With regards non-human animals, isn't availability also a factor? For example, a zoo may have an enclosure with only male canaries. Since the drive to pair up and perform the act of sex is still there, some will become attracted to other males. ...Just a thought.
Evolution and Homosexuality in species
by PopeOfEruke 17 Replies latest social relationships
-
-
Leolaia
Richard Dawkins weighs in on this topic:
-
frankiespeakin
I have a couple of theorys about homosexuality and evolution, one being that we are closely related to the bonobo chimps ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo ) who use sex not just for procreation but for social intereaction, they give oral sex to one another, just like we say hello, or they use sex to calm one another, make peace. So before we had settled down into villages as a result of learning to grow crops, which made written laws come into existence, which happened some 10,000 yrs ago, we were mainly hunter gatherers with no governments, no laws, always on the move in troups like chimps, we had no moral codes with reguards sex and marriage, or homosexuality. So sex among homo sapiens was much more frequent, and much more casual, without the taboos of modern society, no doubt like the chimps our nearest relative, males with males, females with females with no hint of: "what will the neighbors say?" in that type of setting being gay really won't hurt our abilities to procreate.
I know that there are some who are homosexual in the very strict sense of the term and are only turned on by members of the same sex and feel disgusted at the thought of sex with the opposite gender, this could still pose no problem IMO.
-
Leolaia
frankiespeakin....Wow, I was thinking precisely about the bonobos too, and how they demonstrate that sex has social functions beyond mere reproduction, but didn't bother to write that up. I also question the erasure of bisexuality in the implicit binary of homosexuality-heterosexuality, and wonder why we are not asking why strict heterosexuality should be considered more advantageous than a flexible bisexuality?
-
frankiespeakin
Leo,
All great minds think alike.
I think the rut we fall into is failure to recognize the role society and subsiquent concepts formed by society over the past 15,000-10,000 yrs has played on our sexual behaivior as a species. In a "no laws" "no shame" on the move hunter gather existance maybe the very strict form of homosexuality would hardly exist because sex was much more causual and mater of fact. But even if it was in existance it could hardly be expected to keep a strictly female homosexual from getting insemenated when she was in heat.
-
frankiespeakin
I think we have to figure in the fact that when we became agricultural, and started to settle into villages, this also lead to a further polerizing of the sexes, and monogamous relationships, where the female would need the male to do the more physically harder work to aviod miscarriages, which lead to male dominance, imaginary ownership of land, etc... add all these factors in too, or subtract them if we are talking pre-agricultural. When we look at the human species and it evolution and homosexuality we need to take note that roles of male and female is not set in stone, but serve a purpose that varries according to the type of existence we have at different times.
-
startingover
Just posting so I can find this very interesting thread again.
-
Fisherman
I do not think that aggression in human males or abundant tetesterone has anything to do with homosexuality. Such preferred sexuality occurs in both agressive and less agressive males. Temperament or genetic personality does not influence sexual preference either in my opinion.
While theoretically, aggresive males are in danger of dying in a fight, less agressive males are in danger of loosing what they do not defend or protect, even their life. However, I do not think that agrresssion has anything to do with human masculinity.
Because of their fireceness bulls killed in the arena. Wiser men use agrresive men, puting them in the arena.
I think that aggression is a weakness(the atom bomb). A powerful man is a clever one who is always in control of his emotions and his anger, he will defeat his adversary knowing how to deal with him and avoiding injury to himself.
Virtues are not feminine traits A fierce and agrresive man can be put to death at a distance without physical confrontation with an atom bomb or with some projectile at a safe distace from a less aggresive man.
Why do some people prefer homosexuality? I haven't a clue, but I think that such behavior is not influenced by other human traits and if such preference is genetically passed on (No conclusive proof that it is) I do not think that it is intgegrated with other traits. I think that a person can be very aggresive and homosexual or very passive and be very heterosexual. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
IT is the wisest that survives not the aggresive.