I think you give too much credit to early, primitive humans. Abortion? How are they gonna do that? They didn’t even have knitting needles.
Abstinence? They didn’t even know the correlation between sex & pregnancy. Even modern women knowing full well how babies get made, have real difficulties with the abstinence method.
Infanticide? Prolonged breastfeeding? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen National Geographic specials showing women with one kid on the tit and another on the hip. Can’t say about infanticide, but I’ve never heard it being widely practiced. Is it?
Abortion was certainly widely practiced, though I’m not certain whether or not it was universal. Abortifacient herbs exist, which have been used in folk medicine for a very long time indeed; in classical times, an herb called silphium was harvested to extinction for its use as a contraceptive and abortifacient. Lots of other herbs have been used that way, though most of them are extremely dangerous. Very strenuous exercise and carrying heavy objcets have been documented as a method used in ancient times and primitive cultures to induce abortion. More gruesome methods were used as well - violent blows to the abdomen, primitive surgeries, and so forth. In terms of documented evidence, I can’t help you out - I’m not an anthropologist, and most primitive cultures aren’t big on thorough recordkeeping, but abortion has certainly been practiced throughout recorded history, and it’s not a big leap to assume that preliterate cultures practice it as well.
?!
Which culture are you talking about? Cultural knowledge of things like that varies, but I doubt any culture failed to make that distinction. I certainly haven’t heard of such a thing. That’s not to say that conception was understood perfectly by hunter-gatherers - for instance, the Sambia of Highland New Guinea believe that repeated sex creates pregnancy. Essentially, the baby is “built” out of semen in the mother’s womb. Nevertheless, the essential connection between sex and pregnancy is there.
I never claimed that it was perfectly effective.
Yet another method that’s not a hundred percent effective. Medicine in the hunter-gatherer world is primitive. Nevertheless, fertility decreases very significantly as long as a woman breastfeeds. From what I’ve read about the !Kung people (a Khoisan people in the Namib desert), it’s a strategy they employ quite deliberately to reduce the risk of pregnancy.
You’re joking, right? It’s still practiced in some impoverished areas. Off the top of my head, Eskimos did it, the Chinese did it (and probably still do in rural areas), the aforementioned !Kung did it (a book I read described a woman’s early memories of her mother killing an unwanted baby), and other examples that I can’t remember as well. It’s certainly not uncommon; I’m not certain whether all hunter-gatherer groups and primitive agricultural societies practice it, but it’s not something that’s unusual by any means.
Recorded history doesn’t mean much. What, 10,000 years? Nothing much evolved over the last 10,000 years. These herbal abortifacients? Silphium? So? It was only used in that area around Greece to Libya. What did the rest of the human species use? Strenuous excercise? Carrying heavy objects? Blows to the abdomen? Having a gay aunt or uncle around sounds much easier, and more likely to have evolved. Most female animals, upon deciding now is not the best time to have a kid, will naturally abort it, or give birth to it and then eat it or abandon it to die.
I have a hard time with this. A woman might prolong breastfeeding, maybe or maybe to not to delay fertility. But just how long do you think a woman can breastfeed? Four years? More? Seems unlikely. Humans get weaned long before they’re capable of caring for themselves, and mom pumping out another one.
Infanticide might not be all that uncommon. But what’s better for evolution? Killing excess babies or having gay aunts & uncles around?
Well, chimps manage to pop out a kid only once every 4-5 years. I think if they can do it, primitive humans could, too.
Is that a serious question? I don’t know what it means to be “better for evolution”, but I think there are many, many more species of mammals that practice infanticide than that have gay aunts and uncles. So I guess the answer is: infanticide.
Human females don’t signal their heat with a prominent swelling of the pink perineal skin. They can more or less mate anytime. Chimp females aren’t receptive to mating for three or four years after sex. I’d imagine they let this be known by the obvious non-swelling of their nether regions. What do human females do? Get bitchy?
Tough call. Non-reproductive members of animal populations aren’t normally referred to as gay. I think most females of any species would rather give birth and have it be a success than waste lots of energy giving birth and then kill it.
No, the swelling starts again as soon as the infant is weaned. Sound familiar? That’s the same process that supresses ovulation. And it’s not uncommon for primitive peoples to breast feed children (at least in part) until they are 3 or 4 years old. But the point that **Excalibre **was making is that there is a suite of behaviors that come into play and generally limit the birthrates in primitive societies.
No. Humans will invent social customs that say it’s bad ju-ju to mate with a breast feeding woman, if that’s what it takes to keep the birth rate down. Primitive hunter/gatherer societies just can’t cope with too many infants. And you can forget about gay aunts. In a primitive society, it’s unlikely that any woman, gay or not, is going to be given the choice of whether or not to partner with a man and have kids. In fact, it’s probobly only very recently (as in the last few generations) that a significant number of lesbians could just decide to set up housekeeping with another woman. If you had a lesbian sister living with you in an early human society, she’d probably be one of your husband’s other wives with kids of her own to take care of.
Well, I hope I was clear in my earlier response that your original question really didn’t make sense. There isn’t anyhing that is “better for evolution”. And it’s not the females that do the killing, btw, it’s the males.
So there may be a suite of behaviors that limit birthrates. Having x number of non-reproducing (gay) but otherwise contributing members of your tribe around could be useful too. You or Excalibre haven’t produced anything that would lead me to believe your hypothesis is any more valid than mine.
Bad ju-ju? Now you’re really grasping at what primitive human societies may or may not have been up to.
But it takes nine months to gestate one, so every one you can have would be precious, and not lightly tossed aside. A human woman doesn’t take her newborn, isolate herself and subsist on bananas & grubs for four or five years. Humans are highly social, and mom & the kids are taken care of within the tribe at all times.
Ah, so you’re admitting human females don’t have all that much control over their fertility, are pretty much mating all the time and pumping out kids?
Having non-reproducing (and gays & lesbians actually can reproduce just fine, if they want) members of your tribe might be “better for evolution,” or maybe it’s just not “bad for evolution.” You seem to be saying “nah, it’s neither good or bad, it’s just there and there’s no reason to select against it.” I’m saying, “not only is there no reason to select against it, but maybe there are reasons why it’s beneficial.”
I forgot this part. When males do the killing, it’s because they have good reason to believe the kid isn’t theirs. There seems to be evidence the reason human males have pretty big balls compared to our primate cousins is because our females fool around a lot, and we need to pump 'em full of our own semen. But I’ve not read much that would indicate human males kill their offspring more than human females, except for the above reason. In any event, I can see killing a competitor male’s children because you don’t want to waste time & energy raising someone else’s kids. But if you’re the gay uncle, you may only care that your sister’s genes are getting passed on, and not care so much if you sister’s chosen mate’s genes aren’t the ones getting passed on.
There’s a pretty well-known Greek story that starts with infant exposure. (Which was a cross between abandonment and offering-up-for-adoption.) The practice also appears to have been pretty well known in Rome.
Four years or so is certainly normal in some cultures. If you’re challenging me on that point, you clearly don’t know squat about the subject. Start doing some research - if you think quitting breastfeeding entirely at eight or nine months is cross-culturally normal, you’re vastly misinformed.
“Better for evolution”? This discussion is going to be completely useless if you don’t understand what evolution is and how it works. This phrase does not suggest that you do. Obviously any solution involving infanticide is non-optimal for the parent, and particularly the mother, who has invested significantly in carrying the child to term. No doubt any random
I think the gay uncle theory has a lot to answer for - it should start by examining the commonness of “gay uncles” in hunter-gatherer groups. Normal figures for a percentage of the population that’s gay in the general population are between two and five percent. If that is true cross-culturally, than the typical band of hunter-gatherers might have one gay person. The theory presumes, of course, that our gay uncle remains childless - is that true? Are gay, childless men and women common in hunter-gatherer cultures? Do they preferentially care for the children of their close relatives? Can you prove that this care is enough to make up for the genetic loss in one’s reproductive fitness in remaining childless? I outlined that above - if you wish to argue it, address the point directly instead of starting arguments around niggling side issues. It’s especially unhelpful when your argument consists, essentially, of referring to things I say and saying, “I don’t believe that.”
Look, I’m not an anthropologist. If you can find evidence that I’m wrong, do so. I’d love to hear it - this is not something I know an enormous amount about, which is why I stated my opinion as an opinion. It’s as educated an opinion as I’m capable of. Frankly, you’re coming across here as hostile and argumentative. You’ve found your weak spot - it’s true, I’m not familiar enough with anthropology to prove things I’ve heard elsewhere. If you want to dismiss my opinion because of that, that’s fine. If you want to have an interesting discussion, then I suggest you start doing some of the legwork as well. I’m not interested in having a Lincoln-Douglas debate with you over this, so if that’s your purpose then I’m not going to speak with you again.
A major issue I forgot about! ONe of my friends is an anthropologist, and she explained to me that many Highland New Guinea cultures have so many taboo days for sex that most days are off-limits; one culture has only 80-something (if memory serves) days per year when sex is permitted. I already alluded to one such culture, the Sambia, and the extremely peculiar fears men have regarding sex with women. My friend, along with (apparently) many other anthropologists, believe that this is essentially a population control strategy (Guyette 2004, personal communication.)
I don’t know about that. A book I read that was essentially a biography of a !Kung woman described her mother killing a baby - it was certainly not suggested that it was unusual for women to do so.
And you haven’t come up with any response yet to my rough sketch of the genetic burden of remaining childless. So we’re even. Since I see that you are only interested in having an argument, rather than a discussion, I see no reason to continue this at all.
Oh for the love of God. Again with the “I don’t believe you!” line of argument. I’m no anthropologist, but you’re apparently completely lacking even the most basic knowledge of the matters we’re discussing.
Just for the heck of it, um, cite? Because the way you talk, you sound as if you think hunter-gatherer tribes are completely selfless and members will sacrifice in order to protect other families without reservation. Cultures vary a lot, and practicies regarding sharing of food certainly do, and no such blanket statement is safe. Further, if “mom & the kids are taken care of within the tribe at all times”, gay auntie and gay uncle are superfluous, and likely won’t be devoting any particular extra time to caring for their sisters’ kids than they will be for other tribe members’ kids - in which case, again, they lose the genetic lottery.
Knock it off with this combative shit. I’m not sure why you feel the need to turn this into a screaming match - I thought it was an interesting conversation and I was hoping to learn something new here. But you don’t seem to want to participate in that process at all. Take Anthro 101 and we can talk again. This obnoxiousness on your part is utterly unhelpful.
You know Excalibre, your argument seems to come down to “I’m not an anthropologist, but… I say blah, blah, blah. And the New Guinea culture backs me up.” You’re right. You and I had best drop this. Neither of us knows what humans were doing 500,000 years ago, but I’d guess gays & bisexuals evolved before your herbs & John Mace’s Ju-Ju.
Funny, though, that you haven’t brought any information at all to this, though you’ve been quick to shout stuff down because you decide you don’t believe it.
Christ, try to be a little more honest, would you? You’re obviously not remotely interested in finding out anything - you’re here to push an ideological agenda. At least be straight up about it.
Interesting, incidentally, that while you keep bitching about what you don’t believe and what you find implausible (based on apparently nothing more than guesses) that you’re actually mocking me for trying to use some information and knowledge in the points I’m making.
As a gay person, nothing makes me laugh more than heterosexuals telling you with a straight (pardon the pun) face that their sex is OK because their sex is procreative and the purpose of sex is procreation.
Gay sex, by extension, is “unnatural” because it is not possible for it to cause procreation.
Look, guys, I live in the country, and I have an axe. I have used it maybe 800 times over the past 20 years, and each time I used it I used it to split firewood for my fireplace. Now on one occasion, I saw smoke coming out of my neighbour’s house. The firefighters were not there yet but the door was locked and I was certain there were people inside. I used my axe on that ONE occasion to give somebody life. I broke down the door and pulled out my neighbour’s wife who was lying on the floor.
Now that may have been the most important, life-essential use I ever made of my axe. But if I ask you what an axe is primarily for, I beleive we would all agree that statistical evidence clearly indicates it is a device for splitting firewood, right?
Now, if you are like any typical straight male, you will probably have about 5,000 to 10,000 orgasms in your life, if you count about 3,000 masturbations in your teenage years plus all of the other sex with women until out kind of peters out (no pun intended) around 70.
Now, is there any straight guy out there who intends to cause 5,000 to 10,000 pregnancies in their lifetime? Are there any straight women who intend to stop sex once they reach menopause and their sex becomes as non-procreative as the sex between two males?
Is the primary puropose of sex really reproduction? Statistically speaking, I think the primary purpose of sex is satisfaction of the human sex drive, pleasure, satisfaction and bonding. Just because reproduction is the most important BIOLOGICAL value of sex does not automatically make it the primary reason for sex, does it?
Well, my hypothesis is just that-- an hypothesis. I’m not so much pushing it as the explanation as saying that the “gay aunts and uncles” hypothesis doesn’t hold water. And my hypothesis isn’t testable right now, so I’m not particularly wedded to it. Your hypothesis, however, is testable, and as long as you are unable to produce any evidence to support it from any of the extant human hunter/gatherer societies, then I see no basis whatsoever to accept it.
Wow, is my sense of humor that bad? OK, substitute “taboo” for “bad ju-ju” if you want to sound more scientific. Surely you are not going to say that primitive human societies do not put all kinds of restrictions on sex, since it so well documented that they do.
Except when they’re not. Look, infanticide may or may not be a significant part of human population control, but it certainly exists. The fact that you deny that it does simply means you want to ignor any facts that don’t fit your preconceived ideas.
No, I’m not admitting that because that’s not al all what I said. Women in primitive societies (or even most non-primitive societies for that matter) generally don’t get to decide if they will be paired up and if they will have kids, but they do participate in decisions about when to have kids (ie, how they are spaced apart) if by no other means than the process of breastfeeding. Again, if you have evidence of hunter gatherer societies where gay aunts and unlces operate as babysitters, let’s see it. But I can tell you right now there isn’t any. Not from extant human societies, and not from our closest living relatives (the great apes).
For the thrid time let me point out that saying something is “better for evolution” is nonsense.
Don’t worry, your sense of humor is fine. I cited an example of it, but no doubt he will mock that example, as apparently bringing in anthropological knowledge in a discussion about anthropology is not the thing to do. Which is why he hasn’t brought in the most miniscule bit of evidence to support his point.
It’s amazing to me that someone could become an ideologue like this over a freaking athropological theory. I know religious people sometimes get like this, but adherents to an anthropological theory? It’s ever stranger given that levdrakon is arguing from complete ignorance and his only arguments thus far could all be replaced by repetition of “I don’t believe that!”
Infanticide is very thoroughly documented in many cultures, both hunter-gatherer and agricultural. But it doesn’t matter - levdrakon doesn’t believe you.
You’ve probably heard of the Bonobo. Here are some interesting tidbits:
So no, sex isn’t just about reproduction, at least to one of our closest primate cousins. Are humans a bit more like the Bonobo than regular chimpanzees? Who knows? I think most scientists would tell you to be very cautious when drawing parallels between humans and our primate relatives.
Clearly, the Bonobo use sex for much more than reproduction, and gay sex is part of it. But so is sex with children, and incest. It also doesn’t appear that Bonobos are ever exclusively homosexual or heterosexual so they don’t constitute evidence of the gay aunt/uncle theory.
The gay aunt/uncle theory BTW, isn’t my pet explanation for why homosexuals exist among humans. It’s just one reason they might be handy to have around.
I’m not really pushing the gay aunt/uncle theory as the explanation either, and I don’t know how I managed to get myself boxed into that corner. And how is “my” hypothesis testable? As for extant evidence, I already brought up Samoans, and in particular a real-world, right-now friend of mine’s family as an example.
I don’t get this. I used a current example and got scoffed at because you can’t use current human behavior to describe what probably evolved at least 100,000 years ago. Then I poke holes in your theory for the same reason, and now I’m an unintellectual asshole because I can’t cough up more current evidence.
Your sense of humor is just fine. Apparently mine is lacking, as I can’t use your term without causing offense.
No, I’m not going to say humans don’t put restrictions on sex. What I’m saying is we’re talking about something that had probably evolved at least 100,000 years ago, which, according to my brother the geneticist*, is about the last time humans underwent any significant evolutionary change. We know humans make up superstitions, taboos, religious edicts etc, to control social behavior. But we don’t know what humans were doing 100K years ago. You’re just guessing. I’m just guessing there were homosexuals & bisexuals 100K years ago, and coming up with reasons why that human attribute hasn’t been deliberately bred out of the gene-pool.
When did I deny that infanticide exists? I don’t accept it as the preferred method of birth control. When times are hard, infant mortality is high. I can see if the choice is starving, or giving up the kid so you can survive and have another kid, it might make sense to chuck the kid. If the mother was raped, and she doesn’t want the rapist’s kid, she might also chuck it.
You seem to feel that rape was quite common, and if there was a woman around who wasn’t pregnant or already taken, someone would rape her. I can quickly counter that theory using your own reasoning. If women didn’t want to be raped, they’d just make it bad ju-ju to rape women. I can certainly provide current evidence that human societies frequently declare rape to be bad ju-ju.
I don’t know what to call it so you’ll feel better about it. Let’s Wiki up evolution. A couple quick snips:
For homosexuality to have evolved, it must at some point have conferred some sort of advantage. If later it no longer conferred an advantage, and became more or less superfluous, but caused no detriment, it might stick around anyway. Is that what you’re saying homosexuality is?
*that was a joke. Apparently Excalibre feels you don’t have to be a specialist, you just have to say you know a specialist, and then you can speak with authority.
Oh, well I can tell ou how you did that. See, you did it by more or less throwing a tantrum when John Mace and I questioned its explanatory power.
You didn’t name a hunter-gatherer culture. Isn’t that what we were talking about? You can’t even meaningfully cite Samoans for information about how the Samoans lived two hundred years ago, because they live in a completely different manner, and this gay uncle theory is not even remotely applicable outside of that particular social milieu.
No, you’re an unintellectual asshole because your entire argument thus far has been yelling, “I don’t believe you!” when John or I make reference to a piece of fact. The appalling ignorance you displayed in your response to John’s reference to taboos regarding sex is probably the best illustration - you mocked his point, when he is entirely right about many primitive cultures having taboos that prevent sex, and lots of anthropologists view it as a population control measure. But not only are you completely ignorant on the subject, you ridiculed John for knowing about it.
But we do know enough about their family structure to know exactly what role confirmed bachelors played in their society? Here, again, you’re arguing from ignorance. Your claim is that since John and I can’t know about the religious practices of humans 100,000 years ago we have no room to discuss them. Well, the same is true for you. So by your reasoning, we can’t discuss this issue whatsoever.
Now, if you were going to be rational about this instead of grasping at whatever straws you could in an attempt to discredit your opponent, you could start with what is actually a relatively safe assumption - that practices that are universal amongst hunter-gatherer tribes today also likely existed 100,000 years ago. If you’re going to argue that anatomically modern humans of the distant past were entirely different from modern humans, you need to provide evidence for it.
That’s the bottom line: you like arguing and you like attempting to poke holes in others’ arguments, but you don’t seem to like providing evidence - or even argument - to support your claims. You’ve been clinging to ridiculously poor assumptions (like “primitive humans had no way whatsoever to control their population” and “primitive humans had no religious beliefs”) that are either demonstrably false in regard to modern humans, or demonstrably false even if we play around within this 100,000+ years ago period you’re arguing. After all, humans from before that period buried their dead, which is generally considered a sign of religious beliefs.
I’m not sure where he got that number from anyway - H. sapiens has existed for over twice that long, H. neanderthalensis didn’t go extinct until far more recently, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that the frequency of alleles connected to homosexuality couldn’t have changed drastically in the intervening time (a change in the frequency of specific alleles over time is one definition of “evolution”.) If you’re under the impression that human evolution suddenly froze 100,000 years ago, then prove it.
Now you’re being straight up disingenuous. You have not done any such thing. You have been sitting here picking at everything I say, providing zero evidence (which means you haven’t been “coming up with reasons” at all), and generally being, as you acknowledged above, an “unintellectual asshole”. You have not come up with any reasoning to support your point. You have not come up with any counter to what I said initially - my point about the numbers not working. You have not come up with anything at all - you have merely sat and picked at what John and I have said. You have done so not by finding evidence to contradict us, but my sitting and repeating the same mantra - “I don’t believe you.” You’re giving yourself way too much credit if you think you’ve come up with any “reasons” or anything else in this discussion. That’s just not what you’ve been doing.
Ahh, so now you’re changing around what I said to argue with it? What I said was that a combination of behaviors exist in modern-day primitive societies that control the number and spacing of children; I cited examples for my points. One of those behaviors is infanticide, which is still widespread. I never once claimed that it was the primary method of birth control anywhere at any time, and you have now moved into out and out lying when you suggest otherwise.
Once again, your only argument comes from your own guesses. You don’t have any evidence. You can’t cite any examples. But you’re sure I’m wrong. Based on your own guesses.
What in God’s name are you even talking about?
Wrong. That has already been addressed by several people in this thread. Reread the thread. And that’s an awfully simplistic understanding of evolution anyway - after all, if being gay was an advantage, wouldn’t all humans be gay?
John and I have made the same argument: that the gay uncle theory does not provide adequate explanatory power. That’s all. You have argued the opposite; you are quite clearly a partisan of the gay uncle theory and you are committed to it despite not having even a modicum of knowledge of anthropology (as we’ve seen time and again during this thread.) You seem to be committed to this theory heart and soul. However, you are not committed enough to even try to support your claims with evidence or reasoning.
You have picked at every piece of evidence we’ve used, while you have provided no evidence and no examples of your own. You have not provided a single bit of support for any of your assertions - but you show yourself perfectly willing to dismiss anyone else’s argument by simply saying, “I don’t believe you”.
And apparently you feel that you don’t need to use knowledge, evidence, or reasoning at all in an argument. All that you have to do is pout and say “I don’t believe you!” when someone makes a point you don’t like.
Well, that’s what we in the business call an anecdote, not data. What I’d be looking for is a systematic study that showed that the “gay aunt/uncle” situation is an integral part of some society-- preferably a primitive hunter/gatherer society since that is the type of society we evloved in.
I wasn’t aware that “bad ju-ju” was offensive.
This is probably where you’re getting things wrong, as that is definitely not true. It could just as easily be a by-product of something else that conferred an advantage (which is basically what my hypothesis is about). Or, it could simply not be disadvantageous enough to disappear. But not every trait is the result of some evolutionary advantage conferred on the species by that trait.
I wasn’t aware that “bad ju-ju” was offensive.