always be considered relative to something (the natural environment, other species, whatever). So the reproduction of this group depends on the environment as a whole, not just on reproduction methods. Yes. Quote: I was referring to opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. Typically, the males would go out and hunt, while the women would stay back and tend to the household. Plus, males are more effective at providing security. And the couples could reproduce whenever they want. Can you cite for the idea that men would "typically go out and hunt". That is not my understanding of how hunter/gatherer societies operate, and I see no reason why it should have been that way in the past. Most such societies get about 80% of their food from gathering and there is no inherent advantage for one gender or the other. Big game is often scavenged, not killed: and small game is a more usual source of meat. So unless you can demonstrate how and why early man lived differently from those kinds of societies today, I think your premise about gender differences and their implications is at best over-egged. The fact is we do not know and we cannot generalise in this way. What about the development of agriculture: do you suppose that the situation vis-a-vis gender stayed the same? In many agricultural societies there is more division of labour but most of the food is produced by the farmer and very often the farmer is female: it is women's work in fact. The diivision of labour is a feature of settled communities, not of hunter gatherer societies. Both kinds of societies are very variable and the idea of "man the hunter and protector" is a modern imposition with little or no evidence to sustain it. But let us suppose you are correct: how then do the males provide security given they are away hunting? Perhaps you believe that some of the men stayed home to fight off predators and other groups? In that case the product of the hunt must be held in common by the group: and so must the gathered food. That being the case women are not disadvantaged in any inherent way because they are part of the group: again it seems to me your scenario only has the implications you attribute to it because you assume a hierarchical division of property which is not a feature of hunter/gatherer societies. Is there some other organisation which has the results you assume and which is evidenced? Or let me take the kind of thinking you propose a stage further: the men who hunt are away a lot and some other men stay home for "security". Who do you think is likely to reproduce more? Just at a guess? On your reasoning the "hunting gene" might well be at a significant disadvantage, don't you think? I wonder why they did not die out. As you say "couples could reproduce whenever they want......" And nothing propinks like propinquity, I am told. Oh and while we are on the subject, how much choice about reproduction do you think early man and early woman actually had? How was that organised? Was it the same in all places and over all prehistoric times? Quote: A lesbian couple would most likely be at a disadvantage in the hunting and security part, thus putting them at an evolutionary disadvantage. Why do you assume early man was organised into couples? I have no certainty about that at all. Do you have evidence for it? Seems to me that is modern imposition, but if I am wrong please show why. It does not even work all that well after millenia of social and cultural transmission of that as an ideal and supported by strong forces such as religion etc. Why do you think it was the usual arrangement in the past ? Or let us imagine game hunting was a major source of food in some places at some times (say in the far north where the development of a much more pure carnivorous diets was environmentally determined, perhaps) then what is it that makes a lesbian woman less able to participate than a man? What is it about fishing that makes men better at it? Is it their superior stamina? their enhanced ability to withstand the cold because of the extra layer of fat? ...oh wait. I can quite see a pregnant woman has a problem: but on your scenario the lesbian is not pregnant. The only mechanism I can see which would exclude the lesbian from a hunt is social gender norms. A big game hunt might be a rite of passage for boys and not for girls, I suppose: but that is not day to day stuff and we do not know when it developed nor if it was universal: there is evidence to suggest it is not, and that at least in some places hunting is not gendered. Quote: A male-male couple would probably fend better because it is easier for a male to take care of the household than it is for a woman to hunt effectively. However, both couples are reproductively challenged, which puts them at a further disadvantage. For reasons given I think this needs to be established from the bottom up: I do not accept your premises so I cannot accept your conclusion But there is another problem with your reasoning which arises from the same source, I think. Hunter gatherer societies are usually small groups and often nomadic. Too many mouths to feed in relation to the productive members is not conducive to survival of the group. And without the group the individual will not survive, for we are a social species. Homosexuals are of positive value for this reason. Even if homosexuality is genetic it is perfectly possible that the group survives better with a proportion of homosexuals and their genes are passed on because they are related to the heterosexual members who also carry those genes. There is no reason at all why they would die out, that I can see.
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

1st February 2010, 12:48 PM	#31
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Originally Posted by Ziggurat What you're suggesting isn't a situation in which genes are irrelevant to determining sexuality, but a situation in which it isn't solely the genes of the individual. For example, hormone production levels by the mother have a genetic component, and the fetus would almost certainly have a genetic component to their sensitivity to hormones. If sexuality is biological, then there's a genetic component to it, even if that component is not simple (ie, arising out of complex interactions of many genes), even if it depends on the genetics of the mother as well, and even if it depends on environmental factors external to both mother and fetus. While I agree there can be (and often is) a genetic susceptibility or component to many conditions and behaviours, what if it were found women who eat a lot of oranges in weeks 6-8 of pregnancy have a much higher probability of producing homosexual offspring, while those who eat a lot of apples produce mostly heterosexual offspring? In this case how would it be useful to think of sexuality as being primarily determined by genes?
	__________________ My Blog.

1st February 2010, 12:51 PM	#32
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Originally Posted by Fiona <snip> But there is another problem with your reasoning which arises from the same source, I think. Hunter gatherer societies are usually small groups and often nomadic. Too many mouths to feed in relation to the productive members is not conducive to survival of the group. And without the group the individual will not survive, for we are a social species. Homosexuals are of positive value for this reason. Even if homosexuality is genetic it is perfectly possible that the group survives better with a proportion of homosexuals and their genes are passed on because they are related to the heterosexual members who also carry those genes. There is no reason at all why they would die out, that I can see. Not a proponent of the selfish gene theory?
	__________________ My Blog.

1st February 2010, 01:10 PM	#33
barrymore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 267	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer While I agree there can be (and often is) a genetic susceptibility or component to many conditions and behaviours, what if it were found women who eat a lot of oranges in weeks 6-8 of pregnancy have a much higher probability of producing homosexual offspring, while those who eat a lot of apples produce mostly heterosexual offspring? In this case how would it be useful to think of sexuality as being primarily determined by genes? Well, that is certainly a possibility I suppose, in which case an evolutionary mechanism relating to sexuality would not be valid. I am not disputing that. I am proposing a mechanism if sexuality is genetic (directly or indirectly). I will do a literature search myself and take a look at what is out there.
	Last edited by barrymore; 1st February 2010 at 01:52 PM.

1st February 2010, 01:31 PM	#34
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	Originally Posted by Sun Countess How many men really believe that all women are just one pillow fight away from girl-on-girl action? Or is it better to believe it only happens when there's some dude there to videotape the action? "All women"? Of course not. Any man (or woman, for that matter) who actually believes it is an idiot. Having said that, I must point out that I had met a fair number of women who: a) Preferred hetero sex, but only with a man they really liked b) If they could not find a really good man, would sleep with each other rather than with some jerk man What do you call women like that? "Lesbian by necessity"? (Again, from what I saw, real dyed-in-the-wool dykes either hated above mentioned women, or tried to "fully convert" them -- generally in vain.)
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

1st February 2010, 01:47 PM	#35
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Lesbian sex is less risky for a woman compared to heterosexual intercourse. Perhaps bisexual women are just responding to incentives?
	__________________ My Blog.

1st February 2010, 02:18 PM	#36
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by GreyICE Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this. From experience, no there isn't. PUBLIC school boys might be reasonably infamous for it, but I don't know how much of that is actually true.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.