From: Chris Taylor (christ@ebi.ac.uk)
Date: Tue 01 Mar 2005 - 12:59:58 GMT
Fantastic {applauds loudly}.
Even rounded off with a nice analogy. Superb analysis.
Cheers, Chris.
Peter Baker wrote:
> In message <200502281850.SAA24389@localhost.localdomain>,
> fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk writes
>
>> But the animal should always prefer an opposite sex partner unless the
>> homosexual behavior has some adaptive function other than breeding.
>> This function may be to practice sexual skills without being pregnant,
>> or it may be to form alliances, or whatever.
>
>
> Obviously if the most frequent function of sex were procreation, then
> one would expect a partner of the opposite sex to be strongly selected
> for... But is it the most frequent use of sex?
>
> Given our own personal experience of the matter it is so strange that
> people still have this biblical view that sex is 99% for procreation,
> and 1% for sin, or other marginal reasons. Look at it this way... How
> many times does the average human have sex in a lifetime? At a very
> rough guess, once a week for 50 years? Say 2500 times in all? And how
> many children on average? 2.5? So procreation accounts for about 0.1% of
> human sexual activity. What the hell were we doing it for all the rest
> of the time? And if it wasn't for procreation, then does it matter
> whether it is with a partner of the same or different sex?
>
> Only if there is an adaptive benefit... and what Bagemihl shows
> (ignoring the shortcomings you mention) is that evolution favours
> diversity on this issue. Many, if not all mammals - including us - have
> the potential for bisexual activity and relationships, and we swing one
> way or the other as the situation requires. As humans, our MEMETIC
> makeup may predispose us to deny it (and as an aside there is good
> scientific evidence that closet bisexuals are the most vociferous in
> promoting anti-gay memes) - but that doesn't change the fact that we are
> all bisexual.
>
> I think my point here is to challenge the assumption that we need to
> explain homosexual behaviour MORE than we need to explain other
> non-procreative sex. Homosexual behaviour is less frequent than
> heterosexual behaviour, that's all. But orders of magnitude more
> frequent than procreative sexual activity. I suspect if we sat down and
> seriously thought about why we personally do what we do, and listed all
> the uses we put sex to - (yes, you!)... wanting to get/keep a partner;
> peace making (nothing like making love after an argument!); conversely,
> avoiding an argument with an amorous partner; showing off to one's mates
> (and if a guy having non-procreative sex with a woman in order to
> impress his mates isn't homosexual behaviour, I don't know what is!),
> showing off to oneself; indulging an unobtainable fantasy; 'scratching
> an itch'; or as a substitute for a good wank (pleasurable, and you might
> know how to do it better yourself, but of low memetic status)... I think
> we would find that when it comes down to it, most of the reasons for sex
> with someone of the same sex are the same as for with one of the
> opposite. We are not so different as some memes lead us to think.
> [Particularly those originating with a certain celibate brotherhood in
> Rome, but I've covered promotion of anti-gay memes above, so enough.] In
> fact - the memes in our heads are the largest difference we have, far
> greater than our biological diversity when it comes to sexual orientation.
>
> The problem lies in thinking that procreation is still the 'main' reason
> for sex. Feathers may have evolved to keep dinosaurs warm, but do we
> feel the need to explain the outrageous use that birds find for them?
> And in our puzzlement at such unorthodox use, would we suggest that one
> reason birds fly is in order to keep their feathers in trim for a cold
> night?
>
> :-)
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Taylor (christ@ebi.ac.uk) HUPO PSI: GPS -- psidev.sf.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 01 Mar 2005 - 13:17:01 GMT