Homosexuallity nature or nurture?

[DrDeath]

your definatly not a bad human (as far as i know) wolram, thanks for the best wishes though, Xxxx

 

[DrDeath]

speak for yourself about the one night thing, i actually go in for the long term relationships my-self, although theirs nothing wrong with one nighters if that's what you into!

 

[wolram]

Well, you're being rather cryptic here, wolram!
Perhaps you think it is easier for gays to meet up with someone for the night.
Maybe it is, but then again, that's what it is for the most part: For the night, and little else.

oh, i would like to kick you to , some reality, dreams are good, but focus on what you want, if it is not in the soup, then you are wrong.

 

[DrDeath]

your absolutly right dreams are good and we should focus on what we really want. sometimes the two things are one and the same. but we're digressing again (god I'm such a nag).

p.s. in particular reality you want him kicked to, as long it contains butterflys I am sure he'll be happy there.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I'd say it's nature, and not partly both. Whether or not a person comes out as a homosexual is dependent on nuture though.

 

[arildno]

speak for yourself about the one night thing, i actually go in for the long term relationships my-self, although theirs nothing wrong with one nighters if that's what you into!

I wasn't speaking about myself in general (that's why I put the "maybe" there)
I was trying to understand wolram's obscure posts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hmm..IvanSeeking, you are shifting the issue!
You are the one implying that 85% of female seagulls feel revulsion at the thought of what the remaining 15% do.
That is a hardly substantiated claim.

Really it was a statistic cited by a biologist that I have always found amusing.

But, really, I don't have the patience to argue with a guy who begs to keep his revulsion of me and other gays pure and inviolate.

I never said that you revulse me, in fact, I like you. I said that I am instictually offended by the sight of homosexual behavior. I think you need to understand that for some of us, this is normal. I mean, you can rationalize this any way that you wish, but I know what I feel. I could, probably once be classified as a homophobe. After all, I was taught to believe it is evil according to Catholic beliefs. But I got over this long ago. And in spite of the fact that I have had many gay friends, and a couple who were close friends at that, there is still a biological aspect to this that goes beyond perception.

I think this is more a matter of heterophobia on your part. I get tired of implicity being accused of something for being who I am.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Look, seriously, one of my best buddies in college was bisexual. This is not an issue for me.

Two more thoughts here. First, I had to learn about homosexuality and then try to imagine why. But my interest in girls, my sexual attraction to girls, came long before my knowledge of sex. When I learned about sex with women, it was a total aha moment. No one can tell me that the difference was learned.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, you're being rather cryptic here, wolram!
Perhaps you think it is easier for gays to meet up with someone for the night.
Maybe it is, but then again, that's what it is for the most part: For the night, and little else.

I think it is easier for gay men to hook up for the night, but that's just because they're men, not because they're gay. Straight men would love to just hook up for one night, too, but the women aren't often quite as willing.

 

[loseyourname]

I never said that you revulse me, in fact, I like you. I said that I am instictually offended by the sight of homosexual behavior. I think you need to understand that for some of us, this is normal. I mean, you can rationalize this any way that you wish, but I know what I feel. I could, probably once be classified as a homophobe. After all, I was taught to believe it is evil according to Catholic beliefs. But I got over this long ago. And in spite of the fact that I have had many gay friends, and a couple who were close friends at that, there is still a biological aspect to this that goes beyond perception.

I'd imagine that sometimes this may be the case, sometimes it may not be. I was similar to you when I was much younger, revulsed by the thought of two men together, or even of men being sexual creatures in general (and I never felt this way about women). But my best friend in high school turned out to be gay, and once he came out, I ended up having no problem with it. I even became heavily immersed in gay culture, to the point where half my social time was spent in or around West Hollywood. At this point, not only does homosexuality not in the least bit repulse me, but I'm pretty damn certain that if there were no available women around, I'd gladly turn to men. Not because I consider myself homosexual to any degree, but a man is better than nothing.

It could just be that I became accustomed to homosexuality at the tail end of my formative years. How old were you when you first became "okay with it?" When you first had significant exposure to the gay community?

 

[DrDeath]

arildno quote "I wasn't speaking about myself in general (that's why I put the "maybe" there) I was trying to understand wolram's obscure posts." jesus boy your so easy to tease, I am only messing with ya, love you really dude!

and i think most of the guys are right, most people do have an inbuilt distaste for homosexuality, however the majority of them actually become mature enough to not have a problem with us poofs and just let us get on with what we like doing. some people unfortunatly don't become mature as they continue to display homophobic traights throughout their whole life.

and yes it is easier for gay guys to hook up for one nighter's because most guys (gay or straight) are happy with one nighters, whereas women arent, so gays get a good deal on the casual sex side of things, straight guys get a good deal on the not get bullied side of things. hey I am happy with those odds.

 

[arildno]

The biologist hardly said the 85% were repulsed by the other 15% behaviour, did they?

You claim there is some necessary connection between your heterosexuality, and your repulsion of homosexuality, and you argue for this because your repulsion is felt at an "instinctual" level.

Whenever was a strong sense of revulsion ever felt on any other level than the "instinctual"?

Furthermore, it seems to me that you've misread my post (due to some unclarity I wrote):
What I meant, was that the emotion of disgust is strong enough to prevent a possible desire for the object of disgust from ever surfacing into the individuals consciousness (i.e, a putative desire of this sort is held LATENT, it does not become manifest).
It does not follow from this everyone having this sense of disgust would have the desire for the forbidden if their sense of disgust was removed, and thus, in our context, it does not mean that every person who is repulsed by the idea of men being together is himself a closeted gay individual.

However, that being said:
You have yet to give any solid arguments as to why you think there is a NECESSARY connection between your heterosexuality and your revulsion for the other.
As to how customs of revulsion change, consider the two examples from history:

1. In the early 18th century, due to the activities of "The Society for the Reformation of Manners", a numerous series of raids against London's gay bars (called "molly houses") began.
In particular, informers were used, young men who acquiesced to play the "passive" role in anal intercourse in order to provide evidence against the "true" mollies.

At this time, a particular horror was felt towards the ACTIVE player in such acts, and they were in general punished a lot harder (typically pillory&subsequent hanging).

Now, let's go 200 years forward to the naval base of Newport, USA:
2. In about 1919, It came to the attention of the governor, Franklin D. Roosevelt that the naval base of Newport was "infested" by queers, and the authorities decided to root out such pernicious elements.

Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized to engage and pay 19-20 year old men to act as "decoy dicks" in order to get info against the "c**ks**kers&r**tum receivers" in Newport, by playing the ACTIVE part. (When this got known in the media, it was a huge scandal)
Note that the stigma here, the horror most keenly felt by the decent men in the authorities was totally reversed from that of their predecessors in the 18th century!

Now, what does that tell you about the changeability of revulsion?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It would make sense that heterosexual men evolved to feel revulsion, since they would pass their genes on only if they had sex with women. However, I don't know if this has happened to that great of an extent. It seems more likely that men will have sex with anything, and it's instead up to women to evolve a mechanism to choose desirable mates that will enable them to pass on their goods. That's why female chimps are the ones that migrate...because their brothers and other male relatives will willingly mate with them to no detriment of their own. But females have more to lose, thus they must evolve the mechanism to help them choose 1. males and 2. males that are different enough from them that they won't pass on bad genes.

So, an evovled sense of revulsion is possible, but I think it's more likely that it's learned. Look at men of other cultures that feel no revulsion for holding hands with, kissing, or even having sex with other men (gay or straight). I think it's an American value, rooted in Christianity.

 

[arildno]

I can see no particular evolutionary advantage of a sense of revulsion over simply a sense of indifference towards the matter.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

If you are repulsed by homosexuality, you are less likely to engage in it, and more likely to engage in heterosexuality. Thereby allowing you a greater chance at passing on your genes. No?

ah, I see. Well, humans are tricky because we are centered on closely related groups of males. Therefore, you would also want your brothers to practice heterosexuality. If you were indifferent, then you wouldn't punish them for engaging in homosexual acts and they'd be less likely to pass their genes...which are very similar to your own. That's why it's more productive for some animals, eg bees, marmosets, to help raise the offspring of their relatives rather than there own. The odds are better for passing on a greater proportion of your genes (= your siblings genes) if you do this.

So, it's not pretty, and it's not nice, but that's what would yield the highest "benefit."

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Even so, I still think it's mainly a cultural stance. But that is the best explanation I can think of for how it would evolve. Maybe it's a bit of both? Still, a lot of male animals engage in homosexuality, and it's up to females to be more discriminant in choosing mates.

 

[arildno]

Well, however persuasive you think your evolution theory is, it is patently wrong, as can be seen from studying the behaviours of ordinary chimpanzees, and the bonobos in particular.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Well, however persuasive you think your evolution theory is, it is patently wrong, as can be seen from studying the behaviours of ordinary chimpanzees, and the bonobos in particular.

I didn't mean to upset you. Did you read my post above? I said that other animals do engage in it. I am bio anth major...I know about bonobos Even the females engage in it. That's why I said I think it's more cultural than evolutionary. But, I still don't think you can throw out any evolutionary cause, because we do see a difference in male an female frequencies of homosexuality. Male common chimps engage in it more than females because it would have less evolutionary consequences. I'm not saying this is evidence that this is the case in humans, but it's still useful information.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Also, bonobos use sex as a tension reliever. I think common chimps use it to display dominance. So even there, you can't just lump all cases of homosexuality together.

From washington post review of book

In a book scheduled for publication next year, "Evolution's Rainbow," Roughgarden speculates that same-sex relations may have evolved as a glue for coalition-building among animals, including humans.

This hypothesis "also explains homophobia," she said. "Same-sex coalition building is usually a threat to a hierarchy. That sets up a tension, and the alpha male is going to try to break up the coalition."

Maybe that's the reason it either evolved or was passed on through culture. As that book points out (and as I have posted above), other cultures permit, and even encourage homosexuality http://www.vexen.co.uk/human/homosexuality.html#Anthropology

 

[arildno]

Certainly, and it is the lack of sex as a tension reliever that is missing from your evolution theory, and makes its predictions wrong.
The bonobo evidence shows us that we cannot ignore sexuality's function as tension release within a cost/benefit analysis. Without it, we get a skeweed picture, and wrong predictions.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Not all animals are under the same pressures tho. You can't apply the bonobo adaptation strategy as an explanation for all homosexuality.

And why wouldn't my evolutionary theory work with chimpanzees? How often do common chimps engage in homosexuality? When primates do, they often do so to assert dominance, not relieve tension. EG in baboons. Bonobos have found different survival techniques from the highly male dominated, violent common chimps. In bonobo societies, females are in charge. With common chimps, males are in charge and it wouldn't fit in with their violent tendencies to soothe each other with sex. The benefits of homosexuality have to outweigh the costs of losing a chance at passing on DNA if it's going to be a viable option. Is this true for common chimps? Not as far as I know. So what's wrong with my theory in this case?

 

[arildno]

Since bonobos are most probably our closest relatives, their behaviour is of more relevance than other animals.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

bonbos and the common chimp. Like I said, the common chimp does not use sex as a tension reliever. The common chimp also wages war on other groups of chimps. We're probably like both of them, so I'd say all theories concerning these two sub-species are relevant.

 

[arildno]

There is mounting evidence that the common chimp split off prior to the split between humans and bonobos:
1. Continuous sexual receptivity of the female
ONLY human females and the bonobo female share this trait.

2. Manner of sexual intercourse
ONLY the bonobo and human is known to engage in face-to-face sexual activity

3. Evolution of bipedalism:
The common chimp male is more often engaged in bipedalism for aggressive show-off purposes than the bonobo.

However, the bonobo as a fruit gatherer does on occasion go on twos, and does so better than the common chimp.
Now, it seems more reasonable that human bipedalism has evolved as a useful trait for long-range food-gathering, than that it evolved as the result of a prolonged testosterone show-off match.
That's just my opinion, though.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I have a a thread on bipedalism, look it up for why your theory, and others, cannot be proven.

Also, as far as I have learned, we are equally related to the common chimp and bonobo. This mounting evidence is not solid...those are just comparisons. We also wage wars, like chimps, we are male dominated, like chimps, we are sexually dimorphic like chimps. So, I have just said as much and as reasonably. You can't just look at those similiarities to prove it. You are selectively presenting evidence.

Anyhow, I pretty much think the disdain for homosexuality is more cultural. I am only bringing up evolutionary causes because it's a reasonable possibility that can't be excluded. So, what are we arguing about? As for chimps and bonobos, they are more closely related to each other than we are to either...so what would it matter if we were more closely related to bonobos? I think we see aspects of both, so why push for either one because you want to make yourself feel better about human behavior?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's quite a stretch but does anyone think that any ideas can be drawn from the example of frogs that change sex due to environmental conditions?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

How so? Frogs change their sex to increase reproductive success. How is that similar to homosexual behavior which doesn't increase reproductive success? I think there are other ways it could be adaptive, but I don't see how it fits in with frogs.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

btw, we might consider looking at people that are asexual, who do not have sex drives but instead choose partners based on their personality rather than sexual chemistry. Quite often, asexuals choose members of their own sex, but are not considered homosexual because it isn't about sex. It seems like we're ignoring factors like compatibility of personality and temperament. Are these as important, or does our sexuality limit us to only half (leaving out bisexuals) the population?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How so? Frogs change their sex to increase reproductive success. How is that similar to homosexual behavior which doesn't increase reproductive success? I think there are other ways it could be adaptive, but I don't see how it fits in with frogs.

I was just thinking about it and looked up an article on it to see how it happens and all. The article mentioned that discerning sex by chromosomes is not necessarily the best way of doing so. That reminded me that sex came later on in the evolution of species. This coupled with the frogs changing gender makes me wonder just how set in stone sexual characteristics are. Obviously humans don't have the same elasticity in their biology as frogs but perhaps during the early years of our life while our sexual characteristics are developing various environmental factors could contribute to some of the more subtle aspects of the outcome.

 

[Psi 5]

It is without a doubt nature. I'll wager that not a single person who 'guessed' nurture is homosexual, therefore their opinion is worthless. When I hear a homosexual tell me that they chose to be homosexual and that they chose to be turned on by the sexual organs of the same sex, then I might revise my opinion. You don't just decide as a woman to be turned on by another woman's vagina or breasts, you don't just decide as a man to be turned on my another man's penis. You don't 'choose' to be turned on period, it's purely chemical, it's not even hard wired.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is without a doubt nature. I'll wager that not a single person who 'guessed' nurture is homosexual, therefore their opinion is worthless. When I hear a homosexual tell me that they chose to be homosexual and that they chose to be turned on by the sexual organs of the same sex, then I might revise my opinion. You don't just decide as a woman to be turned on by another woman's vagina or breasts, you don't just decide as a man to be turned on my another man's penis. You don't 'choose' to be turned on period, it's purely chemical, it's not even hard wired.

I think you'll find that at least two answered partly both.
Also I've met several women that have found themselves 'turned on' by other women when they opened their minds to it though they were not homosexual. Not many men though.

 

[quantumcarl]

It's quite a stretch but does anyone think that any ideas can be drawn from the example of frogs that change sex due to environmental conditions?

Castrating the foetus of a male rabbit up to 24 hours before its birth will see it born as a female... if that helps with your question. That's a pretty harsh environment for the rabbit.

http://scienceweek.com/2004/sc040924-3.htm

This article mentions the dominant genetic characteristic of the female gender (in rabbits). In fact a female will still develop without its ovaries whereas a male will not be generated without its testes. I'd say that, in nature, the female gender is somehow favoured or more efficient with regard to its continuation and this may be of some importance to the topic of this thread.

All I know is that some women are more of a man than some men... and some men are more of a woman than some women.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

All I know is that some women are more of a man than some men... and some men are more of a woman than some women.

I find the same, we often forget there exists a continuum in both gender and sex. The simplest definition of female is the sex with the larger, more costly gamete, while male is the sex with the smaller, cheaper gamete. From there, sex is pretty plastic (as StatutoryApe mentioned) and gender is whatever we want it to be. The best I can tell, homosexuality in humans is partly nature and nurture. Is heterosexuality in humans not the same? Would bisexuality be the norm without strict rules on mating practices?

On another note, I think our societal values and attitudes towards homosexuality shape the way we approach it. This and other discussions reflect how uncomfortable our societal structure is with homosexuality. Hence, science is used to control and contain such unknowns; look what happened with other controversial and threatening topics - the concept of biological race/pseudospeciation was formed to deal with other ethnic groups, social darwinism was used to organize cultures in a valued hierarchy (we're big fans of charts and graphs to frame ideas in this culture). Science is helpful, but it seems to get used as a way to contain things we're afraid of, to place them in a setting where we can properly sterilize and prod them. Notice the tone of discussion on this topic (here and in the larger context) - it's often hostile, dehumanizing, generalized, accusatory, authoritative. It isn't simply curiosity that drives this investigation, people want an answer so they can "deal" with homosexuality in their societal context. I thought it was important to mention this so our own discussion doesn't follow the same path. I guess it's kind of late for that.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It is without a doubt nature. I'll wager that not a single person who 'guessed' nurture is homosexual, therefore their opinion is worthless.

If only each sex took the same approach when dealing with the other...

 

[Kurdt]

With the increasing sexual liberation in modern times (particularly western society and during the sixties) homosexuality comes about from predominantly social factors. With the increased freedom of sexuality that society afforded itself people were not afraid to try things they'd maybe thought about yet hadn't had the courage previously to try. After this period of sexual enlightenment when diseases became the major issue, I think societies attitude toward sexuality took a step back but since then with education about safe sex etc. we have been able to move forward from the very strict views of the church that predominated society for nearly two millenia.

The point I'm trying to make is thathomosexuality in a society that is comfortbale with sex is no new news. It just so happens that through christianity the west has had a particularly narrow minded view of what sex is and how society uses it. Ancient Greece is a very good example of a culture open minded toward sexual experiences. It was widely written down by their philosophers of the time about bonding sexually between their soldiers for increased morale. There are many stories (whether true or not) about same sex heroes in ancient greece.

Beyond Greece rome was a very sexually liberated society aswell. I can't remember when they unearthed pompeii (1600's?) but the roman catholic authorities of the time buried it again due to the "obscene" images of a man having sexual relations with a goat in the cities brothel (not sure if it were agoat but it was some animal and this was the norm to offer animals alongside women in brothels). I like that example because it shows how sexually repressed our society has been recently, with the fact they were prepared to bury such an important historical monument as pompeii.

I think it interesting now that people like to classify themselves by saying I'm homosexual or I'm heterosexual, but to be honest in a society that is becoming ever more sexually enlightened again I don't think those labels will last long. Bonobo society is an excellent example that has been cited in this thread many times. They are comfortable with sex because they're exposed to it from an early age (I think the babies actually have sexual intercourse with their mother asa mother baby bond thing) and thus bonobo's are all bisexual. Their closely related cousins the chimps on the other hand have a heavy handed patriarchal society as opposed to the matriarchal bonobo's and seem to be a bit more sexually repressed as the alpha male is the only one who gets to mate with females in season. This is a good example favouring nurture over nature as the main trigger for homosexuality being expressed.

Anyway I better conclude this. I don't know if anyone has made this point before because i didn't read all of the posts so i apologise if i brought the same point up twice. So we must all be born with the ability to be bisexual but the extent of the manifestation of our sexuality is all down to society and environment.

Wow i really didn't intend to go on that long but if you thinkmy argument is inconsistent in any places I do have aspergers and find it hard to communicate exceptionally well so don't hold it against me. Great thread anyway.

 

[arildno]

A good post Kurdt that deseves at least one comment:

While I agree with much of what you say, I do not think it is correct to regard Rome or Greece as "liberated" cultures, nor being in general comfortable about homosexuality (a (somewhat) better example of the last is Tokugawa Japan, but that was certainly not "liberated")

Ancient Rome and Greece had very different social strictures (often class-related) from ours; what was acceptable for a noble to do was not necessarily acceptable for one of low birth, and what one of low birth might enjoy could be socially forbidden for the noble.

In addition, since there didn't exist any active police-state in those days, people could get away with activities most contemporaries loathed, provided the perpetrator was powerful enough to discourage the formation of private lynching mobs.

For example:
If you let yourself (either male or female) be penetrated by a man of equal or less social status than yourself, then you drew upon you an intense social stigma.

Sexual intercourse was regarded as a kind of conquest, where the active one asserted his superiority over the conquered one.
If you were of higher social status than a prospective partner then, you should never, ever subjugate yourself to a passive role with him.

If you were of inferior social status, then a passive role might be acceptable and proper, even though you shouldn't evince any pleasure in doing so if you were to have any hopes of improving your social status as time went by.


These can hardly be regarded as liberated ideas around sexuality.

 

[Kurdt]

Just to reply to arildno, I recognise your point and maybe saying 'sexually liberated' was a bit wrong to be blunt, but never the less both cultures had a different 'attitude' if you will toward sexual relations. The whole point being that whatever social structure is in place is a major factor on whatever sexual relations occur in that society. The other social factors leading to them may be a bit dubious today but we cannot judge a culture by our own moral structure as morals are something that are not set in stone as made example of by recent attitudes toward homosexuality.