The Gay Animal Kingdom: a challenge to Darwinian theory of sexual selection

[Stella_Omega]

The offspring of Andean Indians, born in the lowlands, do not have the same lung capacity their parents do.
The children of pearl divers can't dive for pearls without the same long training.

The children of Inuit, born and raised in Los Angeles, cannot tolerate the subzero conditions of the arctic.

Second generation Samoans living in Montreal relish the snow while their parents huddle over the heaters all winter.

The impulse to have children is as more culturally governed than it is biological. If your society showers gifts and laurels upon a man with many, he's going to make many. If a woman's worth is measured by the babies she bears, she'll do what it is that makes her worthy in her community's eyes. The moment baby-making becomes not the most important thing in a society's estimation of a woman-- women go and do other things, often for the rest of their lives.

 

[Epmd607]

The offspring of Andean Indians, born in the lowlands, do not have the same lung capacity their parents do.
The children of pearl divers can't dive for pearls without the same long training.

The children of Inuit, born and raised in Los Angeles, cannot tolerate the subzero conditions of the arctic.

Second generation Samoans living in Montreal relish the snow while their parents huddle over the heaters all winter.

The impulse to have children is as more culturally governed than it is biological. If your society showers gifts and laurels upon a man with many, he's going to make many. If a woman's worth is measured by the babies she bears, she'll do what it is that makes her worthy in her community's eyes. The moment baby-making becomes not the most important thing in a society's estimation of a woman-- women go and do other things, often for the rest of their lives.

Your focus is the individual. The focus of evolutionary history is the species, the group. It's irrelevant whether every woman has ten babies or two jobs. The group dynamic will always be toward reproducing the group, and that happens to be based around cultural values. Culture is only a way to organize a group for reproduction. As opposed to having some ants born sterile and some to take care of babies and one or two to make the ant babies. We give ourselves credit for not beating each other and raping each other. That must mean we're beyond the biological urge to reproduce? Not at all. How do Americans acquire mates? Money, Power, Character, Beauty... It's not so different than the peacock.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The impulse to have children is as more culturally governed than it is biological. If your society showers gifts and laurels upon a man with many, he's going to make many. If a woman's worth is measured by the babies she bears, she'll do what it is that makes her worthy in her community's eyes. The moment baby-making becomes not the most important thing in a society's estimation of a woman-- women go and do other things, often for the rest of their lives.

Thew urge to have children is probably heavily influenced by culture.

The urge to mate, however, is strongly biological.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The offspring of Andean Indians, born in the lowlands, do not have the same lung capacity their parents do.
The children of pearl divers can't dive for pearls without the same long training.

The children of Inuit, born and raised in Los Angeles, cannot tolerate the subzero conditions of the arctic.

Second generation Samoans living in Montreal relish the snow while their parents huddle over the heaters all winter.

The impulse to have children is as more culturally governed than it is biological. If your society showers gifts and laurels upon a man with many, he's going to make many. If a woman's worth is measured by the babies she bears, she'll do what it is that makes her worthy in her community's eyes. The moment baby-making becomes not the most important thing in a society's estimation of a woman-- women go and do other things, often for the rest of their lives.

Youre asserting Lamarckian evolution which is discredited.

 

[3113]

the urge to mate, however, is strongly biological.

I don't know if that's true. It's strongly pleasurable. But so is sugar and that's not good for our biology. I think we'd mate to enjoy it even if it wasn't biologically an imperative or wasn't good for us. As we humans do a lot of things that aren't good for us.

In the end, all it has to be is addictive.

 

[lance gt]

I've been reading the comments and trying to figure out why, with all the consensus leading to continued human evolution and cultural factors being a major part of that evolution, why don't all the men have 10" cocks and the women have DD breasts? It seems that it's always been a desired trait that men wish to have and women want bigger breasts as well. If society and culture play such a key role in development, why haven't these changes become the norm? It's been a desired trait of both for centuries and very little has changed in that way. We are about as sexual as our species can be and put great emphasis on it, so it would only stand to reason that we should have inherited these traits by now, after so many 1000's of years of wanting it. There must be another factor that alludes us to acheiving the aforementioned traits.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Your focus is the individual. The focus of evolutionary history is the species, the group.

yes, indeed. Every group is made up of individuals.

It's irrelevant whether every woman has ten babies or two jobs. The group dynamic will always be toward reproducing the group, and that happens to be based around cultural values. Culture is only a way to organize a group for reproduction.

"only reproduction?" that's like saying that the natural environment is "only" a way of organising a group for reproduction. No. Culture is a method of sidelining the natural environment, so that individuals may live in an optimum condition. This may result in a better reproduction dynamic-- usually does, of course-- but that is not what culture is for in human or primate usage.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to having some ants born sterile and some to take care of babies and one or two to make the ant babies. We give ourselves credit for not beating each other and raping each other. That must mean we're beyond the biological urge to reproduce? Not at all. How do Americans acquire mates? Money, Power, Character, Beauty... It's not so different than the peacock.[/QUOTE]
the huge and inescapable difference, my friend, is that the peacock has no choice. It just grows that tail, and spreads it in response to pheremonal signals. Ant colonies don't choose to raise sterile individuals, they just do because the chemical signals of overcrowding turn off certain feeding behaviors and others on.

Humans, on the other hand have a multitude of choices. Each individual, regardless of the group, chooses. And they do NOT all choose according to your American Standard, huge numbers of Americans do not look for Power or Money. and as for beauty or character-- those are the most flexible of definers by any cultural standards.

We have selected for cooperation since the formation of the human species. But WE did that, not the environment. Any archaologist will tell you that the first visible sign of human sentience occurs when we find the first healed tibia bone in a human leg. When someone was willing to put forth that extra effort it took to feed another person until they could fend once again for themselves-- that's when humans transcended biology.

 

[3113]

I think, by the way, that we need to come to an end of trying to point out that other creatures in nature have gay tendencies (though I agree that it's no stranger to nature; there are certainly very monogamous gay penguins). Because when we do so, we're accepting the argument that being gay is somehow unnatural.

As Stella pointed out, we haven't gone extinct thanks to having gay members in our society. And if a certain percentage of the human population is always gay, and has always been gay for as long as recorded human history, then it's perfectly natural. And as we are animals, then it's part of being this sort of animal. Some animals glow, others, flash big feathers (hmm. Is this starting to sound gay?). There are species of animals that have totally unique behaviors common only to them.

So even if homosexuality is unique only to humans, so what? Why should being gay ever need to be argued as natural? Or common? Or evolutionarily purposeful?

Of course, if we're just trying to decide it's purpose out of curiosity, that's fine. But we might as well ask the purpose of left-handedness (15% of the population), blue-eyes (10% of the population--give or take), or red hair (4% of the population--again, give or take). Gay is 10% of the population. That's hardly enough to help or hurt a species evolution.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Youre asserting Lamarckian evolution which is discredited.

I'll say it is!

"Filipinos have short legs which makes them suitable for stoop labor" "Jews are genetically evolved to survive in stressful urban settings." "The X!hosa language evolved to take advantage of Bushmen's larynxial anomalies." These are classic Lamarkian assertions.

I am pointing out that those physical traits of lung power, leg muscle formation, fast typing ability-- have nothing to do with group genetics and everything to do with the climate each individual grows up in. The children of teensy Japanese parents grow six feet tall because they now have a diet which will support bone growth-- which their parents didn't have. The small stature of the Japanese was not a racial characteristic.

 

[3113]

I've been reading the comments and trying to figure out why, with all the consensus leading to continued human evolution and cultural factors being a major part of that evolution, why don't all the men have 10" cocks and the women have DD breasts? It seems that it's always been a desired trait that men wish to have and women want bigger breasts as well.

Only on Lit, my friend. Human history shows that actually, men haven't been interested in women's breasts. The Chinese found the feet erotic--hence foot-binding. Wester civilization actually focused more on hips and ass--and only got to breasts when corsets were exchanged for bras.

As for breeding for cock-size, men tend to pack their cod-pieces to look larger and, thus, fool women into marrying them--and if that doesn't work they get fathers to keep the daughters virginal and ignorant, so that when said daughter finally sees her husband's cock on the wedding night, she thinks that size is normal and not unusually small. Thus, men with smaller cocks manage to breed and pass on the DNA for small cocks which then require more stuffing to fool women into thinking it's a large cock.

More wacky theories available on request.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Only on Lit, my friend. Human history shows that actually, men haven't been interested in women's breasts. The Chinese found the feet erotic--hence foot-binding. Wester civilization actually focused more on hips and ass--and only got to breasts when corsets were exchanged for bras.

As for breeding for cock-size, men tend to pack their cod-pieces to look larger and, thus, fool women into marrying them--and if that doesn't work they get fathers to keep the daughters virginal and ignorant, so that when said daughter finally sees her husband's cock on the wedding night, she thinks that size is normal and not unusually small. Thus, men with smaller cocks manage to breed and pass on the DNA for small cocks which then require more stuffing to fool women into thinking it's a large cock.

More wacky theories available on request.

This also explains why women are bad at eyeballing measurements--thousands of years of dicks and fish stories.

He; "Nine inches, baby!"
She, doubtfully; "okay, if you say so..."

 

[lance gt]

This also explains why women are bad at eyeballing measurements--thousands of years of dicks and fish stories.

He; "Nine inches, baby!"
She, doubtfully; "okay, if you say so..."

So culture does play a significant role in human evolution. As much as men and women want bigger breast sizes, the fact that we have fewer babies per family now, has lessened the need for larger breasts. That and bottle-feeding will wipe out breasts in the next 100 years or so. Women will be flat chested like men and men will have the tiniest dicks ever seen. There is a distinct possibility then that we will evolve into mono-sexual race, where either can bear children. We will all be gay or straight, because there will be no difference.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think, by the way, that we need to come to an end of trying to point out that other creatures in nature have gay tendencies (though I agree that it's no stranger to nature; there are certainly very monogamous gay penguins). Because when we do so, we're accepting the argument that being gay is somehow unnatural.

As Stella pointed out, we haven't gone extinct thanks to having gay members in our society. And if a certain percentage of the human population is always gay, and has always been gay for as long as recorded human history, then it's perfectly natural. And as we are animals, then it's part of being this sort of animal. Some animals glow, others, flash big feathers (hmm. Is this starting to sound gay?). There are species of animals that have totally unique behaviors common only to them.

So even if homosexuality is unique only to humans, so what? Why should being gay ever need to be argued as natural? Or common? Or evolutionarily purposeful?

Of course, if we're just trying to decide it's purpose out of curiosity, that's fine. But we might as well ask the purpose of left-handedness (15% of the population), blue-eyes (10% of the population--give or take), or red hair (4% of the population--again, give or take). Gay is 10% of the population. That's hardly enough to help or hurt a species evolution.

That's well and good, I suppose. But most people DO view homosexuality as an evolutionary aberration. As the OP article stated, Darwin's theory of Sexual Selection has become dogmatic in Western culture, influencing choices from advertising to family law. Even today, on this very thread, people decry homosexuality as against natural law, that "law" being the binary gender-based pairing dictated by religious/governmental teachings and reinforced by Darwin's axiomatic thinking on the subject. This view of sexuality says that procreation is its primary purpose, and sexual behavior outside of procreation (or its related support structures such as marriage) is considered frivolous and selfish behavior.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Only on Lit, my friend. Human history shows that actually, men haven't been interested in women's breasts. The Chinese found the feet erotic--hence foot-binding. Wester civilization actually focused more on hips and ass--and only got to breasts when corsets were exchanged for bras.

As for breeding for cock-size, men tend to pack their cod-pieces to look larger and, thus, fool women into marrying them--and if that doesn't work they get fathers to keep the daughters virginal and ignorant, so that when said daughter finally sees her husband's cock on the wedding night, she thinks that size is normal and not unusually small. Thus, men with smaller cocks manage to breed and pass on the DNA for small cocks which then require more stuffing to fool women into thinking it's a large cock.

More wacky theories available on request.

This reminds me of a story about ROB GRAHAM.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So culture does play a significant role in human evolution. As much as men and women want bigger breast sizes, the fact that we have fewer babies per family now, has lessened the need for larger breasts. That and bottle-feeding will wipe out breasts in the next 100 years or so. Women will be flat chested like men and men will have the tiniest dicks ever seen. There is a distinct possibility then that we will evolve into mono-sexual race, where either can bear children. We will all be gay or straight, because there will be no difference.

Dude, you've got a pseudo-science bestseller here!

 

[3113]

men will have the tiniest dicks ever seen.

If they're the size of clit, then those men will be women So the future really will be ruled by lesbians!

 

[Huckleman2000]

If they're the size of clit, then those men will be women So the future really will be ruled by lesbians!

Is "clit" plural? Clitori? The Clitorati?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Is "clit" plural? Clitori? The Clitorati?

Who am I to deny my adoring public? I humbly accept this honor.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know if that's true. It's strongly pleasurable. But so is sugar and that's not good for our biology. I think we'd mate to enjoy it even if it wasn't biologically an imperative or wasn't good for us. As we humans do a lot of things that aren't good for us.

In the end, all it has to be is addictive.

I made no claim about whether mating is good for our biology or not. I merely said the urge towards sex is by far physiologically and not culturally determined. The expression of the urge may be shaped by culture, but the urge itself is hard-wired into us.

And the reason mating is so enjoyable is because nature has hard-wired it to our deepest pleasure centers to make damned sure we do it. If it weren't so important to our survival, it wouldn't be so pleasurable and we wouldn't be so driven to it.

(As an aside, the pleasure we take in sweet things is because of the biological urge we have for simple carbohydrates, which are the ne plus ultra of energy foods, and very good for us in small doses as a survival food.)

And in the end, isn't all addiction biological? Isn't the like the whole definition of what an addiction is?

 

[Epmd607]

"This view of sexuality says that procreation is its primary purpose, and sexual behavior outside of procreation (or its related support structures such as marriage) is considered frivolous and selfish behavior."

That view of sexuality is dated science. Sexual behavior outside of procreation scenarios has many important uses. Human beings, like most animals, will use their sex to influence group dynamic, form better bonds, relieve stress/take pleasure, and procreate. But you have to accept that every reason people have sex is part of the larger propagation of the species, fitting within an evolutionary scheme.

Homosexuality is certainly part of the scheme of things, but there's no evidence that shows why or how homosexual behaviour is selected for or against in our species or any other. I suppose Stella assumes I'm arguing against the 'naturalness' of homosexuality. I'm not, I'm saying there's no data that shows that homosexuality takes on any special role in the selection of our species as opposed to what the article the OP cites.

And from what Stella says, we're so high minded and cultural none of our behaviours or physical characteristics are selected for since we've had culture for so long. Culture seems to win out over environment and be the sole influence on genetics in her playbook, like this is a 1970s Nature vs. Nurture debate. So maybe Stella is agreeing with me, that homosexuality isn't biologically selected for in our species do to a better group dynamic as shown by the original article.

JBJ is right, you're sounding super Lemarckian when you say Andean Indians don't inherit special characteristics from their parents as opposed to African savanna dwellers. The Andean born in San Diego is still better suited for high altitude than the son of a Japanese fisherman. Nepalese have similar body types, and you can birth a Nepalese in Pennsylvania and then take them to live with their American buddy on top of a mountain and the Nepalese will be better suited for the environment over the long haul.

The Romans laughed at a man with a large penis, Priapus was a joker, men with large penises presented an animal trait, an uncivilized trait.

 

[Epmd607]

That's well and good, I suppose. But most people DO view homosexuality as an evolutionary aberration. As the OP article stated, Darwin's theory of Sexual Selection has become dogmatic in Western culture, influencing choices from advertising to family law. Even today, on this very thread, people decry homosexuality as against natural law, that "law" being the binary gender-based pairing dictated by religious/governmental teachings and reinforced by Darwin's axiomatic thinking on the subject. This view of sexuality says that procreation is its primary purpose, and sexual behavior outside of procreation (or its related support structures such as marriage) is considered frivolous and selfish behavior.

Homosexuality might be a biological aberration(aberration meaning 'irregularity' in the scheme of sexual selection, meaning it wasn't selected for in the propagation of our species) which doesn't make homosexuality less of a biological characteristic. You can't then go say, "Well, homosexuals aren't born homosexuals, they don't have a biological urge to have sex with another of their sex..." Homosexuals have the same urge to procreate as heterosexuals. The homosexual man and woman reach spermarche and menarche at the same time as the hetero. It has very little to do with culture; culture just orders, amplifies or muffles the sexual urge.

Our culture happens to be one where homosexuality is accepted and therefore the behaviour takes on a variety of forms and expresses itself in as many ways as a heterosexual ordering for reproduction. It's acceptable that gays live together and raise children, whether one parent is biological parent or neither is. This is just a perfect example of ordering for reproduction. All populations have a group of children that need to be raised by non-biological parents, for whatever reason. And if one of the gay parents is the biological parent, that just shows our culture has changed to better deal with the homosexual urge to procreate.

Procreation is the primary purpose of human sexuality. There are many other factors and shapes of sexuality, but when it comes down to it, the classical argument is correct. The species' primary purpose is to reproduce the existence of the species, which is done through procreation -- getting a sperm to find an egg in womb or petri dish, and then finding a way to get the new organism to the age of reproduction. Culture is just a very complex adaptation to help reach this primary goal.

 

[Epmd607]

Just so no one gets extra mad, I'm not saying homosexual behaviour is aberrant behaviour. It isn't aberrant biologically, because it's an urge to procreate, and it isn't a cultural aberration either as it may improve the overall reproductive ability of a group. Asexual behaviour is seemingly aberrant in humans, biologically. But in terms of selection there are no good arguments I've seen for or against homosexuality being a selected for characteristic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, I can think of one way in which the "gay gene" has been protected and encouraged throughout the ages; the suppression of gay preferences, in so many societies, has meant that gay men and women have stay closeted, and succumb to social pressure to enter into into het marriages-- complete with progeny. How many times have you heard about some loving father getting caught in a bathroom with a gay prostitute? How many women have come out in middle age, after the kids have grown and left the nest-- walked out on hubby and moved in with a woman, happily, for the rest of their years?

If society really wanted to get rid of the "gay gene" it would allow gay men and women the right to live their lives gay from the start. We wouldn't breed, and the world could watch the proportions of gays in human populations dwindle.

But-- gay men might be a better match for many straight women, if their gayness also encompasses emotional openness, verbal skills, empathy. And gay women might be more fun for straight men, if they also have a preference for sports, beer and a high libido.

Assuming that there is a "gay gene." As I've pointed out a billion times, Evolutionary Biology cannot be used to accurately explain human behaviors-- although it makes an excellent excuse for human behaviors.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Just so no one gets extra mad, I'm not saying homosexual behaviour is aberrant behaviour. It isn't aberrant biologically, because it's an urge to procreate, and it isn't a cultural aberration either as it may improve the overall reproductive ability of a group. Asexual behaviour is seemingly aberrant in humans, biologically. But in terms of selection there are no good arguments I've seen for or against homosexuality being a selected for characteristic.

Well, there's the mere fact of its persistent existence... How do you account for that? Along with things like birth-order correlation, it just seems to me that there's a genetic imperative of some sort going on. Like such heritable conditions as susceptibility to depression or other "mental illnesses", same-sex orientation occurs often enough to toss a wrench into conventional thinking about sexual selection. I don't mean to characterize homosexuality as a mental illness; I just point depression out as another instance where one would imagine that, given the seeming reproductive uselessness of a genetic trait, evolutionary processes would have selected against that trait by now.

At the very least, the article expanded my thinking about sexuality generally. Some day, maybe my thinking will be open enough that I actually get laid? (Although, I'm pretty sure "open mind" is low on my list of impediments to sexual satisfaction...)

 

[Epmd607]

Well, there's the mere fact of its persistent existence... How do you account for that? Along with things like birth-order correlation, it just seems to me that there's a genetic imperative of some sort going on. Like such heritable conditions as susceptibility to depression or other "mental illnesses", same-sex orientation occurs often enough to toss a wrench into conventional thinking about sexual selection. I don't mean to characterize homosexuality as a mental illness; I just point depression out as another instance where one would imagine that, given the seeming reproductive uselessness of a genetic trait, evolutionary processes would have selected against that trait by now.

At the very least, the article expanded my thinking about sexuality generally. Some day, maybe my thinking will be open enough that I actually get laid? (Although, I'm pretty sure "open mind" is low on my list of impediments to sexual satisfaction...)

Yes, explaining the persistence of homosexuals in any given animal population is very interesting. It being reminiscent of a genetic disease is the best theory so far. But it's not like a genetic disease because it's so prevalent. I think it might be more similar to this:

"Lactose intolerance is the inability to metabolize lactose, a sugar found in milk and other dairy products, because the required enzyme lactase is absent in the intestinal system or its availability is lowered. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[1] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from as little as 5% in northern Europe, up to 71% for Southern Europe, to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[2]"

Adult onset Lactase deficiency doesn't have to be selected for or against in our evolutionary history, but if you go to an Asian country most Asian adult bodies have ceased producing the Lactase enzyme as opposed to European based bodies. Lactose intolerance isn't a genetic disease but it has similar characteristics to one, and I think homosexuality might resemble something like adult onset Lactase deficiency as opposed to Huntington's.