Yup, going out on a wild, speculative limb in a way thet verges on an ad hominem.
Are you serious?
I think you’ll find that a lot of people are revolted by other people masturbating.
Anyway, that’s irrelevant. Just because not everything that might inhibit or prevent us passing on our genes is revolting to us does not mean that it cannot be an advantageous trait.
Fear of things that might kill us is something that, on a completely different tack, is very useful in making sure that we stand the best chance of passing on our genes but we have by no means a universal or particularly finely tuned sense for such matters.
That does not mean that a fear of heights is not a useful evolutionary trait, particularly for those who are unable to use logic to estimate the actual dangers of height.
It should also be pointed out that I have been talking about evolutionary traits rather than concrete biological mechanisms.
Some people are much more revolted by the thought of homosexual activity than others in the same way that some people are much more terrified of hanging off a sheer rock face that are others.
Yes, that’s a very good point. I don’t think there’s much doubt that society’s view of homosexuality is entirely cultural. Even the most homophobic must realise that the existence of homosexual members of their own sex is not disadvantageous to them as far as finding mates (or one night stands) is concerned.
Indeed.
I’m sure that there are a multiplicity of traits that may be, at one and the same time, favoured by evolution, and disfavoured by evolution. And only time can tell whether any given trait’s favour will outweigh its disfavour.
Ad hominem only applies if what you’re referring to has nothing to do with the subject at hand. When I am arguing biology with someone, the fact that they show very little grasp of anything within the field is pertinent to the argument. Arguing about mathematics with someone who is suggesting 1 + 1 equals 5 would be a fine place to point out that the other person does not, in fact, grasp mathematics.
Really? I’ve got a whole bunch of porn on my hard drive that begs to differ.
We don’t understand genetics or neurology enough to say how these traits are managed, but what does appear to be the case is that many things are learned, not actually instinct. We have flinching instincts, an infant at eight months old will hesitate to crawl across a glass covered “chasm”, high-pitched noises like nails on a chalkboard cause people to become extremely agitated. However, evidence for instinctive fear responses in humans other than those is difficult to find. There are evolutionary psychologists who have claimed all sorts of instincts exist. Most of them are quacks and are not taken seriously in the field, only the popular media.
The popular media, BTW, really loves “just so” fables and tends to horribly distort and simplify the actual science.
There is very little work in evolutionary theory towards things that disgust animals, seeing as how revulsion tends to be–are you ready?–a cultural trait. A “revulsion” behavior as we would recognize it has never been recorded in an animal AFAIK. What has been recorded in animals is rampant homosexual behavior (giraffes are the worst), necrophilia, incest, bestiality, masturbation, etc. It’d be pretty goofy that we of all animals evolved a revulsion response, rather than it being a result of culture. Particularly since culture does such a fine job of passing on learned behaviors.
The problem with things that can be handled via culture becoming genetically encoded is that then you’ve created something that is far harder to change. We are so successful as a species in part because we can change quickly. Other animals can be wiped out while waiting for evolution to catch up with the problem at hand; humans need only look at it and adjust their behavior accordingly.
Except, that you have not made the slightest attempt to demonstrate any failing in biology.
All you’ve done is make an unsupported assertion. You’re effectively saying that because you don’t agree with someone they must have a poor grasp of the subject.
To extend your analogy, if I said 1 + 1 = 2, you could say that it equals 4 and I obviously have a poor grasp of maths. It would be as valid as what you say about biology.
Another fundamental failing in logic here. Just because some people are turned on by something does not mean that others are not revolted by it. You said that people were not revolted by masturbation. To counter that I don’t need to prove that everyone is always revolted. If you think people are not, go and do it in full view in a busy shopping mall and see what happens.
It may well be that a lot of things are learned but what is most definitely not learned is the actual ability to be revolted. It would be very strange if such a powerful feeling were an evolutionary dead end.
One thing that points to revulsion of homosexual activity (or hetro if you are homosexual yourself) is the fact that this revulsion generally manifests itself at puberty. Before that time children will ‘play show’ me games with other children of either sex but at the onset of puberty will find that they are disgusted by the idea of intimacy with the ‘wrong’ sex.
Yet there is no societal mechanism for intensively drilling such revulsion into children at that age.
The fact that you have said things which are ridiculous and at odds with how things work (as I said, there is no evidence that revulsion exists as anything other than a cultural trait) is proof enough. I know the culture on this board is to cry “cite!” for anything, but frankly I can’t cite an entire college education on the subject. A broad understanding of the processes of evolution and inherited behavior is not going to be summed up in an Internet link. You lack said understanding. I cannot make you a biologist with a link. Your ability to post on a computer message board does not suddenly put you on par with an actual scientist.
If you would like to understand how messy evolution is and how it does not fit your “just so” viewpoints, I suggest you read a few serious books. The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is a good one.
The point, my gratuitously winky friend, is that when something is ingrained into a species in the way you describe it, it is far more common and readily observed than revulsion at specific, culturally defined acts.
The ability to be powerfully affected by things your culture has a strong reaction to is likely not learned, this is true. It’s part of your ability to fit into your culture, which is a constantly shifting thing. Having cultural responses ingrained would not do you much good. This adaptability is likely a trait of primates in general and one we have taken to an art form.
Yes, there is. It’s called culture. Children are remarkably adept at absorbing it and applying it. They watch their parents’ eyes and body language, they note the ratio of boys and girls in a commercial, they recognize which traits, toys, clothes and words are associated with males and which females.
The genetic background of an Irish-American in the South isn’t really that different from an Irishman in Ireland. Yet within sixteen years–not even on par with the blink of an eye in evolutionary time! That’s within a generation!–Ireland went from condemning homosexuality as an illegal act to recognizing civil partnerships. Despite the similar genetic background, the American South has not reacted similarly.
In fact, oddly, it seems like responses to homosexuality are based on culture, rather than genetic background. Hmmm. I wonder what that could possibly mean?
Translation: “I don’t agree with what you’ve said so, instead of coming up with sensible arguments to counter your points I will simply state that you don’t understand what you are talking about and my sole evidence for that is that I disagree with you.”
That is truly pathetic.
I’ve read all of Dawkins books.
Once more, you miss the point completely. :rolleyes:
The actual physical and psychological reactions to certain stimuli that we know as ‘revulsion’ are quite definite, took millions of years to evolve, and can in no way be culturally learned.
Whilst it’s true that people can be taught to be revolted by things (i.e. children will often eat dirt until they are taught that this is bad), some things natually revolt most people.
So, you would have us believe that when a child reaches puberty, it suddenly and miraculously becomes aware that there have been a myriad of clues telling it to be revolted by homosexual contact and that the various physiological and psychological mechanisms of revulsion obediently kick in on cue at any such contact once this realisation occurs? That is beyond surreal.
It’s also completely contradicted by the fact that, until a few decades ago, homosexuality was so suppressed that most pre-pubescent children wouldn’t even have known it existed so the idea they could have ‘culturally learned revulsion to it’ is beyond belief.
You are totally and utterly confused here.
What you are talking about is societal behaviour towards homosexuality not individual revulsion towards it.
Do you seriously believe that if you asked a group of 100 Irish 16 y/o boys to put a man’s penis in their mouth and suck and asked 100 similar IA Southern Americans to do the same that a higher proportion of the Irish boys would agree?
If you do, then you are seriously deluded.
The reason that the world is becoming more tolerant of homosexuality is because people are, at last, realising that other people’s sexual preferences are simply none of their business.
When a child reaches puberty, it starts to care far more about sex. In different cultures, what is considered sexually exciting differs. If a child is reared in a culture where a long neck is eroticized in a woman, if that child is a heterosexual male he will then be more likely to be aroused by a long neck. If a child is reared in a culture where a trait is considered sexually repellent, he will be more likely to be repelled by that trait.
Making this response of revulsion stronger is that peer pressure is very, very powerful at puberty. The desire to fit in and be accepted is overwhelming, so that certain ideas regarding sex will be grossly exaggerated in the pubescent child.
But, that’s all conjecture. You’ve yet to show that a child who was previously untroubled by homosexuality suddenly became repulsed by it in absence of cultural pressure when struck by the hormonal rush of puberty. You made the assertion that this is the case. You cite it.
Take 100 boys of the Etoro tribe. Tell them to put a man’s penis in their mouth and suck. They will.
Gay sex requires either or both anal and oral sex both of which are not all that common in the straight community and both involve additional health risks.
Our anus contracts severely when faced with intrusion and that is biological unless culturally overcome. It bleeds easily and it just isn’t a good idea th have feces in contact with blood.
Licking or sucking in the anal area is not that healthy either, given that we are supposed to wash our hands after just touching the area especially prior to eating to avoid disease.
Today we have soap deodorant and perfumes. Back in the old days we had body odour, a biological device to deter unhealthy behavior.
Which might be a convincing argument except for the fact that - as I said but you have conveniently ignored - in societies where all talk of homosexuality is suppressed pubescent children still generally develop a strong revulsion to homosexual activity.
Given that boys tend to be fairly focused on getting some sexual action as soon as possible, if that revulsion did not develop they would all be at it with each other and the girls wouldn’t get a look in.
Firstly, we were discussing large population groups in Eire and the US, not a tiny tribe whose customs are so far out of kilter with the rest of the world that it would be impossible to infer anything general from their behaviour.
Secondly, the article says nothing about whether the boy were revolted by what they had to do.
Straight people don’t have oral sex? My sympathies. However, gay sex doesn’t require either of those. Intercrural sex is believed to have been the preferred method by ancients. Current preferences in sexual activities cannot be assumed to be the norm throughout history.
Yo mama ain’t a cite.
Cite?
Are you claiming that horny adolescents don’t do same sex experimentation? Getting it where you can until you can get it where you want it is a time-honored tradition.
I have given cite after cite and argument after argument, and all you do is flail about with smileys. No cites. No historical information. Just “I said it, it matches my cultural expectations, it must be true!” If you cannot debate in good faith, I have no further use for this conversation.
I believe it to be primarily religious in nature. As for maggots, I believe that to be biological since humans are biologically "discouraged " from eating rotten meat that could make us ill or even kill us. It’s an “evolution” thing IMO.
You are trying to deny one of the most powerful evolutionary traits that exists - the mechanism that channels creatures to have sex with others of their species of the opposite sex (and not waste time and resources having sex with those of the same sex), in order that said species may continue.
I sympathise with the fact that you would obliviously, desperately, like to believe that homosexual activity would be just as normal as heterosexual activity if it were not for cultural bias but that just ain’t the case and no amount of wailing ‘cite’ whenever anyone says something you find unpalatable will change that.
If you were correct the world would be a very different place with all animals having both homo and hetro sex at a pretty much 50-50 proportion.
As it is, that is so far from the case as to be laughable and for all your attempts to find outlier groups at odd points in history amount to nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Evolution has provided us with a way to ensure that our - and by ‘our’ I mean all creatures that reproduce sexually - sexual activity is channeled in such a way as to provide the best chance of procreation. To deny this is absurd.
Are you saying that Homosexuality is nature’s way of saying “enough with the population explosion” ?
There are examples of homosexual behavior in animals you know. Evolution takes a LONG TIME. maybe we are working towards "50/50 and just arent there yet.
If it isn’t, could you suggest any mechanism for by which such a balancing would take place?
What your are effectively suggesting is that evolution, over hundreds of millions of years, made species too good at reproducing and that in an attempt to reverse that situation evolution will eventually proceed to make as all equally content with homosexual sex.
As opposed to all the other mechanisms that have taken care of overpopulation for the rest of history.
He’s denying half of the mechanism by which we (most of us) are guided to have sex with others of the opposite gender.
If it makes it any more palatable for those who bridle at the idea that a revulsion for homosexual activity is in some way a specific attack on homosexuals I do not in any way single out homosexual activity from any other form of activity that does not attract us.
I think most people would say that there is a gamut of sexual activity in which we are not interested and quite a lot of it actively disgusts us. This includes heterosexual sex with people we find unattractive or, come to that, anything but the most perfunctory sex with anyone we do not find positively attractive.
The reason I hypothesise an evolutionary mechanism for revulsion for such sex is that, in males particularly, the desire for sex is extremely intense and it would not promote procreation if the male could sate himself with little difficulty by indulging in non reproductive sex which he probably would if he merely felt indifferent to it.
Revulsion at homosexuality is not necessary, at all, to encourage enough people to have procreative sex to perpetuate the species.
To perpetuate a species, each person (on average) needs to have procreative sex just a couple times in their entire life. That’s vastly out of proportion with our (average) level of interest in the process. There’s really no need for any extra motivations beyond the heterosexual interest that, everyone can see, lots of us come with.
Absolutely, and let it be underlined and in bold face. Even if everyone were strongly motivated to have sex with people of the same sex, that wouldn’t mean that they weren’t having sex with people of the opposite sex. Witness the species in which practically every member, or practically every male, or female, has homosexual sex at least once and sometimes routinely over their lifespan.
As it is, it’s not necessary to be revolted by homosexual sex to ensure heterosexual sex because most people desire heterosexual sex a great deal anyway.
I don’t know about you, but none of the heterosexuals I know of are having sex with people of the opposite sex because they are revolted by gay sex, whether or not they are. They’re having sex with people of the opposite sex because they really want to do that.
Do not ascribe positions to me that I do not hold. Orientation appears to be innate. The majority of human beings desire heterosexual relations. I never denied that.
What I have denied–and what you have failed to provide even one cite for–is that there is anything innate about “revulsion” in regards to non-procreative sex. The preponderance of non-procreative sex animals engage in automatically makes your position weaker, but the utter lack of evidence you provide is what is truly damning. Until such a time as you actually provide a cite, there is nothing to debate with you because you are simply typing your own opinion over and over again.
