Female sexuality: educate me.

[Huckleman2000]

I've learned a lot in some threads here. For example, the Pornography in the service of women thread was an education on several levels...

One of the tangents in that thread was about "evo-psych", a set of theories that broad psychological traits are evolutionary adaptations, i.e., genetically influenced. Stella flexed her anthropological muscle and said that those traits can also be explained by cultural influences.

So, here's something that I found in doing some research for a role I'm playing (a closeted gay/bi man who identifies as straight): there's a correlation between birth-order and being gay. Each successive son born to a woman has a greater likelihood of being homosexual. This seems to be prenatal, something about sex hormones at early stages of development. Even fourth sons who were raised apart from their biological brothers have the same likelihood. There is no comparable effect between women with older sisters and being lesbian.

I wonder, though, if there would be an analog female correlation with something like promiscuity or aggression or infertility? It's as if nature produces gay men as sort of a safety-valve (like, too many males being born? start flicking the gay switch!). From an evolutionary standpoint, does lesbianism do the same thing for population control that male homosexuality does?

 

[Stella_Omega]

There's an article about gestational environments and the effects of hormonal tides, so to speak, on the brains of the daughters. There seems to be a point where the brain can become more "masculinised" than the norm,and the girls grow up with noticeably masculine traits-- one being a typically "male" mental inflexibility

Some doctor did a longitudinal study, and he found the correlations-- and I don't recall if I ever came across that article again, I've been looking for it for a long time i guess I can keep on looking, you'd really appreciate it.

It's as if nature produces gay men as sort of a safety-valve (like, too many males being born? start flicking the gay switch!). From an evolutionary standpoint, does lesbianism do the same thing for population control that male homosexuality does?

If that's so, Mother Nature has a real problem with her children's cultural prejudices, because we have tried to keep all of these evolutionary safety-valves stopped up tight.... i know so many women and men that only came out after they'd tried in vain to be straight spouses and parents.

 

[starlightqueen]

Can't resist, because I'm a huge nerd.

Correlation does not imply causation. Also, there's a huge danger in thinking "everything happens for a reason" when it comes to biology and evolution. Some traits are selected for (evolve), and some traits are byproducts with absolutely no rational function whatsoever.

On this topic, Even if there is a correlation between birth order and females with traditionally male traits, that doesn't mean it has to do with testosterone in the prenatal environment. Additionally, maybe the prenatal environment changes depending on birth order, but that isn't necessarily a trait that is the result of evolution.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think I've found a reference to it at least...

There seems to be no reference to birth order at all in this study.

 

[rydia57]

Hi,


Just my IMO, but I think if you get four sisters who've spent too much time together until adulthood, one of them is likely to become a closet perv. I've seen it happen a couple times, including with self. Hey, maybe it's a release?

 

[penandpaper]

I have to lay myth to rest. Although, it was influential (in determining the hormone levels of mothers and how that inputs into their son's sexuality on the basis of their birth order) it has been debunked. His initial insight came from a poll he did at a Northeastern University concerning sexuality. He happened to notice a pattern. All the gay men he talked to were late in the order of births, meaning the third, fourth, fifth child. He created a statistic that labeled the chance of a gay son increasing (almost exponentially I may add) as the birth rank increased. And although, I can say from first hand observation he is correct, he has been proven wrong time and time again. A good thought, but it doesn't hold up statistically.

But, damn it makes a great story, especially as far as hormone levels and birth rankings are concerned.

 

[amicus]

Even more curious as the birthrate in modern Western nations is barely at or below replacement rate, i.e., two children or less for each family....so, there goes the third or fourth son/daughter correlation.

With apologies forthwith, I take this assertion as another means to scientifically justify homosexuality, which if prevalent in nature, would have brought about extinction for most species.

One of the newest appointee's in the new administration once co-authored a book promoting forced sterilization and forced abortion as population control options.

It is perhaps far-fetched, but is it possible a generation of people, our 'baby boomers', were so worried about over population that it influenced their sexual proclivities?

Yeah, I know....

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

Even more curious as the birthrate in modern Western nations is barely at or below replacement rate, i.e., two children or less for each family....so, there goes the third or fourth son/daughter correlation.

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but you do have a point; third and fourth children have gotten less common in our society.

 

[penandpaper]

I've learned a lot in some threads here. For example, the Pornography in the service of women thread was an education on several levels...

One of the tangents in that thread was about "evo-psych", a set of theories that broad psychological traits are evolutionary adaptations, i.e., genetically influenced. Stella flexed her anthropological muscle and said that those traits can also be explained by cultural influences.

So, here's something that I found in doing some research for a role I'm playing (a closeted gay/bi man who identifies as straight): there's a correlation between birth-order and being gay. Each successive son born to a woman has a greater likelihood of being homosexual. This seems to be prenatal, something about sex hormones at early stages of development. Even fourth sons who were raised apart from their biological brothers have the same likelihood. There is no comparable effect between women with older sisters and being lesbian.

I wonder, though, if there would be an analog female correlation with something like promiscuity or aggression or infertility? It's as if nature produces gay men as sort of a safety-valve (like, too many males being born? start flicking the gay switch!). From an evolutionary standpoint, does lesbianism do the same thing for population control that male homosexuality does?

I think it's important that you look at bi-sexuality being the norm within the animal kingdom, despite genetics, despite birth order, despite upbringing. If something's innate, it doesn't control your every move, it just steers you in a certain direction. One of the best quotes I read when discussing sexuality came from a zoologist. She said, "Animals don't do sexuality, they do sex." Two male penguins in captivity decide to cohabitate and fondle one another. Two jail inmates suck off each other. A harem full of women decide to throw an all night all female orgy just to get off! (I realize the last one is a bit far fetched. ) The point I'm trying to make is, I think you're better off thinking of the character, not his sexuality.

 

[slyc_willie]

If that's so, Mother Nature has a real problem with her children's cultural prejudices, because we have tried to keep all of these evolutionary safety-valves stopped up tight.... i know so many women and men that only came out after they'd tried in vain to be straight spouses and parents.

I've read through the thread, and I keep coming back to this. With no disrespect intended, and merely playing the Devil's advocate . . . .

If the aim of any species, including a 'higher order' species such as ours, is to perpetuate itself, why wouldn't we, as a whole, condemn homosexual unions? After all, homosexuals would not, genetically, contribute to the whole. Of course, I am aware that gay partnerships can and have adopted children, and lesbians have both adopted and, through artificial insemination, raised children of their own. But that lies outside the basic biological imperative of perpetuating the species.

The acceptance of homosexuality is a purely social endeavor, and one that I fully endorse. But, in the realm of genetics, homosexuality goes against the grain of advancing our species. Not saying I'm against homosexuality -- I'm not -- but from a purely evolutionary point of view, I can see why homosexuals would be weeded out in a natural setting.

 

[rgraham666]

That's only true, slyc, if the genes that created the tendency towards homosexuality were only involved with that.

But they're not. Each chromosome, each gene, affects a large number of traits. So homosexuality is just one trait that's expressed by them. The other traits may be more important to survival of the species than homosexuality is detrimental.

A good example of this is sickle cell anemia. This is carried by a recessive gene. If you get both genes you get sickle cell anemia. If you get one you get a high resistance to malaria.

I suspect homosexuality works the same way.

 

[neonlyte]

That's only true, slyc, if the genes that created the tendency towards homosexuality were only involved with that.

But they're not. Each chromosome, each gene, affects a large number of traits. So homosexuality is just one trait that's expressed by them. The other traits may be more important to survival of the species than homosexuality is detrimental.

A good example of this is sickle cell anemia. This is carried by a recessive gene. If you get both genes you get sickle cell anemia. If you get one you get a high resistance to malaria.

I suspect homosexuality works the same way.

How many homosexuals contract malaria? Just askin'
Rob... good to 'see you', bud.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

.....

 

[penandpaper]

I've read through the thread, and I keep coming back to this. With no disrespect intended, and merely playing the Devil's advocate . . . .

If the aim of any species, including a 'higher order' species such as ours, is to perpetuate itself, why wouldn't we, as a whole, condemn homosexual unions? After all, homosexuals would not, genetically, contribute to the whole. Of course, I am aware that gay partnerships can and have adopted children, and lesbians have both adopted and, through artificial insemination, raised children of their own. But that lies outside the basic biological imperative of perpetuating the species.

The acceptance of homosexuality is a purely social endeavor, and one that I fully endorse. But, in the realm of genetics, homosexuality goes against the grain of advancing our species. Not saying I'm against homosexuality -- I'm not -- but from a purely evolutionary point of view, I can see why homosexuals would be weeded out in a natural setting.

I think homosexual acts in nature, although at first seem to counter Darwinian logic, when studies more closely reinforce Darwin's Priciple. For example, two female cows mounting one another doesn't seem to serve a purpose; however, when watched carefully they are increasing hormone levels and showing the male bulls they are "ready." (Sometimes it takes that for us to see it ladies. ) Male and female bonobos create social bonds, and therefore a more peaceful community through homo and bisexual acts. This allows their children to be raised in a non-vilent community, thus increasing the overall population.

As far as the great monkey is concerned, maybe if we apply that same counter logic, then we might see it increases fecundity - not the other way around. Just a rambling thought, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Not like me, but I think I'm still drunk from last night.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think it's important that you look at bi-sexuality being the norm within the animal kingdom, despite genetics, despite birth order, despite upbringing. If something's innate, it doesn't control your every move, it just steers you in a certain direction. One of the best quotes I read when discussing sexuality came from a zoologist. She said, "Animals don't do sexuality, they do sex." Two male penguins in captivity decide to cohabitate and fondle one another. Two jail inmates suck off each other. A harem full of women decide to throw an all night all female orgy just to get off! (I realize the last one is a bit far fetched. ) The point I'm trying to make is, I think you're better off thinking of the character, not his sexuality.

You're a woman, aren't you?
You're talking about situational homosexuality, and I won't deny that it exists. Along with situational bestiality, pie-fucking, knothole-fucking, cantelope-fucking... some guys will stick their dick in anything with a hole. And prison homosexuality is another word for prison rape.

I'm talking about enthusiastic gay bottoms and switches, that get hard-ons both ways. When gay men get fucked, they don't lie back and think of England, you know?

In this play, there is a lot of simulated gay sex. The gay actors have a problem - their dicks get hard sometimes. We can't show erect penises onstage, so this is a real issue pertaining to how we stage the sex. I don't have that problem, because I'm straight. Guys pretending to suck my dick does nothing for me. If a woman gets down there, I can feel her breath through my jeans, the hair on my arms stands up, and I feel the rush of blood starting to engorge my cock. I can take deep breaths, concentrate on something else, and keep it from becoming a raging boner, but there's no mistaking the response.

Gay men don't find out they're gay through experimentation, or fantasies, really. They realize it when their dicks get hard when they get close to guys. They can try to rationalize it away ("I just had to piss bad"; "I was drunk"), they can hide it and pretend it doesn't happen. But, it's there, big as life.

With women, it sometimes seems you can just rub it enough and it will turn on. Sit on a washing machine, ride a motorcycle, ride a horse, or stick a vibe between your legs and lie back - pretty soon, you're in heaven, and it's all about the inner fantasy. Men tend to be more linear about it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

.....

 

[Huckleman2000]

That's only true, slyc, if the genes that created the tendency towards homosexuality were only involved with that.

But they're not. Each chromosome, each gene, affects a large number of traits. So homosexuality is just one trait that's expressed by them. The other traits may be more important to survival of the species than homosexuality is detrimental.

A good example of this is sickle cell anemia. This is carried by a recessive gene. If you get both genes you get sickle cell anemia. If you get one you get a high resistance to malaria.

I suspect homosexuality works the same way.

Good analogy, Rob! And insightful, as well:
Genes that make some people gay make their brothers and sisters fecund

THE evidence suggests that homosexual behaviour is partly genetic. Studies of identical twins, for example, show that if one of a pair (regardless of sex) is homosexual, the other has a 50% chance of being so, too. That observation, though, raises a worrying evolutionary question: how could a trait so at odds with reproductive success survive the ruthless imperatives of natural selection?

Various answers have been suggested. However, they all boil down to the idea that the relatives of those who are gay gain some advantage that allows genes predisposing people to homosexual behaviour to be passed on collaterally.

 

[Huckleman2000]

There's an article about gestational environments and the effects of hormonal tides, so to speak, on the brains of the daughters. There seems to be a point where the brain can become more "masculinised" than the norm,and the girls grow up with noticeably masculine traits-- one being a typically "male" mental inflexibility

Some doctor did a longitudinal study, and he found the correlations-- and I don't recall if I ever came across that article again, I've been looking for it for a long time i guess I can keep on looking, you'd really appreciate it. [...]

Thanks for that! In a similar vein, I came across a study of male/female twin pairs, where the rush of hormones that produces the male has a spillover effect on the female of the pair, similar to what you describe. I found it at the end of a long string of clicks, though, and it's out of my history already.

Culturally too, though, there's the trope of the slutty little sister (eg, "The Taming of the Shrew")

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've read through the thread, and I keep coming back to this. With no disrespect intended, and merely playing the Devil's advocate . . . .

If the aim of any species, including a 'higher order' species such as ours, is to perpetuate itself, why wouldn't we, as a whole, condemn homosexual unions? After all, homosexuals would not, genetically, contribute to the whole. Of course, I am aware that gay partnerships can and have adopted children, and lesbians have both adopted and, through artificial insemination, raised children of their own. But that lies outside the basic biological imperative of perpetuating the species.

The acceptance of homosexuality is a purely social endeavor, and one that I fully endorse. But, in the realm of genetics, homosexuality goes against the grain of advancing our species. Not saying I'm against homosexuality -- I'm not -- but from a purely evolutionary point of view, I can see why homosexuals would be weeded out in a natural setting.

But they aren't weeded out, because human's use of culture has usurped genetics as our imperative evolutionary force. Humans are totally famous for not having a "natural setting."

Think about the benefits of homosexual populations to human life-- creativity is generally stronger in gay men for instance. It's positively Darwinian, if you notice that many cultures force homosexuals to deny, or be denied, their sexuality long enough to procreate at least.
Remember that a lethal trait is only a weeder-outer if it's lethal before the organism can reproduce. Genes that allow for senility, arthritis, MS, hemophilia, can prosper amongst us because we pass them on to our children long before the suffering we are subjected to makes us stop wanting to fuck around... And when homosexual teens are pressured to be normal, marry like everyone else, and become parents-- or suffer horrific consequences-- IF homosexulity is "breedable" then homosexuals will carry on their genetic heritage in spite of evo logic. Hell, humans have done that with so many other organisms-- dog breeds, golfish, plants that rely exclusively on humans to propagate because we have changed them in that way.

It's possible that the "genes for gayness" reside in the mother's gestational hormonal cycle. Or, the cycle could be responsive to environmental influences, and the stresses she experiences have some correlation to the androgen sensitivity of her children. I should think that having three sons already would be plenty stressful but it's not the only form of stress a woman can encounter.

 

[penandpaper]

You're a woman, aren't you?
You're talking about situational homosexuality, and I won't deny that it exists. Along with situational bestiality, pie-fucking, knothole-fucking, cantelope-fucking... some guys will stick their dick in anything with a hole. And prison homosexuality is another word for prison rape.

I'm talking about enthusiastic gay bottoms and switches, that get hard-ons both ways. When gay men get fucked, they don't lie back and think of England, you know?

In this play, there is a lot of simulated gay sex. The gay actors have a problem - their dicks get hard sometimes. We can't show erect penises onstage, so this is a real issue pertaining to how we stage the sex. I don't have that problem, because I'm straight. Guys pretending to suck my dick does nothing for me. If a woman gets down there, I can feel her breath through my jeans, the hair on my arms stands up, and I feel the rush of blood starting to engorge my cock. I can take deep breaths, concentrate on something else, and keep it from becoming a raging boner, but there's no mistaking the response.

Gay men don't find out they're gay through experimentation, or fantasies, really. They realize it when their dicks get hard when they get close to guys. They can try to rationalize it away ("I just had to piss bad"; "I was drunk"), they can hide it and pretend it doesn't happen. But, it's there, big as life.

With women, it sometimes seems you can just rub it enough and it will turn on. Sit on a washing machine, ride a motorcycle, ride a horse, or stick a vibe between your legs and lie back - pretty soon, you're in heaven, and it's all about the inner fantasy. Men tend to be more linear about it.

Are you saying the actors are naked onstage. I would think if they are, that would alone be enough for them to not get boners. Not sure I could get hard, no matter what the situation, in front of a hundred people.

I would suggest rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. Maybe, for the men more inclined to experience a surge in blood, to relieve themselves before going onstage. (I know that may be hard to do, but it's worth a try.) Also, if the scene's with you, and you have no true physical reaction, then that alone might be enough to stop their erections from happening.

What ideas has your troupe come up with? It sounds like a difficult situation, and it may have to be individually corrected for each actor. Of course, you could just cast all straight men. That "might" solve your problem.

 

[penandpaper]

So, how exactly does packing fudge make you fecund? Does the packee want to look for a girl afterwards?

You'll notice I said it was just a rambling thought, with no evidence to back it up. But, somethings are counter-intuitive, and this may be one of them. One gay male and nine straight men might produce more offspring than ten straight men. I'm not saying it's a fact, but I am saying it might be true. Not all things logical are true, and vice-a-versa.

 

[3113]

With women, it sometimes seems you can just rub it enough and it will turn on. Sit on a washing machine, ride a motorcycle, ride a horse, or stick a vibe between your legs and lie back - pretty soon, you're in heaven, and it's all about the inner fantasy. Men tend to be more linear about it.

You're quite right, actually. It's why women often want those hearts, flowers and chocolate before they enter into bed with a man. The promise and inner fantasy of it all is part of the very erotic foreplay, extending the sex, as it were.

I think you need this article on why.

 

[penandpaper]

You're quite right, actually. It's why women often want those hearts, flowers and chocolate before they enter into bed with a man. The promise and inner fantasy of it all is part of the very erotic foreplay, extending the sex, as it were.

I think you need this article on why.

"Sounds fine. So where does it all go wrong? Based on more than 100 research studies that have examined thousands of marriages, two factors stand out as the best predictors of divorce; how individual partners perceive the quality of their relationship and how effectively couples resolve relationship problems. By knowing what to measure in early marriage, relationship scientists can successfully predict (to 80 per cent or better) which couples will divorce."

I remember an excerpt in Blink by Gladwell that had a similar study. The surprise was that he measured only a fifty second conversation and had an even higher predictability rating. Not sure if it's all true, but Gladwell sure made it interesting.

I have only one question about the article: why don't they ever explain the woman who goes after the bad boy? (A rather large percentage if you study ages 18-30.) You know the guy, the one without a job, whose potential is so low and obvious to the rest of the world they laugh at the thought of dating him. The guy who has her pay for everything. The guy with a temper to boot. Why don't they ever explain why that guy gets laid, and often times, more than the nice guy?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Are you saying the actors are naked onstage. I would think if they are, that would alone be enough for them to not get boners. Not sure I could get hard, no matter what the situation, in front of a hundred people.

I would suggest rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. Maybe, for the men more inclined to experience a surge in blood, to relieve themselves before going onstage. (I know that may be hard to do, but it's worth a try.) Also, if the scene's with you, and you have no true physical reaction, then that alone might be enough to stop their erections from happening.

What ideas has your troupe come up with? It sounds like a difficult situation, and it may have to be individually corrected for each actor. Of course, you could just cast all straight men. That "might" solve your problem.

It's not that big an issue. [insert your own joke here]

It's mostly during rehearsal that it's come up (ba dum BUHM). We just have to be sure of sightlines, because we don't want the audience to see the lack of peen either. It's the inadvertent flash that we need to be concerned with. That could get the show shut down.

I brought it up, though, just as an illustration of how deep and involuntary the physical reaction is. You had said to start with the assumption that "everyone's bisexual", and I just don't think that lines up with my personal experience.

 

[Handley_Page]

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but you do have a point; third and fourth children have gotten less common in our society.

Possibly because the survival rate is a lot higher than it was, and I think being "busy" having a life may have something to do with it.