# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/61 "2010-09-13T14:22:51Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > 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. Here’s where it breaks down, for the record–there is no real-world situation where a man is having so much sex with women that it’s significantly stressing his refractory period. There’s very little way that a man, presumably basically heterosexual, would have his breeding chances significantly reduced by having some homosexual sex as well such that a revulsion trait would be beneficial enough to be selected for since he’s spending so little of his time having sex anyway. ---
**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, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/62 "2010-09-13T14:39:30Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > 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. The dismissal of your idea is getting the serious attention it deserves, as well as the ridicule it deserves, I figure. The problem with shooting something down is that it has to have some solidity in the first place for the bullets to hit, and evolutionary psychology theories are notably cloudlike. ---
**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, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/63 "2010-09-13T14:50:51Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Here’s where it breaks down, for the record–there is no real-world situation where a man is having so much sex with women that it’s significantly stressing his refractory period. There’s very little way that a man, presumably basically heterosexual, would have his breeding chances significantly reduced by having some homosexual sex as well such that a revulsion trait would be beneficial enough to be selected for since he’s spending so little of his time having sex anyway. Not really a breakdown because you are only focusing on one, admittedly unlikely possibility. Given that humans pair bond and it is known that homosexuals pair bond in the same way as heterosexuals, it is the possibility that two people will pair up, possibly for many years, and thus remove themselves from the pool of people who can pass on their genes that would mean that a disinclination to homosexual activity might be beneficial to passing on ones genes. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/64 "2010-09-13T14:51:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Boners don’t lie. You’ve never gotten an erection for any reason other than being sexually aroused by the exact thing you were watching? IIRC, the same thing happens when women watch any kind of porn. Theory being that that is an evolutionary defense mechanism in the case of rape–even if you’re not getting \*mentally \*aroused, \*your \*body is preparing itself for the possibility of sex. > [@qpw3141](#): > > 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. I colored the part you got wrong in your chain of “logic.” As with all animals, there are human beings who have little interest in sexual intercourse with members of the opposite gender. You may be familiar with the term “homosexual.” Likewise, there are human beings who have little interest in sexual intercourse with members of the same gender, and we call those “heterosexuals.” Here’s where your “logic” breaks down further: there is no evidence of its existence. The only time that such a genetic predisposition would be useful would be in the case of gay males. If a gay male were \*revolted \*at the idea of sexual intercourse with another male, he could potentially be driven to sexual intercourse with a female, which may merely be unstimulating. So you know what disproves your theory? Several million gay men happily engaging in a wide variety of sex acts with other men. AFAIK, there are effectively **no** gay men who are out and accept their homosexuality who are revolted by the sex they have: manual, oral, or anal. The only people who appear to be revolted by the idea are heterosexual men and/or gay men who are in denial about their orientation: i.e., exactly the group of men who have the \*least \*evolutionary reason to be dissuaded from sex with men. ---
**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, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/65 "2010-09-13T14:53:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The dismissal of your idea is getting the serious attention it deserves, as well as the ridicule it deserves, I figure. The problem with shooting something down is that it has to have some solidity in the first place for the bullets to hit, and evolutionary psychology theories are notably cloudlike. LOL, now this is a response worthy of the pit. No need to bother with any rational argument, just wave your arms about making vague self justifying derogatory comments about an idea. 😉 ---
**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, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/66 "2010-09-13T14:56:25Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > > The dismissal of your idea is getting the serious attention it deserves, as well as the ridicule it deserves, I figure. The problem with shooting something down is that it has to have some solidity in the first place for the bullets to hit, and evolutionary psychology theories are notably cloudlike. > > LOL, now this is a response worthy of the pit. > > No need to bother with any rational argument, just wave your arms about making vague self justifying derogatory comments about an idea. 😉 Hey, if the idea itself is naught but vapour, why not? I gave it a fair shot with my qustion about masturbation and got bushwah in response. What’s my motive to keep trying? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/67 "2010-09-13T15:17:54Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > > The dismissal of your idea is getting the serious attention it deserves, as well as the ridicule it deserves, I figure. The problem with shooting something down is that it has to have some solidity in the first place for the bullets to hit, and evolutionary psychology theories are notably cloudlike. > > LOL, now this is a response worthy of the pit. > > No need to bother with any rational argument, just wave your arms about making vague self justifying derogatory comments about an idea. 😉 Perhaps if you’d bring some facts of your own, we would have something to argue with besides your just-so story and wouldn’t have to resort to this. ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/68 "2010-09-13T15:28:59Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I colored the part you got wrong in your chain of “logic.” As with all animals, there are human beings who have little interest in sexual intercourse with members of the opposite gender. You may be familiar with the term “homosexual.” Likewise, there are human beings who have little interest in sexual intercourse with members of the same gender, and we call those “heterosexuals.” > > Here’s where your “logic” breaks down further: there is no evidence of its existence. The only time that such a genetic predisposition would be useful would be in the case of gay males. If a gay male were \*revolted \*at the idea of sexual intercourse with another male, he could potentially be driven to sexual intercourse with a female, which may merely be unstimulating. So you know what disproves your theory? Several million gay men happily engaging in a wide variety of sex acts with other men. > > AFAIK, there are effectively **no** gay men who are out and accept their homosexuality who are revolted by the sex they have: manual, oral, or anal. The only people who appear to be revolted by the idea are heterosexual men and/or gay men who are in denial about their orientation: i.e., exactly the group of men who have the \*least \*evolutionary reason to be dissuaded from sex with men. Nice try but, I’m afraid, no cigar. It’s true that there are people who are only attracted to people of the same sex and people who are only attracted to people of the opposite sex and you logic is pretty much OK for them. However, there is a group of people of whom you may have heard (they’re called bisexuals, if you’re interested) who are attracted to both men and women. It is people in this group who would tend to stand a better chance of passing on their genes if they had some mechanism that would tend to guide them away form forms of sex that would not allow them to do so. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/69 "2010-09-13T15:39:07Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > LOL, now this is a response worthy of the pit. > > > > No need to bother with any rational argument, just wave your arms about making vague self justifying derogatory comments about an idea. 😉 > > Perhaps if you’d bring some facts of your own, we would have something to argue with besides your just-so story and wouldn’t have to resort to this. In a lot of cases, considering possible evolutionary traits, there are not really any concrete facts available. You can only posit hypotheses and see how they stand up to logical examination. Unfortunately, a lot of people may dislike a certain hypothesis for one reason or another and will refuse to use their critical reasoning powers (if they actually possess any worth using) and have to resort to straw man arguments or demands for facts that cannot possibly be determined. When you posit an evolutionary hypothesis you are almost never going to come up with a concrete proof that it’s correct. You can, on the other hand, sometimes come up with a pretty concrete case that it isn’t but, again, it relies upon someone using critical reasoning rather than just disliking the hypothesis and waving their arms at it. ---
**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, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/70 "2010-09-13T15:41:06Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > In a lot of cases, considering possible evolutionary traits, there are not really any concrete facts available. > > You can only posit hypotheses and see how they stand up to logical examination. Homosexuality is caused by invisible elves. Go on, prove me wrong. ---
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/71 "2010-09-13T15:42:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > LOL, now this is a response worthy of the pit. > > > > No need to bother with any rational argument, just wave your arms about making vague self justifying derogatory comments about an idea. 😉 > > Hey, if the idea itself is naught but vapour, why not? I gave it a fair shot with my qustion about masturbation and got bushwah in response. What’s my motive to keep trying? You got a perfectly sensible response to your question about masturbation. Examining ideas about possible evolutionary mechanisms is inherently very abstract and ephemeral and not everyone is able to deal with that. There may be no motivation for you to keep trying but you feel impelled to do so nonetheless. 🙂 ---
**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, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/72 "2010-09-13T15:45:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > In a lot of cases, considering possible evolutionary traits, there are not really any concrete facts available. > > > > You can only posit hypotheses and see how they stand up to logical examination. > > Homosexuality is caused by invisible elves. > > Go on, prove me wrong. **If** you believe in invisible elves and **if** you believe it’s in their interest to cause homosexuality and **if** you believe they have the capability to cause homosexuality, go ahead and believe Homosexuality is caused by invisible elves. 😃 ---
**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, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/73 "2010-09-13T15:47:57Z")
You call that a logical examination? Pffft. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/74 "2010-09-13T15:53:02Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > However, there is a group of people of whom you may have heard (they’re called bisexuals, if you’re interested) who are attracted to both men and women. It is people in this group who would tend to stand a better chance of passing on their genes if they had some mechanism that would tend to guide them away form forms of sex that would not allow them to do so. 1.) You still haven’t shown evidence that \*any \*homosexual men are affected by your Magic Natural Revulsion. 2.) You haven’t shown that any bisexual men are affected by it, either, unless you want to try to assert that every “heterosexual” man who is revolted by the idea of homosexual sex is really a bisexual man suffering from your Magical Natural Revulsion. 3.) If you asserted the retarded hypothetical I presented in #2, please explain how this “evolutionary trait” affects such a tiny percentage of the human population. 4.) You’re a fucking retard. ---
**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, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/75 "2010-09-13T16:13:46Z")
There is no ‘Magic Natural Revulsion’ People exhibit the entire gamut of negative reactions to homosexual sex from none whatsoever through mild disinclination to indulge, revulsion to the thought of indulging and on to rampant homophobia. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > 1.) You still haven’t shown evidence that \*any \*homosexual men are affected by your Magic Natural Revulsion. Why would I? It’s irrelevant. > [@](#): > > 2.) You haven’t shown that any bisexual men are affected by it, either If you wish to believe that none are so affected and that every bisexual will, if the opportunity presents itself in suitable circumstances and the attraction is present go ahead and have sex with someone of the same sex, then go ahead. The posited hypothesis fails for you because of **your** belief - maintained, of course, without evidence. 😉 ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/76 "2010-09-13T16:15:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You call that a logical examination? Pffft. No. It’s not a logical examination. If you wish to believe what you stated, go ahead and believe it. I suspect that most will consider you to be a fool but I don’t have any evidence for that - it’s just a suspicion. 😉 ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/77 "2010-09-13T16:20:31Z")
I didn’t say I believed it - I was advancing it as a hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/78 "2010-09-13T16:41:37Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > There is no ‘Magic Natural Revulsion’ Oh, good, so the thread is over, then? > [@](#): > > > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > > 1.) You still haven’t shown evidence that \*any \*homosexual men are affected by your Magic Natural Revulsion. > > Why would I? > > It’s irrelevant. This is why you’re a retard. It’s 100% relevant. The fact that an insignificant number of homosexual men are repulsed by the idea of homosexual sex acts is strong evidence that your “hypothesis” is, in fact, deeply fucking stupid. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 2.) You haven’t shown that any bisexual men are affected by it, either > > If you wish to believe that none are so affected and that every bisexual will, if the opportunity presents itself in suitable circumstances and the attraction is present go ahead and have sex with someone of the same sex, then go ahead. The posited hypothesis fails for you because of **your** belief - maintained, of course, without evidence. 😉 You’re making zero fucking sense. Where are the bisexual men saying, “You know, that guy’s really hot, but the idea of sucking his cock makes me want to vomit”? Oh, wait, THERE ARE NONE. You fucking retard. Which apparently bears repeating, since you’re just not getting it. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/79 "2010-09-13T17:02:08Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > There is no ‘Magic Natural Revulsion’ > > Oh, good, so the thread is over, then? This thread was started by someone who, like yourself, lacked the wherewithal to debate in a calm and rational manner and preferred to abandon the GD thread and come here where he could rant and swear, hurl insults and indulge in ad hominems to his hearts content. If you want to have a serious debate, go to GD but remember to leave the ranting, insults and ad hominems behind. 😉 > [@](#): > > This is why you’re a retard. It’s 100% relevant. The fact that an insignificant number of homosexual men are repulsed by the idea of homosexual sex acts is strong evidence that your “hypothesis” is, in fact, deeply fucking stupid. For a trait to succeed it does not need to affect a particularly large proportion of any population. In this instance it’s effect will mainly be on those bisexuals who have an attraction to people of the same sex that is insufficient to overcome whatever reticence they have for having sex with someone of their own sex. Those so affected will not have sex with people with whom they cannot pass on their genes. Those not so affected will and if they pair bond with members of their own sex then for the period they do so they will not be passing on their genes. It’s all quite simple, really. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If you wish to believe that none are so affected and that every bisexual will, if the opportunity presents itself in suitable circumstances and the attraction is present go ahead and have sex with someone of the same sex, then go ahead. The posited hypothesis fails for you because of **your** belief - maintained, of course, without evidence. 😉 > > You’re making zero fucking sense. Wrong. It seems that you are just incapable of understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/80 "2010-09-13T17:44:15Z")
**qpw3141** , the OP is right in saying that you lack an awful lot of scientific education. This makes honest debate with you difficult in the same way discussing Shakespeare is difficult with middle-schoolers - we can try, and some info will get across, but the nuances will be lost on you. The problem is that you fervently believe that having read a few Dawkins books puts you on the same footing as someone who actually spends their life studying this stuff. You are right in saying that much of evolutionary science necessarily lacks the concrete evidence that we might like to see. You are right that there are holes in our present knowledge that need work. But you can’t just fill in the holes with any old theory you like. It has to make some kind of sense. It has been explained to you over and over the many ways in which your theory does not make sense, but you either don’t want to hear them or lack the knowledge basis needed to understand them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452.md?page=5)