And it is your bad faith interpretation of the evidence that leads you to state that certain types of ornamentation constitute “some basic attempt” to fulfill a “need to cover up in general.” I have backed up my claim. It is your dishonest method of discourse to pretend I haven’t.
What exactly do you think your winking emoticons are adding to your arguments, I wonder?
And once again you have restated the same hypothesis that you began with without advancing your argument a whit. Yes, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it is conceivable to propose that such a trait might be genetic. Now it’s time for you to stop restating that hypothesis and actually start examining the evidence to test whether it’s true. And it’s time for you to stop pretending that no one has offered you any evidence one way or the other.
You made, in a very patronising manner, a statement implying that all humans wear at least something around their middles and you have not been able to provide a single citation of any tribe that doesn’t.
And still you try and bluster your way to claim that you have. :rolleyes:
Well, they’re not mine, are they? They are a feature of these forums ( and a lot of others). Sorry you don’t like them. Perhaps, if you think they serve no purpose, you should try and get SDMB to remove the facility.
Perhaps you’d like to go back and do a bit of a recap?
I’ve stated that I am not trying to prove the point, merely to show that it’s not, in principle, at odds with evolution.
This seems to be upsetting you so you’re really arguing a straw man by continually insisting that I ‘prove’ it. That’s not my aim.
If ornamentation exists that fails to hide one’s genitals from view, then it fails your test. If I am showing you my genitals, then it is not taboo for me to show you my genitals. I have given you several such examples. And with a little more effort, you could find several more yourself.
They are yours. No one is forcing you to use them, but you’re putting one at the end of every sentence. I’m asking you what you think you’re adding. That’s something you should be able to explain yourself.
Your point is pointless. It is not, in principle, at odds with evolution for humans to have developed wings. Now, what does the evidence show?
There is one statement there. That I’ve never seen or heard of a culture where people did not generally wear something around their middles. There is a follow up question.
You then waded in with a patronising allegation of extreme ignorance because I’d never seen or heard of that.
When asked for a citation you singularly failed to provide a single instance of what I’d never seen.
And yet you have spent post after post shamelessly trying to pretend that you did not utterly fail to support you patronising comment.
You have given me examples of people who are wearing something around there middles. That was not what you were supposed to be finding. :rolleyes:
Instead of simply admitting you were wrong you’re trying to pretend that you have shown what you have demonstrably failed to show.
That is an out and out untruth.
We seem to be establishing a pattern here where you will happily step outside the realms of truth to try and make a point or cover up your inability to make one.
Except that there isn’t any evidence that any humans have ever had wings. There is plenty of evidence that humans show varying levels of disinclination to homosexual sex. So your attempted simile is fatuous and only indicates your increasing desperation to try and salvage something from your failures.
You claimed a universal taboo against showing genitals. Your juxtaposition of “wearing something around their middles” clearly implied clothing that covered the genitals. For you to now claim that any sort of ornamentation whatsoever meets your definition of “wearing something around their middles” both displays intellectual dishonesty and also robs your point of any meaning whatsoever.
How about I offer you an example of a taboo against showing one’s hair by showing you a society where women wear earrings?
Something that fails entirely to support the thesis that “revulsion” against homosexuality is a genetic trait.
Are you ever going to give up banging your head against the wall?
You have not found a single instance of a people not wearing at least something around their middles.
And yet you will not admit your failure.
And you have the colossal impertinence to accuse someone else of intellectual dishonesty. :rolleyes:
Coming up with completely lame analogies is pretty pointless, really, isn’t it?
Why not simply admit you failed and move on?
Are you now being deliberately obtuse or is this yet more dishonesty?
The quote of mine above was referring to one of your lame non-analogous analogies where you made a futile and somewhat childish attempt to liken the possibility of the evolution of something that does not exist to the possibility of evolution of something that does.
The fact that you have the unutterable gall to do that after throwing around accusations of intellectual dishonesty a few line back beggars belief!
I have found you several instances of people who do not cover their genitals. That directly addresses your point.
Less lame than creating a category like “something around their middles” and then redefining your clear meaning in order to pretend you’ve proven something.
The absence of wings is evidence that humans have not evolved wings.
The fact that homosexuality is a characteristic of a minority of the population is not evidence that revulsion against homosexuality is a genetic trait. That is what the analogy shows.
Sorry, coming into this quite late, but you do realize that this doesn’t support the premise of your argument, right? It’s not helping you, regardless of if you’ve won this point (which you haven’t, since your logic is faulty).
No one cares if people wear something around there middle if it doesn’t cover anything. You keep trying to imply that it is significant, but you’ve failed repeatedly.
I believe that in most early cultures the reason for wearing something around the middle had less to do with modesty and more to do with creating a place to carry/tie things while hunting/gathering/traveling.
You could loop a sling through the “belt” at the waist (which might consist of nothing more than a simple, thin length of leather or sinew) along with various pouches to act as “pockets.”
The pockets might hold the stones you’d need to throw or traveling food or fire-starting materials.
You could tie game to it or waterbags
Thus, freeing your hands for other things.
I freely acknowledge the possibility of my being incorrect. My field is psychology, not anthropology. Although, I do love anthro and often considered making psychological anthropology my specialty!
I have provided no histrionics or tantrums in this thread, and I find your accusations of this are really colouring the discussion. If you don’t like the arguments other people are putting forward it’s hardly appropriate to start insulting them - a simple rebuttal is all that’s needed in Great Debates, or in scientific debate in general.
Having said that, I would sum up the argument against your theory as:
In light of our knowledge about cultural and religious factors that have caused homosexuals to be persecuted for centuries, it hardly seems necessary to turn to non-cultural explanations for homophobia.
There have been several cultures that have accepted homosexual relationships, particularly between men - were those cultures made up of people without this genetic revulsion towards homosexuality? Even today there is cultural variation in how homosexuality is viewed - for example, gay marriage is legal in Canada but not in the USA. Is the population of Canada sufficiently genetically distinct from that of America to explain this?
Other theories have been proposed to explain the apparent conundrum of the ‘gay gene’ - notably the ‘good uncle’ hypothesis.
No evidence of ‘revulsion’ has been observed in other animals, particularly the great apes. Apes are not shunned or punished for practising homosexuality in the way humans have historically been.
No other form of non-procreational sex seems to elicit the same type of aversion. Why are you not proposing a genetic revulsion to masturbation or sex with woman past menopause?
I’m sure there’s more, but that’s what comes to mind. Please note that I’m not saying that this is definitely, *absolutely *not an evolutionary trait, because I don’t see how you could ever prove that for sure. But it seems unlikely to me (and others, apparently) and we’ve told you why.
Nobody is doubting the existence of mating behaviour or of mate selection. Certain characteristics are generally seen as attractive in human partners, usually as a proxy for health, youth, or some other trait that is good for breeding.
Also, mate selection in humans on a genetic level has in fact been studied. Some scientists have postulated (and have performed experiments) on MHC-based mate selection in many animals, including humans (the complex is called HLA in humans). As far as I know the jury is still kind of out on how this works exactly in humans, but it seems we have a method for avoiding inbreeding and for picking the most ideal partner out of those that are available. I have never said that we act solely on cultural rules when it comes to mating. However, everything I have ever read about mate selection suggests it’s a matter of choosing from a selection of possible mates that are all attractive to you and you to them, not a matter of being icked out by the alternative and so settling for whatever is there.
Also, incidentally, while animals don’t have language per say, many think they do have culture, and that their culture can spread over fairly large area.
Not to mention that true homosexuality has been documented in several species of animal.
Not just the primates.
By “true homosexuality” I mean that even when placed in proximity to a receptive female these males chose to mate only with another male. Every time.
It’s actually quite a fascinating topic for psychological research.
Of course, anecdotal examples do not a research paper make… however, there’s enough there for me to postulate that homosexuality is not “unnatural” nor is it a “learned” behavior.
Your tone in this and another thread suggested to me that you did.
The most obvious evidence was the speed with which you abandoned the argument to start making ‘noise’ statements of the ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about’ type and talking about qualifications.
These are both indications of someone who does not feel themselves competent to argue sensibly and starts putting up pompous smokescreens.
Maybe you should tell that to your friends in the BBQ pit.
Strawman.
Go and read past posts and you’ll see that I’ve said several times that I’m not talking about homophobia which I’m quite certain is a cultural phenomenon. I’m talking about individual’s disinclination to homosexual sex.
Again, strawman.
I’m not talking about societal attitudes to homosexuality - rather individuals attitudes to whether they, personally, want to indulge in homosexual sex.
This insistence of yours to continually argue against something I’m not arguing about is the main reason this debate seems top be going around in circles.
I love the way you can argue your case with theories but I am expected to provide evidence for everything.
A little whiff of hypocrisy, I think.
The same old strawman rears his ugly head.
Can you not drill it into yours that I’m not talking about societal attitudes to homosexuality - rather individuals attitudes to whether they, personally, want to indulge in homosexual sex.
Come on, it’s not hard to make the distinction. You say you are a teacher - surely you can understand the vast difference between the two things?
Au contraire, mon ami. Humans seem to be quite prone to being revolted by just about any aspect of sex. Oral sex, for example, is anathema to some. I suppose you’re going to start whining for citations for that. :rolleyes:
And given that revulsion is at the far end of the disinclination spectrum it’s pretty fair to assume that if some are revolted a lot more are disinclined in less extreme ways. And yet these variations occur amongst peoples within any given culture.
Basically, what people will and will not consider by way of sexual activity varies widely across cultural boundaries. Of course, that does not prove that any given disinclination is heritable but it does tend to indicate that any given reaction to a disinclination to certain sexual activities can be a part of a persons natural makeup.
It’s the old straw man, again. You’ve explained why people’s behaviour to third parties is almost certainly culturally mandated but I have never been arguing against that. My argument has been for the much more restricted and personal reaction to any given persons own participation in homosexual activity.
It’s a bit difficult to make the obvious rebuttal here because you continually hold me to a much higher standard than you hold yourself and will no doubt start screaming ‘cite’ and whining about anecdotes not being evidence but I’m going to make the point nonetheless: It is extremely common amongst humans to hear someone say: “Oh, yes, s/he’s great but I just can’t deal with <fat/thin/tall/short/freckles,bad breath/honking laugh>.”
Mate selection is a balance between what any individual finds attractive and what the find unattractive.
Okay, so basically you’re trying to amend your hypothesis to claim that preferences in sexual behavior/attraction are genetically determined? How would you even test such a hypothesis?
If you’re talking about the BBQ Pit thread, you must know that the Pit is a very different place than GD. I have said nothing to insult you here in GD, and you have consistently refused to extend the same courtesy to me or others. I know you feel attacked by being asked about your qualifications, but I stand by my assertion that knowledge of the subject is important. If we were discussing a matter of law and a poster told me that they were a lawyer, then I would give their opinion more gravity than if they told me that they were a plumber. And I would also concede that I am *not *a lawyer, and so my personal thoughts have not been sifted through years of experience and education in the field. Now, this is of course complicated online by the fact that people lie sometimes, but you seem to object to the very principle of the idea that anyone might know any more than anyone else about anything.
You seem to be missing my point - I’m saying that given the attraction to our desired sex partners, revulsion towards other sex acts or partnerships seems unnecessary. We don’t need to be repulsed or feel aversion to any number of things in order to chose to do other things instead. I’m talking about individual attitudes too - although I disagree that individual attitudes can ever be really disentangled from societal attitudes. I’m sure you won’t accept this, but I do understand your stance, I just think you’re wrong. It’s not that I don’t ‘get it’.
I’m not ‘screaming cite’, and I’m not ‘whining’ about anything. If you don’t want to debate this, that’s fine, we don’t have to. But if you are engaged in debate and someone provides a reasoned rebuttal to your points, it is hardly appropriate to accuse them of screaming or whining or throwing a tantrum just because they won’t agree with you. If this was the Pit that might be appropriate, but this is GD.
As for your point, I would say that you’re talking about an ability or inability to overcome or compromise on certain traits in a person that you are already generally attracted to (as **Doxy **said), not being completely and intrinsically repulsed by the very essence of the person themselves. Guys don’t say “Oh, he’s great, I just can’t deal with his gayness - if only he wasnt so gay I’d sleep with him!”.
