Why Homosexuality is Natural and Important

[+ Gar1eth]

To the extent it's genetic/biological, the mechanism is probably more complex than that. Also, absence in your parents' generation doesn't mean it can't be genetic.

 

But I think environment does play some role. We had a discussion about family I instigated here on the Forum a long time ago. It might have been before you were a member. But my family fits a lot of the stereotypes. My Dad was a traveling salesman. He was home some -I mean he was never gone weeks at a time, but, and it's hard to remember because by high school and college he wasn't traveling as much, he was often gone at least three days a week. He may not have been gone every week. But it occurred several times a month. And even when Dad was home, my Mom was the more dominant figure. It's not that my Dad was hen-pecked or anything. But Mom on the whole was the disciplinarian. So in my family, the one we were scared of crossing was my Mom and not my Dad. And when Dad was home-I don't remember us doing a whole lot together. He wasn't into sports. We didn't do a lot of father son things. Part of this might have been my fault. But I can remember thinking that the Harry Chapin song 'Cats In The Cradle' described our relationship.

 

.

 

Maybe it was a perfect storm-Dad being absent a lot and me having an inborn inclination for men all acting together.

 

 

 

Another possible factor for me is that my Mom was in danger of miscarrying. She was on bed rest for months. I think she was put on hormones. I wouldn't be surprised if she had been put on DES-but I don't know. If she was on homones, I wonder how that might have influenced things.

 

Gman

[+ SundayZip]

Regarding the nature vs nurture origins of homosexuality, I read an article a few years ago (it might have been in Psychology Today) that said something like this: The level of same-sex sexual attraction is likely to be mostly genetic, but how open and willing an individual is to exploring the full range of their sexual orientation is likely to be mostly environmental.

 

This makes a lot of sense to me.

[mike carey]

but how open and willing an individual is to exploring the full range of their sexual orientation is likely to be mostly environmental.

I've always taken that to be the unknown and immeasurable aspects of the environment, not the cultural environment in which people grow up.

[AdamSmith]

I've always taken that to be the unknown and immeasurable aspects of the environment, not the cultural environment in which people grow up.

 

Agree -- not the upbringing environment, but the current adult situation -- e.g., enforced same-sex environments such as prison.

[Rod Hagen]

It's not just about humans though. It persists in numbers both in nature and humanity that we can't explain simply by mutation or, in human cases, the closet. It's a conundrum.

[Lookin]

Certainly worth all the tries at understanding, and I expect we're not too far from a workable hypothesis. Some of my own musings so far, for what they're worth:

 

- The brain's mechanism for sexual attraction is heavily influenced by the need for procreation, but not completely defined by it. I expect we'll find an area in the brain that's in charge of who (or what) we find sexually attractive. It probably developed as a method to ensure successful mating between opposite sexes but, once it was developed, it took on a life of its own. I know mine has. http://www.shredguitars.com/images/smilies/boner.gif

 

- The sexual attraction mechanism (I'll call it SAM for short) is replicated widely throughout the planet's species. Evolution often develops a capability, such as the ability to digest food or extract oxygen from the air, and uses those gene sequences over and over again across species, even though the gene sequences may be modified across species and over time.

 

- The sexual attraction mechanism (SAM) has a genetic component, but it's also influenced by environmental conditions. Sexual attraction may have its genetic origin in procreation, but it has a need to be expressed and provides pleasurable feedback when it is, without being overly fussy about the particular circumstances (again speaking from personal experience http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif). There seem to be numerous incidents of folks enjoying their first sexual encounter so much that they try to replicate it throughout their lives.

 

- SAM is more flexible than many think. There are some species that actually change sex during their lifetimes, so the mechanism for attraction and eventual mating must be able to adapt to those changing conditions. If the mechanism for flexibility and adaptation is built into SAM for one species, it would be difficult to imagine that it wouldn't be built into SAM for most, if not all, other species.

 

- SAM is persistent in our genetic makeup. It won't disappear immediately if someone loses access to members of the opposite sex. For example, if human procreation would henceforth take place entirely in petrie dishes in labs, SAM would still hang on as part of our genetic makeup. It may atrophy over many generations, but I can't imagine that it would disappear completely or lose its flexibility. One never knows what tomorrow may bring.

 

- There may come a time when abundant procreation is not in the best interests of survival of the species. With earth-threatening numbers, humans may be close to that point now. I've long felt that homosexuality may be a survival mechanism for those times when our numbers threaten our existence. But we don't want to lose the SAM entirely as it will no doubt come in handy some day when our numbers decline. I don't think it's happenstance that homosexuality is becoming an acceptable, perhaps desirable, trait these days. However, if we were to wipe out a significant proportion of the human race, I expect homosexuality would become far less widespread and socially acceptable.

 

- Evolution is not finished yet. Things are always changing. Predictability and certainty in a species, or in any of its components, is probably a sign that its days are numbered. The ability to adapt to new conditions, however disruptive, is what keeps life going. At least it keeps my life going.

 

http://www.yattermatters.com/wp/wp-content/images/2013/03/Old-Lady-Shocked.jpg

 

These thoughts are all fun little exercises in a never-ending attempt to understand what's going on in the universe. I sure can't prove any of this stuff. But one of my favorite filters for such hypotheses is "How could it not be true?" So far, the thoughts above have passed that test, at least for me. More to follow, no doubt.

[AdamSmith]

- The sexual attraction mechanism (I'll call it SAM for short)

 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1375473010_samiam.jpg

 

Couldn't resist!

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv244/samsizzly/drseus2.jpg

 

[+ FreshFluff]

Lookin, you've made excellent points, many of which I agree with. However, consistent with..

These thoughts are all fun little exercises in a never-ending attempt to understand what's going on in the universe. I sure can't prove any of this stuff. But one of my favorite filters for such hypotheses is "How could it not be true?"

 

 

Sexual attraction may have its genetic origin in procreation, but it has a need to be expressed and provides pleasurable feedback when it is, without being overly fussy about the particular circumstances (again speaking from personal experience http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif).

 

This is true....for men. Women, on the other hand, are hypergamous (i.e. fussy about the person and the circumstances). A few studies have nibbled around the edges of this, but AFAIK, none have decisively rejected this particular hypothesis. I'd be interested to see how this works with lesbians; I'll bet that you see a lot of partners who are well matched in education and income level, with little regard for appearance and other superficial factors.

 

That's not to say women don't have casual sex. But even there, they are highly fussy about the circumstances and often sleep with men far above their league. (They can do so since the straight market for casual sex is a seller's market.) Some interpret this as an attempt to force the cuckolded beta male to support a child with the alpha male's genes. But if that were the case, we'd see partnered women having more casual sex than single ones, which doesn't appear to be the case. Instead, I think it's an attempt to play the lottery: There's always a chance that, if she becomes pregnant, the man would fall in love with the child and perhaps her as well. I believe that this phenomenon existed long before society forced men to support their offspring.

 

There seem to be numerous incidents of folks enjoying their first sexual encounter so much that they try to replicate it throughout their lives.

 

Again, this is very common..for men. That's why fetish forums where people discuss obsessions with stockings, shoes, and various other minutiae (possibly from their first sexual experiences) are dominated by men. I have yet to hear of a woman trying to replicate her first sexual experience, though that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

My feeling is that, in general, women's sexuality is far more malleable than men's. She wants missionary, but her mate prefers to bend her over a table? Fine. Mate's been whining about wanting to go down on her? OK, go for it. He's going to Scores every night? No problem, just use a condom and don't fall in love with some stripper (thus diverting resources to someone else's kids). Historically, females had to put the male's ravenous appetite for sex above hers, as his satisfaction was crucial to assuring her own survival and that of her children.

[Lookin]

Really good points, FreshFluff, and many thanks. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.png You're absolutely right that some of my thoughts were oriented towards males, most especially the one you cited. Even with women though, I expect the sexual attraction mechanism and the pleasure mechanism exist alongside the procreational function, and the pleasure involved is highly desirable in its own right. Although it makes sense that these mechanisms would have some differences between men and women.

 

As you say, many of our evolutionary traits took hold many hundreds and even thousands of generations ago and may not fit today's societies comfortably. One of my favorite reads, The Moral Animal focuses on evolutionary psychology and often refers to traits that made lots of sense in a hunter-gatherer society, and perhaps not so much today. But genes don't change overnight, so the genetic components of these traits persist.

 

One of the key observations the author makes is that there's a significant difference between men and women in terms of the opportunities they have to get their genes into the next generation: a man could theoretically have thousands of children, and a woman is going to top out at a dozen or so. He says that's why women are choosier about their mates both in terms of physical attributes as well as their commitment to stick around and see that their kids have kids of their own. Her evolutionary interests are best served by being in it for the long haul, and his evolutionary interests are served by gathering rosebuds while he may. That doesn't mean that there aren't concessions made on both sides, and it doesn't mean that society won't try to stick its nose in. It's just that there's an evolutionary tailwind behind the woman who wants commitment and the man who wants a lot of different partners.

 

And, even if you find these hypotheses make sense in terms of best getting your genes into the next generation, I think there are still the independent sexual attraction mechanism as well as the pleasure mechanism that puts a smile on our face when we reach orgasm.

 

http://www.writtalin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/tumblr_lef4acYU5y1qg1wx2o1_1280.jpg

 

I think those mechanisms exist separate from the desire to procreate and I'm sure they are just as robust in lesbians as they are in every other warmblooded animal I can think of.

 

Your observation about women not trying to repeat their first sexual encounters is very interesting, and one I hadn't thought much about. Another piece to fit into the puzzle, and I thank you!

 

Your point about differences between men and women as far as sexual malleability is another interesting one. It makes sense but I think it might have more exceptions than some other generalizations. Within gay male couples, I can think of some who are more willing to bend with the breeze than others. And I've found that true for me as well, as the years go by. I started out pretty limited in what I'd do and became more flexible over time. In fact, I once became so malleable that a full day went by until I was back on my feet again. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

And, of course, making this all the harder to tease out is the number of exceptions to every generality. I think generalities are well worth pursuing and refining as they lead to insights, but the same can be said for the exceptions. I guess once you stumble onto a hypothesis with absolutely no exceptions, you've got a rule. And we all know where that leads.

 

Sex Rules!

[+ Gar1eth]

Regarding the nature vs nurture origins of homosexuality, I read an article a few years ago (it might have been in Psychology Today) that said something like this: The level of same-sex sexual attraction is likely to be mostly genetic, but how open and willing an individual is to exploring the full range of their sexual orientation is likely to be mostly environmental.

 

This makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Yes and no-I mean I didn't feel my environment was welcoming. But I pretty much knew I had same sex attraction and decided definitely by the age of 25. However the environment didn't make have sex with women because I felt nothing for them sexually.

 

I've always taken that to be the unknown and immeasurable aspects of the environment, not the cultural environment in which people grow up.

 

Agree -- not the upbringing environment, but the current adult situation -- e.g., enforced same-sex environments such as prison.

 

I think environment encompasses known and unknown factors. I don't think Mike was talking about prison. Prison would be more external which is what he was denying.

 

The prison situation seems different to me-as it's not really because of homosexual desire aside from those who are gay of course. Stereotypically it would be due to stress of being confined, lack of female partners for release-ie being horny, need for dominance in a closed society, and I'm sure many other factors I don't know about.

 

Gman

[mike carey]

I don't think Mike was talking about prison.

Exactly, Gman. Not prison, or any other aspects of the environment in which we live as adults day to day. That would be down to choice of what sort of sexual activity people want or can get, not their inherent preferences. I don't even think that the environment a child lives in has an effect, or at least the parts of childhood we can remember as adults. I don't think we will ever know exactly what the factors are.

[+ quoththeraven]

I figured the contents of this new thread is worth posting here, as the article linked to in the first post is of relevance to some of the points raised here.

[sincitymix]

I've wondered about that myself. One explanation I thought of is that since most gays had to be closeted, they ended up in opposite-sex relationships and passed on their genes that way.

 

Is coming out and the acceptance of same-sex relationships going to be our extinction event?

 

On the other hand - no homosexuality in either of my parents, nor in their siblings, so that argues against a genetic component. Two of my parent's four children are gay.

Sometimes traits and genes can skip generations. using a vene diagram and blah blah blah recessive trait blah blah blah 1 in 4 or 1 in 20 chance blah blah... no homosexuality "or those that admit to it" in my mother and fathers family, but here I am.. so I am going to assume if I shake the family tree some gay fruit will fall off the tree

[sincitymix]

and perhaps homosexuality is just natures way of trying to lift the burden of overpopulation from the planet..

Hmm I think I read a short story about that somewhere.

[Rod Hagen]

and perhaps homosexuality is just natures way of trying to lift the burden of overpopulation from the planet..

Hmm I think I read a short story about that somewhere.

 

Probably the most important thing you can learn in Biology is that that is NOT how nature works. Nothing is ever for the good of nature, or the planet, or "for the good of the species." EVERYTHING is for the good of the individual, specifically the individual's genes.

[AdamSmith]

Probably the most important thing you can learn in Biology is that that is NOT how nature works. Nothing is ever for the good of nature, or the planet, or "for the good of the species." EVERYTHING is for the good of the individual, specifically the individual's genes.

 

Most brilliant exposition of that point that I've ever read was by Stanislaw Lem in his novella 'GOLEM XIV', available in his collection Imaginary Magnitude, wherein GOLEM, one in a series of supercomputers constructed by the military for war strategy, achieves consciousness. The book is in the form of a series of lectures by the computer explaining to mankind that our conception of ourselves at the 'pinnacle' of evolution is upside down, that evolution is a 'blind worm that creeps along doing the very least it can to continue its mission' (from memory), and that whereas we think that we, the transmitter and product of the genetic code, are the point of the code, actually it is the other way around:

 

THE MEANING OF THE TRANSMITTER IS THE TRANSMISSION.

SPECIES ORIGINATE FROM A MISTAKEN MISTAKE.

THE CONSTRUCTION IS LESS PERFECT THAN WHAT CONSTRUCTS.

 

The answer lies in these words, but you have yet to grasp its profound significance. Anything that is an organism must serve to transmit the code, and nothing more. That is why natural selection and elimination concentrate on this task exclusively — any idea of “progress” is no business of theirs! I have used the wrong image: the organisms are not structures but only scaffolding, which is precisely why every provisionality is a proper state, by virtue of being sufficient. Pass the code on, and you will live a little longer.

 

Full text of the first lecture here:

 

http://totse.mattfast1.com/en/ego/science_fiction/lect1.html

[+ honcho]

That reminded of another science fiction novel written even earlier:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adolescence_of_P-1

 

(the difference in this novel is that the *program* achieves consciousness and can migrate through multiple

host computers)

[AdamSmith]

That reminded of another science fiction novel written even earlier:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adolescence_of_P-1

 

Never heard of it. Thank you!

[Rod Hagen]

Most brilliant exposition of that point that I've ever read was by Stanislaw Lem in his novella 'GOLEM XIV', available in his collection Imaginary Magnitude, wherein GOLEM

 

Thank you. I look forward to exploring it. The best nonfiction book on the subject, and one of my top 5 books, lives here:

http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-30th-Anniversary-ebook/dp/B000SEHIG2/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

Ha! This amazon review by itself is reason enough to read Dawkins:

"

0 of 9 people found the following review helpful

2I highly disagree with the author's theory of the gene's ...

BySeieron August 6, 2015

Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

I highly disagree with the author's theory of the gene's. It is totally against Catholic beliefs. My son had to read it for college science class. He felt it crude and hard to read when it went against the faith that he believes. I personally read the entire book. I agree with my son. The author is egoistic knot-head. Very full of himself! I would burn the book, but I'll resell it and get my sons $ back!!!!!"

 

I love that she thinks the book is the devil's work, yet she's anxious to pass it on to poison someone else's mind and make some money in the process. that's fantastic.

[+ Gar1eth]

Thank you. I look forward to exploring it. The best nonfiction book on the subject, and one of my top 5 books, lives here:

http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-30th-Anniversary-ebook/dp/B000SEHIG2/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

Ha! This amazon review by itself is reason enough to read Dawkins:

"

0 of 9 people found the following review helpful

2I highly disagree with the author's theory of the gene's ...

BySeieron August 6, 2015

Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

I highly disagree with the author's theory of the gene's. It is totally against Catholic beliefs. My son had to read it for college science class. He felt it crude and hard to read when it went against the faith that he believes. I personally read the entire book. I agree with my son. The author is egoistic knot-head. Very full of himself! I would burn the book, but I'll resell it and get my sons $ back!!!!!"

 

I love that she thinks the book is the devil's work, yet she's anxious to pass it on to poison someone else's mind and make some money in the process. that's fantastic.

 

 

I read it years ago. I don't remember anything crude about it.

 

I'm sure the book would explain homosexuality by the making of related offspring more likely to survive. But that was mentioned as not being true earlier in this thread.

 

Maybe what happens is that a little homosexuality is good-call it homosexuality light-I could see how it might help social cohesion to maybe be a 2 or a 3 on the Kinsey Scale.

 

 

Gman