Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[Eos of the Eons]

That's not something anyone disputes. He explained them however in a way in which males and females take on specific roles "with the rarest of exceptions", which turn out to have quite a few exceptions.

Ah. Thank you.

Hardly a "terrible" mistake The guy was a pioneer, but not "all knowing". I was turned off of reading the article in the OP because of that. I prefer the video... It's in original form without any journalist putting a spin on it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The way I feel about people is an entirely different thing all together. It has nothing to do with hair colour, sexual preference or which side of the plate you bat from.

There is evidence that red hair is genetic, so we can preclude this as deviant."/quote]

Why? It is a deviation of the mode, why does it being genetically based matter?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Cuz homophobes don't want homosexuality to have a genetic basis?

 

[Furcifer]

Why? It is a deviation of the mode, why does it being genetically based matter?

Because of the definition. Deviance is by practice, not by trait.

 

[volatile]

Because of the definition. Deviance is by practice, not by trait.

There will be something about you, your behaviours, your genetic make-up or your preferences that places you outside of the "average" or the "norm". If you pick one trait (and one trait only), we can class anyone at all as "deviant". So why focus on homosexuality?

And more to the point: Why do you think this narrow focus is useful?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Genetics can cause traits to deviate from the norm. Traits can include behaviour.

 

[volatile]

Both Earthborn and John Hewitt IMHO have tip toed around an issue I recently had opportunity to debate with a psychology masters student. She vehemently objected to my classifying homosexuality as "deviant behavior".I made it clear that under no uncertain terms do I consider gays as deviants, I merely objected to the practice being thrust in my face as "normal".

I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I find myself objecting to anyone putting forth prejudices against anyone engaging in "deviant sexual behavior". The human animal is, under our current social standards, free to engage in sexual activities "between consenting adults".

Not acknowledging homosexuality for what it is seems to be a major stumbling block in eradicating prejudices. It's not "normal" but it's "acceptable", and so am I.

]

Thrust in your face? What on earth do you mean? No tip-toeing, now...

What re your criteria for deviance? They seem to be quantitative - that is, numbers matter - and normative - community in-group status matters. And so further to my last post, let's recast this rather horrible post:

"She vehemently objected to my classifying posting on web forums as "deviant behavior".I made it clear that under no uncertain terms do I consider those who post on web forums as deviants, I merely objected to the practice being thrust in my face as "normal".

I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I find myself objecting to anyone putting forth prejudices against anyone engaging in "deviant leisure-time behavior". The human animal is, under our current social standards, free to engage in leisure activities, incuding discssing topics on the internet "between consenting adults".

Not acknowledging posting on the internet for what it is seems to be a major stumbling block in eradicating prejudices. It's not "normal" but it's "acceptable", and so am I."

See how that sounds? You're in the considerable minority by posting on web discussion forums. We can, by your quantitative and normative standards, happily call you a "deviant", but of what utility is this?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I think we are quibbling over labels. Homosexuality is a "deviation" from heterosexuality, but it is not a "deviant" behaviour in a certain definition. Homosexuality is not just a "behavior", it's also physiological in nature when it comes to the system of attraction.

 

[Furcifer]

So why focus on homosexuality?

? Because it's the topic of this thread?

And more to the point: Why do you think this narrow focus is useful?

Because discussions always seem to devolve into "Well it ain't normal". As if "normal" is somehow right, and "not normal" is wrong. There are plenty of things that people do that aren't "normal", especially in the bedroom. Trying to drag it out of the closet as "normal" confuses the issue. It isn't about what's normal or not, it's about a persons right to chose.

The issue of whether it's genetic or not also confuses the issue. Who cares? Maybe it is or maybe it isn't. The thread is about what Darwin may have said. It seems he was smart enough to not touch it with a 10 foot pole. People have made some excellent observations as to why it might actually be genetic. I'm willing to entertain those ideas, but honestly I just don't see it. There are too many other factors involved. And I hope I'm right, because it just seems wrong to think a day could come where parents could chose a child's sexual orientation in vitro.

 

[volatile]

? Because it's the topic of this thread?

No... I meant... why are you talking about it being "thrust into your face"?

Because discussions always seem to devolve into "Well it ain't normal". As if "normal" is somehow right, and "not normal" is wrong. There are plenty of things that people do that aren't "normal", especially in the bedroom. Trying to drag it out of the closet as "normal" confuses the issue. It isn't about what's normal or not, it's about a persons right to chose.

Exactly. So why even bring up normalcy or deviance at all? You brought it up, and you brought it up to complain it was being "thrust in your face"...

The issue of whether it's genetic or not also confuses the issue. Who cares? Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

I agree.

 

[Furcifer]

Exactly. So why even bring up normalcy or deviance at all? You brought it up, and you brought it up to complain it was being "thrust in your face"...

I a sense that I have to be comfortable with someone else's sexual preferences or I'm not PC enough. I don't need to be comfortable with what you do in bed in order to treat you fairly as a person. There's an immediate assumption that if you aren't "comfortable" with it, you're against it. I think that assumption furthers the notion that if you're not comfortable with it you have to be against it. That just furthers the idea that if your not comfortable with it, you can't be comfortable with the person.

 

[volatile]

I a sense that I have to be comfortable with someone else's sexual preferences or I'm not PC enough. I don't need to be comfortable with what you do in bed in order to treat you fairly as a person. There's an immediate assumption that if you aren't "comfortable" with it, you're against it. I think that assumption furthers the notion that if you're not comfortable with it you have to be against it. That just furthers the idea that if your not comfortable with it, you can't be comfortable with the person.

Right, so one minute it doesn't matter, the next it makes you "uncomfortable"? Which is it?

What, exactly, do you find "uncomfortable" about homosexuality, and how can you spin that so it doesn't sound like you're against it? Spell it out.

 

[Furcifer]

Right, so one minute it doesn't matter, the next it makes you "uncomfortable"? Which is it?

What, exactly, do you find "uncomfortable" about homosexuality, and how can you spin that so it doesn't sound like you're against it? Spell it out.

I'm not comfortable with the thought of a man sexually pleasing another man. Especially by anal penetration. I just don't get it. It seems like an unfortunate compromise to the soft touch of a woman and a vagina. I think if I were gay I'd be considered a tease because I wouldn't go "all the way". I'd be one of those "Can't we just talk and get to know one another?" kinda guys. I'm not sure if there are those kinda guys, but there certainly seem to be women that are. There are a lot of women that are equally uncomfortable with anal sex. I think as a heterosexual male I'd be shutting a lot of doors if I told a woman "I love you, I want to be with you, but we're only going to have anal sex".

The rest of it makes sense. You love who you love, I'm not certain gender needs to play any role in that. It might even make more sense, given the similarities between the genders. Well maybe not more sense, but perhaps a little easier to find someone to share your life with.

I'm not sure if I've spelled this out for you or not?

 

[volatile]

I'm not comfortable with the thought of a man sexually pleasing another man. Especially by anal penetration. I just don't get it.

There are three thoughts here, all intermingled and mashed together rather confusingly.

The first is empathy - you "don't get it". That's fine. There are plenty of activities human being engage in that I "don't get" - horseriding, stamp collecting, enjoying Dan Brown novels - but I wouldn't say those things make me "feel uncomfortable", nor would I ever complain that equestrians or philatelists were "thrusting it" in my face. So there's something else going on here.

The second is disgust. "Especially by anal penetration". On that note, I suggest, and I'm serious, you buy yourself an anal toy and experiment with your own body to understand the drives and desires of others. The male g-spot,the prostate gland, is just inside the anus, and if you understood yourself just how pleasurable anal stimulation was, you'd come some way to losing your rather scornful attitude. Use lube, go slowly. It will be worth it.

The third is the most pernicious. In the first part of your reply, before we even get to anal sex, is "I'm not comfortable with the thought of a man sexually pleasing another man". This is blind prejudice, socially constructed with no legitimacy whatsoever. Why should you even care what other people get up, or how they sexually please each other? Why do you even think about it? And in what way, pray tell, can two people pleasing each other behind closed doors "make you feel uncomfortable"? How are they affecting your life or your delicate sensibilities just by doing exactly what you do, but in a different gender combination? I'm really struggling to understand your objection, or your choice of words.

"I don't understand". Fine. "It's not something I'm into personally". Fine. But when you start talking about feeling "comfortable", and making statements about homosexuality being "thrust in your face" which make it seem as if you're chastising others simply because of your own limp, vapid emotional failings, you really cross the line from tolerant into intolerant, from pluralist into normalist and from straight guy into bigot. You mention some "women being uncomfortable with idea of anal sex" - but this is, presumably, an unwillingness on their part to actually do it themselves, and not a directed, displaced and ultimately politicised disgust at someone else doing it, which is an attitude belied in your statements.

If the thought of gay sex makes you fee uncomfortable, that's your problem, and one you need to deal with. You have no right to complain about deviance or "thrusting" simply because you have been inculcated by a society that has moralistically demonised an entire section of society.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

We're all friends here, feel free to PM me if you need to talk.

I'm late to the party here but the central issue is altruism. To a biologist altruism is behavior which furthers the survival of genes in other organisms at the expense of the organism expressing that behavior - which can be a model hijacked as when the flu makes you sneeze flu viruses on other people - and is the underlying model by which altruism takes hold in social organisms.

Let's say Alice and Bill are sibling humans in an early tribal culture. Alice is a heterosexual young woman. Bill is a homosexual young man. Alice gets pregnant by Carl, an unrelated male who shall no longer be appearing in this narrative. This is not unusual, many fathers in many cultures and species either don't know which children are theirs or don't take special notice. On the other hand, the uncles and other male relatives of Alice are her close kin, have a genetic relationship to the baby, whom we will call Denise, and by taking time and care to raise Denise for a relatively small investment of resources help propagate the genes they share with Denise.

Something like 1/4 of the genes that make up Bill are expressed in Denise (It's a little more complex than that, but it'll do for a thumbnail sketch) and by taking a relatively small amount of time he can help those genes survive - including the genes that give him a propensity for altruism. Compared to a, presumably grass, skirt chasing male Bill would have less time devoted to mating and producing descendants, but relatively more time to develop to his kin.

Once you accept that kin altruism has a genetic component, the rest falls into place and you can see that an exclusively homosexual man or woman is not inexplicable. We wouldn't be here today at all if all our ancestors were strictly homosexual, but we wouldn't all be here if they were all philosophers, poets, priests, potters, planters, or painters. People do what they predisposed to enjoy doing, and it turns out our genetic history explains some of that variety. Variation in human activities is much more the rule in such self-aware and meta-cognizant animals than uniformity. In fact, if human sexual behavior were completely uniform that would be a freak of nature. Practically all animal species have been observed to have homosexual sex, probably because they enjoy it.

Big surprise.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because of the definition. Deviance is by practice, not by trait.

Where is this definition you are using anyway? It seems a rather deviant definition to me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not comfortable with the thought of a man sexually pleasing another man. Especially by anal penetration. I just don't get it. It seems like an unfortunate compromise to the soft touch of a woman and a vagina. I think if I were gay I'd be considered a tease because I wouldn't go "all the way". I'd be one of those "Can't we just talk and get to know one another?" kinda guys. I'm not sure if there are those kinda guys, but there certainly seem to be women that are. There are a lot of women that are equally uncomfortable with anal sex. I think as a heterosexual male I'd be shutting a lot of doors if I told a woman "I love you, I want to be with you, but we're only going to have anal sex".

You know that anal sex is an increasingly common practice ammoung heterosexuals and not a universal practice ammoung homosexuals right?

I am confiedent more women have penetrated straight mens anal oraficies than gay men engage in anal sex. THere are just so many more straight men that even if it is only say 10-15% it will be more than homosexual sex.

You seem to be rather poorly informed.

 

[Furcifer]

If the thought of gay sex makes you fee uncomfortable, that's your problem, and one you need to deal with. You have no right to complain about deviance or "thrusting" simply because you have been inculcated by a society that has moralistically demonised an entire section of society.

As I said before, I don't need to be comfortable with it. Gagging, fisting, "2 girls 1 cup", likewise don't make me feel comfortable. I don't care how popular or pleasurable they may be. I'm not about to embrace it.

How you've managed to drop morals into this is beyond me. The proclivity to having thing inserted into the anus has little to do with morality or society.

 

[sol invictus]

Because discussions always seem to devolve into "Well it ain't normal". As if "normal" is somehow right, and "not normal" is wrong. There are plenty of things that people do that aren't "normal", especially in the bedroom. Trying to drag it out of the closet as "normal" confuses the issue. It isn't about what's normal or not, it's about a persons right to chose.

This makes it sound as though you agree that there is such a thing as "normal" sexual behavior. Is that the case?

If so, how do you know heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality deviant? Wouldn't it be just as valid to say, for example, bisexuality is normal and both strict hetero and homo are deviant?

 

[Furcifer]

I'm late to the party here but the central issue is altruism. To a biologist altruism is behavior which furthers the survival of genes in other organisms at the expense of the organism expressing that behavior - which can be a model hijacked as when the flu makes you sneeze flu viruses on other people - and is the underlying model by which altruism takes hold in social organisms.

Let's say Alice and Bill are sibling humans in an early tribal culture. Alice is a heterosexual young woman. Bill is a homosexual young man. Alice gets pregnant by Carl, an unrelated male who shall no longer be appearing in this narrative. This is not unusual, many fathers in many cultures and species either don't know which children are theirs or don't take special notice. On the other hand, the uncles and other male relatives of Alice are her close kin, have a genetic relationship to the baby, whom we will call Denise, and by taking time and care to raise Denise for a relatively small investment of resources help propagate the genes they share with Denise.

Something like 1/4 of the genes that make up Bill are expressed in Denise (It's a little more complex than that, but it'll do for a thumbnail sketch) and by taking a relatively small amount of time he can help those genes survive - including the genes that give him a propensity for altruism. Compared to a, presumably grass, skirt chasing male Bill would have less time devoted to mating and producing descendants, but relatively more time to develop to his kin.

Once you accept that kin altruism has a genetic component, the rest falls into place and you can see that an exclusively homosexual man or woman is not inexplicable. We wouldn't be here today at all if all our ancestors were strictly homosexual, but we wouldn't all be here if they were all philosophers, poets, priests, potters, planters, or painters. People do what they predisposed to enjoy doing, and it turns out our genetic history explains some of that variety. Variation in human activities is much more the rule in such self-aware and meta-cognizant animals than uniformity. In fact, if human sexual behavior were completely uniform that would be a freak of nature. Practically all animal species have been observed to have homosexual sex, probably because they enjoy it.

Big surprise.

Well said. It's an interesting theory, but I'm not certain how many gay uncles are engaged in raising their sisters kids?