# qpw3141, you are an idiot **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 11, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452 "2010-09-11T23:24:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/41 "2010-09-12T20:41:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > > > On the other hand, making out on a bed is considerably more comfortable than in the back seat of a Ford Falcon. > > [Back seat of Ford Falcon.](http://www.affordableclassicsinc.com/classicspgs/1963%20FORD%20FALCON%20CONVERTIBLE/2009-07-16%2014-25-10_0047.JPG) > [Bed.](http://www.discountbedsbelfast.co.uk/resources/Bed_palmero_4.jpg) > > We report-you decide! 😃 My bed has more personal restraint devices than the Falcon. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/42 "2010-09-12T21:13:23Z")
> [@Peeta\_Mellark](#): > > But even if such a mutation did occur, I’m not sure how much of an advantage it would be in the long run. With the example of the peahens, imagine a population of peafowl that carry this hardwired “revulsion” response to anything other than their preferred mate. When something happens so that only an undesirable male is left, they will refuse to mate and die out. Having flexibility and the ability to mate with things that don’t match your preference would be a benefit, even if this might lead to non-procreative sex at times. Sure, that dog that keeps humping people’s legs might not be making any puppies, but he is _primed_ if he ever meets a bitch, regardless of whether she turns his doggy crank or not. It doesn’t have to be a massive advantage - a small one can still nudge things along over very large numbers of generations, in huge populations - it’s just statistics. But that’s not really my point - it was just to object to the statement "that’s not how evolution works’ - because that _is_ how evolution works - it’s just not established that it worked on those specific details in that way this time. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/43 "2010-09-12T21:58:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > If these studies are meant to show that “homophobes” are more likely to secretly be homosexuals themselves, then I’ve always thought that there was a confounding variable, which is how turned on someone gets by “naughty” stuff. That is, if a person is a “homophobe” and gets turned on by watching gay sex, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are secretly a homosexual–it could mean they get turned on by watching stuff they consider “naughty.” Seems like it would be easy to test for this by determining what else the “homophobe” considers naughty and seeing what their peter does to watching that. > > Wht the hell are you alking about? What is “naughty stuff?” > > The studies do not draw conclusions about sexual orientation, by the way. They just show that homohobes get turned on by gay porn. OK, super. Some people who read these studies draw the conclusion that “homophobes” are more likely to be secretly homosexual than people who aren’t “homophobes.” I see you share my opinion that that’s not a proper conclusion to draw. “Naughty stuff” is just whatever a person thinks is a bad thing to do. I think it’s possible that some people get turned on by seeing naughty stuff and some people don’t. So, if gay porn hardens the dick of a “homophobe,” it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are gay, it could also mean that they enjoy watching naughty stuff. I think a “homophobe” is more likely than a “non-homophobe” to think gay sex is naughty. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/44 "2010-09-12T22:04:31Z")
The Wiki article only cites [one study of penile plethysmography demonstrating that homophobics respond positively to homosexuality](http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf). The test subjects were all University of Georgia students ranging in age from 18-31, and they were selected out of a larger pool of psychological/sexual test takers. They were all shown hetero, gay, and lesbian videos for 4 minutes a shot, so to speak. There was significantly more reaction to the hetero and lesbo videos by all test subjects, and the homophobes’ responses to gay videos weren’t really that much higher than non-homophobes who didn’t get aroused. Reactions were measured by the millimeter, so in some cases, it was a dick that rose by a millimeter vs. dicks that didn’t lift at all. These test subjects weren’t your typical man on the street; they were all students taking the test for partial credit in their Psych classes. Moreover, the study says there’s no real distinction between outspoken homophobes versus guys who just aren’t comfortable in a room full of gays. They were chosen because they had the highest homophobic ratings on sex questionnaires. They didn’t test Glenn Beck clones. So, it’s not like it’s an open and shut case that homophobes are definitely homosexual. The article also points out that PP is not considered a reliable test in court, but may be considered for sentencing. It’s intended more for use in pedophile cases. ---
**Author:** ![Peeta\_Mellark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Peeta\_Mellark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peeta_Mellark)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/45 "2010-09-12T22:18:53Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > It doesn’t have to be a massive advantage - a small one can still nudge things along over very large numbers of generations, in huge populations - it’s just statistics. > > But that’s not really my point - it was just to object to the statement "that’s not how evolution works’ - because that _is_ how evolution works - it’s just not established that it worked on those specific details in that way this time. No. In fact, upon further reflection I was too generous earlier. The logic he expects nature to follow is that since X (heterosexual desire) leads to Y (reproduction), then Z (disgust at homosexual behavior) leads to Y. That does not logically follow. “X causes Y, therefore Z causes Y” is not valid. As that stands, that _isn’t_ how evolution works, because that is a fallacy. “Eating meat sates hunger, therefore avoiding exercise sates hunger.” “Drinking water sates thirst, therefore air conditioning sates thirst.” There are many ways in which homosexual behavior may actually aid in reproduction, either as a side-effect of a beneficial mating strategy or as part of a support network. If Z was proven to lead to Y, then yes, that would be how evolution works. When Z is proven to lead to Y, I will graciously retract that statement from the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/46 "2010-09-12T22:48:57Z")
Guess I picked the wrong week to stop blowing my cat. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/47 "2010-09-12T22:51:04Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > The Wiki article only cites [one study of penile plethysmography demonstrating that homophobics respond positively to homosexuality](http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf). The test subjects were all University of Georgia students ranging in age from 18-31, and they were selected out of a larger pool of psychological/sexual test takers. They were all shown hetero, gay, and lesbian videos for 4 minutes a shot, so to speak. There was significantly more reaction to the hetero and lesbo videos by all test subjects, and the homophobes’ responses to gay videos weren’t really that much higher than non-homophobes who didn’t get aroused. Reactions were measured by the millimeter, so in some cases, it was a dick that rose by a millimeter vs. dicks that didn’t lift at all. > > These test subjects weren’t your typical man on the street; they were all students taking the test for partial credit in their Psych classes. Moreover, the study says there’s no real distinction between outspoken homophobes versus guys who just aren’t comfortable in a room full of gays. They were chosen because they had the highest homophobic ratings on sex questionnaires. They didn’t test Glenn Beck clones. > > So, it’s not like it’s an open and shut case that homophobes are definitely homosexual. The article also points out that PP is not considered a reliable test in court, but may be considered for sentencing. It’s intended more for use in pedophile cases. Oh thank fuck somebody knows what they’re talking about at last. Quick question: those citing this study, how many refused to take part in it? If you don’t know this, then how can you rule out a confounding factor? Any homophobe who truly thought he was going to be subject to viewing gay porn would not take part in a study of this sort. Further, just citing this paper is a little disingenuous, seeing as there has been substantial work in the area since. For instance, see Meier, B.P. et al. (2006) A secret attraction or defensive loathing? Homophobia, defense, and implicit cognition. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 377-394. Abstract: > [@](#): > > Psychodynamic conceptions of homophobia suggest that homophobics may have a latent attraction to gay sex. Although at least one study has partially supported this idea, the implicit cognitive reactivity to gay images has not been examined. We conducted the current study to investigate such cognitive forms of reactivity with the intent to better understand defensive homophobia. Participants completed two implicit sexual interest tasks in addition to questionnaires of self-deception and homophobia. We found that self-deception moderated the relationship between homophobia, and performance within the implicit tasks. Contrary to the idea that defensive homophobics (i.e., homophobics high in self-deception) harbor an implicit attraction for gay sex, we found that such individuals displayed evidence of a phobic-like aversion. We also identified a non-defensive form of homophobia (i.e., homophobics low in self-deception) that was relatively inconsequential for performance within the implicit cognitive tasks related to gay sex. The results suggest that defensive homophobics have an implicit aversion rather than an implicit attraction to gay sexual stimuli. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/48 "2010-09-12T23:17:37Z")
> [@Peeta\_Mellark](#): > > “I’m a penile plethysmograph technician. I measure erections while men watch porn. _For science_.” “And that’s really what your daughter and I have in common. We both love cock. I like measuring them, she likes sucking them.” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/49 "2010-09-12T23:26:06Z")
> [@Peeta\_Mellark](#): > > > [@Mangetout](#): > > > > It doesn’t have to be a massive advantage - a small one can still nudge things along over very large numbers of generations, in huge populations - it’s just statistics. > > > > But that’s not really my point - it was just to object to the statement "that’s not how evolution works’ - because that _is_ how evolution works - it’s just not established that it worked on those specific details in that way this time. > > No. In fact, upon further reflection I was too generous earlier. > > The logic he expects nature to follow is that since X (heterosexual desire) leads to Y (reproduction), then Z (disgust at homosexual behavior) leads to Y. That does not logically follow. > > “X causes Y, therefore Z causes Y” is not valid. As that stands, that _isn’t_ how evolution works, because that is a fallacy. “Eating meat sates hunger, therefore avoiding exercise sates hunger.” “Drinking water sates thirst, therefore air conditioning sates thirst.” > > There are many ways in which homosexual behavior may actually aid in reproduction, either as a side-effect of a beneficial mating strategy or as part of a support network. If Z was proven to lead to Y, then yes, that would be how evolution works. When Z is proven to lead to Y, I will graciously retract that statement from the OP. I’m not disputing your assertion that there are no observations supporting the notion that aversion played a part here, I’m arguing that it is false to say “that’s not how evolution works”, in response to a statement that a heritable trait X brings about a greater rate of reproductive behaviour. That _is_ one way in which evolution works. There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the asserted heritable trait exists in this case, or that it has the claimed behavioural effect. ---
**Author:** ![Peeta\_Mellark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Peeta\_Mellark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peeta_Mellark)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/50 "2010-09-12T23:32:17Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m not disputing your assertion that there are no observations supporting the notion that aversion played a part here, I’m arguing that it is false to say “that’s not how evolution works”, in response to a statement that a heritable trait X brings about a greater rate of reproductive behaviour. That _is_ one way in which evolution works. There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the asserted heritable trait exists in this case, or that it has the claimed behavioural effect. If a trait is beneficial to survival or reproduction and is thus passed on, then yes, that is exactly how evolution works. I’ll pretend I have magical editing powers and/or can go back in time: > [@](#): > > [del]That is not how evolution works[/del]You have offered no evidence of such a trait existing or being beneficial, you goddamned fucking imbecile. Happy now? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/51 "2010-09-13T00:07:53Z")
It’s really not a question of me being happy. Sorry if you feel I have hounded you over a triviality of wording. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/52 "2010-09-13T10:52:33Z")
> [@Peeta\_Mellark](#): > > > [@Mangetout](#): > > > > It doesn’t have to be a massive advantage - a small one can still nudge things along over very large numbers of generations, in huge populations - it’s just statistics. > > > > But that’s not really my point - it was just to object to the statement "that’s not how evolution works’ - because that _is_ how evolution works - it’s just not established that it worked on those specific details in that way this time. > > No. In fact, upon further reflection I was too generous earlier. > > The logic he expects nature to follow is that since X (heterosexual desire) leads to Y (reproduction), then Z (disgust at homosexual behavior) leads to Y. That does not logically follow. > > “X causes Y, therefore Z causes Y” is not valid. As that stands, that _isn’t_ how evolution works, because that is a fallacy. “Eating meat sates hunger, therefore avoiding exercise sates hunger.” “Drinking water sates thirst, therefore air conditioning sates thirst.” > > There are many ways in which homosexual behavior may actually aid in reproduction, either as a side-effect of a beneficial mating strategy or as part of a support network. If Z was proven to lead to Y, then yes, that would be how evolution works. When Z is proven to lead to Y, I will graciously retract that statement from the OP. For someone who prides himself on his love of science you have a woefully poor ability to comprehend simple English and apply logic to what you are read. Leaving aside the subject of whether or not someone finds homosexual sex repellent is nature or nurture, the logic is not what you claim it to be. The actual logic (looking at the male side of the equation) is as follows: 1. Evolution tends to favour traits that lead to successful reproduction. 2. Evolution has provided us with a very powerful drive to have sex. 3. It is possible to sate that drive by having sex with a man or woman. 4. Overall, the more times a man has sex with women the more likely he is to pass on his genes. 5. You can’t (as far as depositing semen is concerned) have sex with more than one person at a time. 6. Evidently, if you are having an instance of sex with a man you cannot be passing your seed to a woman. 7. More sex with men implies less sex with women. 8. Less sex with women means less chance of genes being passed on. 9. Anything that inhibits a men from doing something that results in them having less sex with women is likely to assist in passing on their genes. 10. Hence, if a man were to evolve a distaste for homosexual sex that, as a side effect, causes him to focus more on having sex with women then it will tend to aid him in passing on his genes. Remember that most of the time these things are tendencies. It’s not a case of ‘every X must imply Y’. You could come up with all sorts of exceptions to any of the points above. When considering evolution you are considering which traits **tend** to improve the chances for the organism to pass on its genes, not, usually, whether traits are an absolute necessity. Of course, none of this addresses whether a distaste for homosexual sex is something inherited of something that is engendered by cultural influences. I cannot cite any work done on this matter and thus have to rely on anecdotal evidence gathered over the years. That, of course, means that the suggestion is (and was never intended to be) a scientific proof. However, unless I’ve missed it, no one has provided any credible evidence that distaste for personally indulging in homosexual activity is culturally learned. Indeed, the very genesis of this thread came when out hot headed little friend of an OP, having spent most of the debate elsewhere yelling : ‘cite, cite, cite’ and any and every opportuinty, was invited to provide such evidence - at which point he abandoned the thread in great debates and came here to let off steam with a massive, ad hominem, rant. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/53 "2010-09-13T11:04:31Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > > [@Peeta\_Mellark](#): > > > > You are a flaming, shit-eating, moron who may very well be pissing himself and drooling onto his keyboard as he reads this. You claim to have read all of Richard Dawkins’ books and yet you lack the most basic grasp of how science works. > > > > In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12903954#post12903954) you make the bizarre claim that you believe that humans evolved the trait to be repulsed by seeing homosexual behavior, because being visually repulsed by this would encourage them to have heterosexual sex. The positive reinforcement of desiring heterosexual sex more than covers our need to reproduce. We don’t need negative reinforcement to prevent us from having non-procreative sex. No other animal needs that. The desire of a male to fuck a female is plenty strong enough without him needing to be sent into dry heaves every time he sees another male’s penis. That is not how evolution works, you goddamned fucking imbecile. > > Actually, it _is_ how evolution works - it’s just that the details being asserted are in question. > > If revulsion to the sight or thought of homosexual acts brought about an increased interest in heterosexual mating, and if this revulsion and reaction was a heritable trait, then it would be an evolutionary factor - additional to whatever else is going on. That positive reinforcement exists doesn’t mean a negative reinforcement factor couldn’t exist or be significant. > > The logic is there - but it’s just based on imagination, rather than evidence. This is absolutely correct. Right down to it being based on imagination rather than evidence. That is the whole point of Great Debates, to put up ideas based on incomplete evidence and analysis and get opposing ideas and possibly evidence, confirmatory or otherwise. Then to try and reach some consensus based on the best evidence and logic that comes out. Not being around during the tens of millions of years that man has been evolving and not being able to extract such detailed evidence from the fossil record, the best we can do is imagine possibilities and see if they make sense. Unfortunately, the OP for this thread, being something of a blowhard and unable to argue the point in a calm and rational manner, and disliking the idea proposed, leapt into the debate screaming ‘cite cite cite’ and asserting that I ‘didn’t understand how science worked’. From that point on, any calm, rational, cooperative debate that could actually move the argument on - possibly showing my idea to be wrong in a sensible manner, has proved impossible. It is by no means certain that my hypothesis is correct but, by the same token, I’ve seen little that actually demonstrates it is incorrect, or even particularly likely to be incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/54 "2010-09-13T11:35:34Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > 1. It is possible to sate that drive by having sex with a man or woman. Or with nobody. Does the social stigma attached to masturbation stem from the same source as the alleged revulsion to homosexuality? I can’t see why it wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/55 "2010-09-13T12:10:41Z")
How about sex with monkeys and sheep? ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/56 "2010-09-13T12:18:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > 1. It is possible to sate that drive by having sex with a man or woman. > > Or with nobody. Does the social stigma attached to masturbation stem from the same source as the alleged revulsion to homosexuality? I can’t see why it wouldn’t. It’s quite easy to see why there would be a social stigma attached to masturbation as it’s yet another case of people not minding their own damned business but feeling they have to take a view on other people’s sexual activity. :mad: What’s a bit more puzzling is why there doesn’t seem to be any real biological factors inhibiting it since it can certainly lessen the urgency with which someone needs to find a partner. Possibly any trait that stopped people from masturbating had more negative effects than positive (e.g. changes to their mental functioning such as indulging in more risky behaviour either in desperation to attract a mate or simply because they were sexually frustrated). Or maybe masturbation is less of an impediment to heterosexual mating since it doesn’t completely remove the need to have sex with another person whereas settling down with a homosexual partner would. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/57 "2010-09-13T12:19:41Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > How about sex with monkeys and sheep? No thanks, but you go ahead - once you have their informed consent. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/58 "2010-09-13T12:23:39Z")
Oh, they speak to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/59 "2010-09-13T12:25:28Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > > Or with nobody. Does the social stigma attached to masturbation stem from the same source as the alleged revulsion to homosexuality? I can’t see why it wouldn’t. > > It’s quite easy to see why there would be a social stigma attached to masturbation as it’s yet another case of people not minding their own damned business but feeling they have to take a view on other people’s sexual activity. :mad: > > What’s a bit more puzzling is why there doesn’t seem to be any real biological factors inhibiting it since it can certainly lessen the urgency with which someone needs to find a partner. > > Possibly any trait that stopped people from masturbating had more negative effects than positive (e.g. changes to their mental functioning such as indulging in more risky behaviour either in desperation to attract a mate or simply because they were sexually frustrated). > > Or maybe masturbation is less of an impediment to heterosexual mating since it doesn’t completely remove the need to have sex with another person whereas settling down with a homosexual partner would. Of course, the beauty of evolutionary psychology is its cheerful acceptance of ideas sprinkled liberally with maybes. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/60 "2010-09-13T12:38:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > It’s quite easy to see why there would be a social stigma attached to masturbation as it’s yet another case of people not minding their own damned business but feeling they have to take a view on other people’s sexual activity. :mad: > > > > What’s a bit more puzzling is why there doesn’t seem to be any real biological factors inhibiting it since it can certainly lessen the urgency with which someone needs to find a partner. > > > > Possibly any trait that stopped people from masturbating had more negative effects than positive (e.g. changes to their mental functioning such as indulging in more risky behaviour either in desperation to attract a mate or simply because they were sexually frustrated). > > > > Or maybe masturbation is less of an impediment to heterosexual mating since it doesn’t completely remove the need to have sex with another person whereas settling down with a homosexual partner would. > > Of course, the beauty of evolutionary psychology is its cheerful acceptance of ideas sprinkled liberally with maybes. Given the timescale over which the process takes place and the impossibility of obtaining any direct evidence for a great deal of what happened, maybes are pretty much what we are limited to. We propose ideas and then look and see if they make sense on the basis of logic and what evidence we do have, either historical or from contemporary experimentation and observation. Whenever you propose some possible evolutionary explanation you have to accept the fact that it could end up being shot down in flames. However, if it’s going to be shot down in flames it needs to be done properly, not by a series of rants, ad hominems, and straw man arguments by people who dislike the idea for personal, non science based reasons, and will go to any lengths to discredit it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452.md?page=4)