3 ms·

> However, tolerance for homosexual acts between men seems to be strongly selected against Actually historically there were numerous instances of largely-homos

> However, tolerance for homosexual acts between men seems to be strongly selected against Actually historically there were numerous instances of largely-homosexual civilizations. Just look up the true story behind the movie 300. > Creating sperm is expensive and wasting them with a man is not to your advantage. I think you completely forgot about masturbation, which pretty much destroys that entire line of argument ;) Males "waste" sperm on a constant basis. :) > It was also important for men to be highly focused on interfacing with females Actually in many societies men were NOT focused on social interaction with females, a trend that continues to this day especially in certain religious countries. Interaction was and is often limited to reproduction, with gender segregation in social roles (the men spend most of their time with other men while the women spend most of their time with other women and children). It really doesn't take much effort at all to get a female pregnant. The vast majority of effort is in child-rearing, not procreation. Homosexuality actually confers some advantages, such as: - Male bonding, leading to more effective teamwork, which is a huge advantage in small tribal societies; - Exclusively-homosexual males don't compete for females yet can still lend their muscle to protecting the tribe. In a small tribe, competition for females can lead to infighting which will put the whole group at a disadvantage to a neighboring tribe that has the same gender split but in which most of its males are homosexual. (Effeminate homosexuals tend to be much less common than non-effeminate ones, which is why so many gay males can fly under the radar.)

falsestprophet 19y ago
>Actually historically there were numerous instances of largely-homosexual civilizations. Just look up the true story behind the movie 300. This is anecdotal evidence. Isolated societies that practice homosexuality do not offer a sound argument against the general trend. Note that you can only think of a few examples. >I think you completely forgot about masturbation, which pretty much destroys that entire line of argument ;) Males "waste" sperm on a constant basis. :) Recall that is is a conversation about bisexuality and homosexual behavior, not homosexuality which is obviously not evolutionarily helpful to a homosexual man (although there are theories that account for the genes that increase the liklihood of homosexuality having an evolutionary advantage for the women that carry them). Evolution is not a boolean question, traits propagate according to their relative success. Men who only want to have sex with women are more likely to deposit more sperm into women than men who deposit sperm wherever it fits. Masturbation would work against both populations. >Actually in many societies men were NOT focused on social interaction with females. I did not say interacting with women. Lots of people interact with women without reproducing. I said 'interfacing,' which was meant as a euphemism for fucking. I will spare you the confusion of further euphemisms. Son, people fuck everywhere.
- brenda90210 19y ago
  > This is anecdotal evidence. Actually it's well-established. The best-known example is ancient Greece. Here's a general roundup of some historical figures: Socrates, Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello and Christopher Marlowe. > Recall that is is a conversation about bisexuality and homosexual behavior, The conversation is about whatever people discuss. Funny to see you try a dodge when I completely skewer your "sperm is expensive" faux-pas! :) > I said 'interfacing,' which was meant as a euphemism for fucking. Yes, your example is incorrect, as societies in which men were not "highly focused on interfacing with females" still managed to keep the birth rate up. Cf. 300. > not homosexuality which is obviously not evolutionarily helpful to a homosexual man Sure it can be -- especially when it's the norm. It's not even disadvantageous to his genes as long as he's not exclusively homosexual. Even if he were, from his genes' perspective, he can still fulfill a useful role by protecting and benefitting his close kin, who have a lot in common genetically. Homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. Numerous studies have discovered this surprising result. In humans it persists despite widespread modern cultural condemnation, so it's a bit of a sticky issue. It's not as simple as a blanket "selected for" or "selected against" situation. There's no such thing as universal fitness; just adaptations that are useful in a particular time and place.

falsestprophet 19y ago

>Actually historically there were numerous instances of largely-homosexual civilizations. Just look up the true story behind the movie 300. This is anecdotal evidence. Isolated societies that practice homosexuality do not offer a sound argument against the general trend. Note that you can only think of a few examples. >I think you completely forgot about masturbation, which pretty much destroys that entire line of argument ;) Males "waste" sperm on a constant basis. :) Recall that is is a conversation about bisexuality and homosexual behavior, not homosexuality which is obviously not evolutionarily helpful to a homosexual man (although there are theories that account for the genes that increase the liklihood of homosexuality having an evolutionary advantage for the women that carry them). Evolution is not a boolean question, traits propagate according to their relative success. Men who only want to have sex with women are more likely to deposit more sperm into women than men who deposit sperm wherever it fits. Masturbation would work against both populations. >Actually in many societies men were NOT focused on social interaction with females. I did not say interacting with women. Lots of people interact with women without reproducing. I said 'interfacing,' which was meant as a euphemism for fucking. I will spare you the confusion of further euphemisms. Son, people fuck everywhere.

brenda90210 19y ago
> This is anecdotal evidence. Actually it's well-established. The best-known example is ancient Greece. Here's a general roundup of some historical figures: Socrates, Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello and Christopher Marlowe. > Recall that is is a conversation about bisexuality and homosexual behavior, The conversation is about whatever people discuss. Funny to see you try a dodge when I completely skewer your "sperm is expensive" faux-pas! :) > I said 'interfacing,' which was meant as a euphemism for fucking. Yes, your example is incorrect, as societies in which men were not "highly focused on interfacing with females" still managed to keep the birth rate up. Cf. 300. > not homosexuality which is obviously not evolutionarily helpful to a homosexual man Sure it can be -- especially when it's the norm. It's not even disadvantageous to his genes as long as he's not exclusively homosexual. Even if he were, from his genes' perspective, he can still fulfill a useful role by protecting and benefitting his close kin, who have a lot in common genetically. Homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. Numerous studies have discovered this surprising result. In humans it persists despite widespread modern cultural condemnation, so it's a bit of a sticky issue. It's not as simple as a blanket "selected for" or "selected against" situation. There's no such thing as universal fitness; just adaptations that are useful in a particular time and place.