To me, that sounds like an overly simplistic “either/or” there. Either homosexuality is genetic or it is a choice. Imho, most of the non-genetic personality traits that a person has are not things that are actively chosen. Does a shy person choose to be shy? Or is shyness genetic? Etc. I’ve heard of nature vs nurture, but I’ve never heard of nature vs choice.
I can oversimplify in the other direction, too. Here we go: Homosexuality clearly is not genetic. Homosexual people do not reproduce. Therefore, “gay genes” could not be passed on to offspring, and there would not be any homosexual people alive today.
One problem with Bruce Bagemihl’s ideas appears to be (I say that since I haven’t read his book but am relying on reports such as those posted here and on websites) that he doesn’t differentiate sufficiently between animal sexuality (fairly basic) and human sexuality (pretty sophisticated). So far as I know, for example, no non-human animal (even an intelligent one who’s reputed to indulge in homosexual activities, such as a dolphin) has ever written a book about its sexuality, or even given an interview, even to a fellow dolphin.
The dangers of anthropomorphising animal behaviour is very great. When they for example rub each other’s genital regions, is this evidence for the type of homosexuality practised by humans?
One specific question I have for those who have read the book is which male animals practise anal penetration? What patterns have emerged regarding the behaviour of the dyadic participants? in other words, is one typically (or invariantly) a top and the other a bottom, or are the roles interchangeable? If there is no evidence for any of this, then, given that anal penetration is the prototypical physical act of human male homosexuals, then how valid is it to equate sexual activity between two non-human animals of the same species with sexual activity between two human beings? How significant too is the fact that human beings have cognitive, volitional and affective capabilities well beyond those of all other animals?
I think the twin studies are particularly revealing; they suggest, but do not prove, a strong genetic component tied in with something else. It’s suggested by other studies that the prenatal environment influences sexuality, and in some cases that may not be the result of genetics at all.
There are environment variables as well. It’s not a secret that sometimes trauma in childhood can affect people’s sexual orientation - though what percentage of gay people were “made” rather than “born”, it’s impossible to guess. The evidence suggests that there’s a myriad of factors that all add up, and we’re a very long way off from being able to identify all of them and how they interact.
You demonstrate the typical straight man’s obsession with gay men and assfucking. I suppose it wouldn’t help to pull out statistics to show that many gay men don’t practice anal sex at all. And outside of long-term, monogamous relationships, I suspect a great majority of gay men nowadays don’t practice it. While it may be the “prototypical sexual act of male homosexuals”, there’s a lot more straight people out there doing it than gay people. I also don’t see what possible relevance your concept of sex roles could possibly have in this discussion.
I don’t know how many animals have been shown to contain members that exclusively pair up with the same sex. But it happens, and one of my friends owns a pair of lesbian dart frogs. There’s plenty of evidence that it happens, at least with some species. It’s difficult to observe an animal for a long enough period of time to be certain that it is exclusively homosexual.
Agreed that psychological factors also merit consideration.
Now, now, guessing at the state of mind of other people is a very high-risk habit to form, and a hard habit to break.
Speaking of high-risk habits, the work-safe stdworld website has some sketchy information about homosexual and heterosexual uptake (intake?) of anal sex:
So the fellahs would appear to be ahead.
Tell your friend to get his Canon out and post the photos here!
Drug users and cult members do not choose to cut themselves off from society. They simply shift to a different social circle. Hermits (real ones) make up a vnishingly small number of people and the reasons for any individual becoming a hermit can be widely varied. Suicide is not a “lifestyle,” it is a single event from which their is no option to reconsider the choice.
Oh, I wasn’t arguing that percentage-wise we were losing the buttsex race. But numerically, y’all are far outstripping us.
The 60% or so estimate you found gibes well with what I’ve read elsewhere. It suggests pretty strongly that anal sex is not exactly universal among gay men - common, but hardly necessary and inevitable.
Whoops, misread it. Somehow I thought the hyphen was a decimal point (though I should have realized there couldn’t be that much precision in a survey. 95% is ridiculously high (hell, there has to be more than 5% of us who aren’t getting laid on a regular basis. The number doesn’t even pass the plausibility test.) Naturally, surveys on sexual behavior are difficult methodologically speaking. However, 60%, maybe 70%, is much more in keeping with the mainstream research on the subject.
As much as heteros seem to associate gay men with buttsex, it’s not something everyone chooses to engage in, for a variety of reasons. Some don’t because of the astronomically higher risk of contracting HIV. Some - and this might be a wee bit of a shock to you, rog - just don’t like it.
At any rate, with you heteros’ own prodigious enjoyment of buttlovin’, one can certainly see that it’s not a reliable test of queerness. It’s not part and parcel of being queer, so it doesn’t make much sense to expect it to offer much insight into animal homosexuality.
Really? Even if that were to be the case - and I have a feeling that for other male homosexuals their definition of a part and a parcel may differ from yours - the point remains that, according to Bagemihl, there is scientifically-documented evidence of anal sex among (non-human) animals. If this is the case, then, given Bagemihl’s thesis that homosexuality occurs in nature and so human homosexuality cannot be called unnatural (it’s all part of ‘natural diversity’, to quote from the title of his book), you’d think there would be inter-connectivity between animal anal sex and human anal sex. And you’d also think that there would be insights to be gained from the research data obtained.
For an earlier discussion of this and related issues, interested parties may see this thread.
You’re doing a lot of stretching here, Roger Thornhill. It’s syllogistic logic to think any of these is true:
A)gay human sex=butt sex
B)animal sex=human sex
c)gay animal sex=gay animal butt sex
There may be some common ground, but they are not identical actions anymore than primates socializing while picking nits out of hair equaling debating genetics on a message board.
Based on discussions with the male homosexuals I know, I am quite certain your feeling is incorrect.
And, roger, you’ll be happy to know the book does, in fact, include pictures of this.
His thesis is nothing of the kind. In fact, he spends a considerable amount of time distinguishing between homosexual behavior in animals and homosexuality in humans- he explicitly undertakes “overt disavowal of … human connotations and extensive consideration of the inappropriatenes of making unwarranted human-animal comparisons” (page 4).
Yo! Queermo dudes!
rog here is claiming that anal sex is one of the defining features of homosexuality - that it’s a central characteristic, “part and parcel” being the words used. Pointing out that not all gay men have anal sex, and very few lesbians, has had no effect. He wishes to get the opinions of other gay people. So is butt lovin’ one of the central parts of identity as gay? Are you only in it for the butt sex? Is there any truth to his claims that anal sex is some inherent, fundamental part of being gay?
But numerically, y’all are far outstripping us.