qpw3141, I’ve actually lost track of what exactly it is you’re even arguing. All your posts are incredibly hard to follow and you seem more interested in shouting “wrong!” at everyone else than you do at making it clear what you are saying. You’re really sucking the fun out of this thread which is a shame as it’s an interesting topic.
Sorry. Your lack of ability to follow an argument isn’t really my problem.
Only if you lack basic comprehension skills.
If that is what you’re reading in this thread you have a serious comprehension problem.
ETA: Your post adds precisely nothing to the debate and will just make it harder for others to follow. Maybe a PM would have been more appropriate?
So you’ve basically refuted your own theory here:
- That last response sounds a lot like “revulsion” as defined upthread
- Summarized, qpw asserts that some gay men are reporting that they are having a revulsion reaction to straight sex
- (Assumption) Revulsion is heritable and not cultural
- Therefore, there exist genes that create a revulsion to straight sex
- However, genes that create a revulsion to straight sex would die out for lack of reproduction, and be highly maladaptive
- However, qpw asserts that these reactions “[run] over exactly the same range” as hetero revulsion to homosexual sex
- Therefore, revulsion cannot be heritable because revulsion to straight sex has not died out or reduced in freqency
- Therefore, Reductio Ad Absurdum, Assumption 3) is false.
Nice try.
Seriously, a really nice try. 
The flaw, however, (and it’s a killer) is at 5.
It’s well known that some hetro’s are repelled by hetro sex.
However, just as with any other, if the attraction outweighs the repugnance they will have sex. And unlike the case with bisexuals they don’t have anywhere else to go so the basic sex drive works to help overcome their distaste and the genes will tend to be passed on.
This isn’t how science works. You can’t prove a negative, so there is no way to prove for sure that animals cannot be repulsed. But it doesn’t fit into everything else we know about animal behaviour, so extraordinary evidence would be needed to make such a claim. Just because information is missing in the scientific world doesn’t mean we can just fill it with whatever we want.
Yeah, and humans have been observed being repulsed by homosexuality - shunning people or disincluding them from the group when they are known to practice homosexual behaviours. If apes had been seen doing that, you might have some starting evidence to base your further claims on.
You are still conflating ‘normal’ and ‘common’. A billion people live in China but only 30 million live in Canada. Does that make living in China more ‘normal’ than living in Canada? No, not at all. It makes it more common. Ten percent can be just as normal as 50%, there is absolutely no reason it can’t be.
And if you say homosexuality is ‘not normal’ you are saying it’s ‘abnormal’. They mean the same thing.
No, it is not. You cannot barely assert this and expect to be taken seriously. Cite, please, for a revulsion by heterosexuals to heterosexual sex that is NOT explained by cultural/religious training.
What do you make of the Kinsey research suggesting that a large proportion of the population is bisexual on some level (something like 46-49% of males have engaged in sexual activity with both genders, according to his studies)? If there were such a heritable revulsion to hetero sex, one would expect that given a rate of nearly 50% of men being WILLING to engage in homosexual activities we’d see more than the 2.8% of men identifying themselves as homosexual.
I suspect that your response to this is going to flounder on inadequate definitions of what you mean by “attraction”, “repugnance”, and “basic sex drive”.
If he could have provided a cite for revulsion by anyone to any kind of sex that is not explained by cultural/religious training – i.e. that is biological – he would have done so already, because that’s the point of the thread.
It’s impossible to demonstrate that such a revulsion is caused by biology, and it’s multiplying entities beyond necessity to try to do so.
Question, qpw3141:
You believe that we are repulsed by the idea of gay sex in order to make us have straight sex instead. Okay. I disagree, but okay. So why is it that many of the people who are the most repulsed by gay sex (ie, the religious right) are also repelled by the idea of, say, two gay men adopting and raising an orphaned or otherwise unwanted child? Shouldn’t our natural biological desire be that those children be raised well in order to provide a healthy new generation? It’s not a matter of removing the adopted kids genes from the gene pool, because the majority of people find heterosexual adoption fine, and besides, nobody wants the children killed, there are just many people who would rather see them raised poorly by the state rather than in a loving, but homosexual, home.
If the aversion to allowing homosexuals to adopt is societal in nature (and it seems to be, since straight couples who can’t have children can adopt without problems), then why is it that the aversion to homosexual sex must be assumed to be something *other *than societal? What’s the distinction between them?
OK, now that things have had a while to calm down.
Firstly, I’ve said several times before that the use of the word ‘revulsion’ is unfortunate - more than unfortunate, really - in that it lies at the very extreme of what I was talking about which is any degree of specific disinclination to homosexual sex.
Secondly, remember that this was only a hypothesis - I’ve no interest one way or the other as to whether it’s correct or not - only that whether we accept or dismiss it we do so based on sound logical and evidential grounds.
As to your question above, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority - the almost overwhelming majority - of the rantings about homosexuality are the result of societal conditioning. The behaviour of the religious right is hardly based upon any sort of recognisable logic and I would hope that their views regarding anything to do with adoption, homosexuality - or pretty much anything else, for that matter - would not influence normal, rational, people.
There is no earthly reason of which I’m aware that any different criteria should be applied to homosexual couples than heterosexual ones in the matter of adoption.
As to the subject of this thread, I can see no point in trying to continue to argue the case I was putting forward here because the use of the term ‘revulsion’ overloads the question and I would agree - as I said above - that almost all the expressed revulsion is a matter of societal conditioning. In particular, those of a religious bent have been making life difficult for people because of their propensity for poking their noses into other people’s sexual business for a very long time. (As witnessed by, for example, the incarceration of single mothers in various unsavoury institutions).
Maybe at some later date we can continue the discussion in a calmer manner although it would be better expressed as a question as to whether we have any specific disinclinations towards sex with certain categories of people as opposed to a general disinclination to have sex with those to whom we are not specifically attracted.
Calm or not, regardless of what terminology you use you have still not provided any data to support your thesis–you have, instead, merely raised the possibility of something with no evidence for (merely theory and “well, it makes probabilistic sense”) and ignored or pooh-poohed any number of cited evidences against.
Quite.
We are not ‘doing science’ here. Just discussing theories.
If I were presenting a paper then, obviously, it would need to cite previous research or present new evidence.
I’m not going to argue about past arguments.
Please cite a couple of the items that you believe are evidence against.
Remember, though, that showing that X can cause A is not the same as showing that all A is caused by X.
Um, because some people are squicky and don’t want to see people having sex, period? Yes, I know other people want to watch sex, that’s why the porn industry makes money, but that’s not everybody.
When two young teenagers are groping each other in the subway - arms like octupusses, tongues slathering all over - or other public places, I look away feeling embarrassed and thinking “Get a room!” (okay, rooms are very very expensive in my city, and people can’t afford cars to park in, either).
When I see a homo couple holding hands in public, it’s the unusual factor - I’m not used to seeing it. Similar to seeing foreign people, we don’t have that many here.
I take it you have never heard of ancient Greece, then? These guys practiced sport in their gymnaisions naked, as well as the Olympic games, they had very explicit paintings on their clay pots and drinking vessels, they made statues of naked people (with small penises), they had sexual explicit theater plays. There are anecdotes like: when one ruler of Athens was accused of squandering public money on his love, a young teen boy plaything, he showed the young man to the assembly, taking off his cloak in a dramatic flourish and saying “But isn’t he worth every cent?” and the assembly applauded and he’d won.
So unless you believe that the ancient Greeks were radically biologically different from us - which you would be wrong to believe, because modern Greeks descend rather directly from them - then it’s obviously that people’s reaction to sex, nudity, the human body and hetero/ homo sex is entirely cultural.
Um, what? Do you think the powers that be, that is, the rulers, forced homosexual love onto the Greeks, who just tolerated it? Maybe you should read some of the writings of the actual ancient Greeks about their loves. It wasn’t tolerated, it was the only real love (according to Plato’s sphere persons theory), because only men were real persons, women were mostly for breeding.
Well, my guess is that Greek women would have been much more revulsed by their status as not-real people, owned by the man, doing the cooking and child-raising, than something minor like gay sex, because that’s what continued during the centuries onward and did bother women.
Also, we do have voices of select women, poets like Sappho, or Hetären, who were considered educated and smart enough to be equal to men and discuss with them.
But not because it was icky - lying under another men was a dominance problem in a very macho culture. Also, because so much stress was on aesthetics, for an older man to have a younger plaything, or for a twen to tutor a teen was accepted, but two middle-age ugly guys was … well not really very nice. Similar probably to how others have mentioned that we don’t want to see or imagine ugly or old or obese hetero people having sex today.
There was a Star Trek episode where they explored the idea of an entire planet where Hom was the norm and Het was severely discouraged (IRRC much more severely than it has been, at least in the West, for the last few decades).
The cultural conditioning in this story was so strong that not even Kirk (I think) could not overcome it and win the fair maid. 
I’m still not convinced that these things are entirely cultural.
For example, I’ve never seen or heard of a culture where people did not generally wear something around their middles. If there is no innate objection to displaying one’s genitals, why is this an almost universal taboo?
Given the importance of sex to the procreation of species, and the extremely powerful drives that have evolved to aid this, it seems very odd that one can then turn around and say: “ah, but all our attitudes to sex are culturally mandated”. Even if there is a great deal of evidence that a lot of them very certainly are.
You argue like somebody who doesn’t understand how evolution works in the human species. Why do humans have a sex drive all year round, instead of only during fertile times, which would save energy, and most mammalian species have? The common explanation is that sex, and love, are pair-forming and sustaining, which is better for raising the children. It’s no use producing 250 children if nobody raises them. Even the Catholic Church with their bad view of biology accepts that not every sexual act (in a marriage) has to lead to children, as long as the marriage itself is geared towards that.
Again, completly wrong. While there is a general trend in attractiveness towards some features that indicate good productive health (facial symmetry, no scars, youth), people don’t choose mates only based on attractiveness. A lot of people do take character into account, because a person who looks like an Apoll might be a colossal jerk unable to help raising the children, or might be uncoordinated klutz unable to hunt food.
You have to prove first that the revulsion is biological at all before speculating about the reason for it, not the other way round.
You really have never heard of the “Grandmother/ Aunt” effect? Wow. The reason that humans live long after their reproductive years (Menopause: around 40, average age: 70-80) is that they help the whole tribe with their memories (living libraries in tribal societies).
And infertile Aunts/ Uncles help with raising the kids. The nuclear family of today with two parents and the children is not the typically model for humans; for most of history, when we lived in tribal groups, it was a large family of around 20 people.
Some people claim that Christianity with its monogamy was disastrous for Africa, because polygamy meant more mothers to nurse and look after the children.
Ancient Greece was not tiny and not a short period.
And there are many other tribal societies with different views about sex that go against the “everything only for reproduction” meme that some here are arguing for. Lots of societies have practices and attitudes about sex that would revulse the average American.
And Western Europe (and the US) was influenced by one major religion against it for centuries, making the culture homogenous in that aspect. Once a major belief is established, it doesn’t matter how big the culture is; this isn’t some kind of vote where 10 000 Greeks count less than 270 million Americans.
Is the view that women are lesser beings also biological? Because it was accepted for centuries, and only for a short time now it’s being seen different.
Heh. Well, given that almost every prominent anti-gay male (either politicans or pastors) in the last decades has been outed sooner or later as being gay himself, (as one doper said “Maybe it’s just a war amongst gays, instead of anti-gays and gays”), they really can’t help themselves being gay, and are taught to hate it, so they become uber-hateful as response to the hate they are taught.
Um, I should probably leave it to the real gay dopers to answer this one, but still… I have heard too many times gays protest against being pigeon-holed as “anal-fuckers” because that’s all that prudish heteros can think about. I guess it comes from the macho belief in penetration as the only thing that really counts about sex. I wonder how many men who think of gays as having butt-sex are also the ones who have sex with a woman in the “mount-unmount-turn around and snore” type.
There’s a lot more to sex than just penetration.
How do you think lesbian sex works, than?
Not all maggots eat rotting meat; those maggots that eat rotting flesh do not automatically carry the diseases or poisions of rotting flesh; maggots and other insects have lots of protein (which is why they were offered as snacks for a time, to get people to eat more diverse in the West, but cultural learned revulsion was too strong, even though explorers keep telling it tastes like chicken :)).
In societies like South American indians in the jungle, where maggots are a delicacy, or the Middle East, where locusts were eaten with honey, people are not revulsed, they go “Yum”!