Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality

[Firethorn]

it does nothing to explain "femme" women (very girly women who are attracted to other women).  I could see a case being made that an excess of sex hormones in utero  could influence orientation, but the sole cause?  Uh uh.

I would laugh uproarisly if this treatment actually DOUBLED the odds of a lesbian child, especially among the most 'shy' that they're using to judge 'feminine' behavior.  Because it sounds like they haven't been doing it long enough to get good data on this.

[roo_ster]

I would laugh uproarisly if this treatment actually DOUBLED the odds of a lesbian child, especially among the most 'shy' that they're using to judge 'feminine' behavior.  Because it sounds like they haven't been doing it long enough to get good data on this.

Yeah, I got the same "draft version" vibe, too.

I'd think the risk of "femme" lesbians would be quite justified, considering that the other option involves rather severe deformation & likely corrective surgery.

[Firethorn]

other option involves rather severe deformation & likely corrective surgery.

That, I will not object to...

[230RN]

Sickle cell is genetic and by its very nature can be passed on.  Homosexuality in its very nature prevents reproduction, therefore its alleged benefits cannot be traits meant to appear in subsequent offspring , which by the nature of the condition, cannot exist.  Its essentially like claiming being born without reproductive organs is meant to help the species. Something that by its very nature hinders continuation of the genetic line cannot really be considered biologically positive.

(Boldface mine -TAT)

Not that I'm arguing one way or the other, but allow me to point out that sexual behavior falls along a continuum, like just about any other human (or, if you like, animal) behavior.

There are, after all, bisexuals of both genders.  It is not a binary, go-no-go phenomenon.  This has been demonstrated in many cultures across many ages.  So, if it is "genetic," there is no "need" for it to be automatically bred out.  The genes, if any, can be carried forth by bisexuals --and in some cases, they might combine in the offspring to generate a totally homosexual individual.  Or, on the other hand, the offspring may be totally heterosexual and carry the genes (again, "if any") forward to succeeding generations.

But in the long run, across large numbers of population, there is no need for the "genes," (again I emphasize, if any) to be weeded out because of any supposed nonreproductive behavior.

Just wanted to point out that homo- versus hetero- sexuality is not necessarily a binary phenomenon, and that homosexual behavior would not necessarily be eliminated merely because "homosexuals don't breed."

They can, and they do.

Fortunately for the species, almost no characteristic is that binary in nature, as Firethorn touched on by his use of the term "complex of genes."

We, after all, still have babies crop up with six toes now and again.

Terry, 230RN

[taurusowner]

We, after all, still have babies crop up with six toes now and again.

And they adapt to live.  That doesn't make their condition correct.  And I disagree with you about sexuality being a "continuum".

[MicroBalrog]

And I disagree with you about sexuality being a "continuum".

That's quite nice of you. I assume you ignore everything modern psychology, psychiatry, and gender studies have to say about this?

[taurusowner]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do disagree with a lot of modern psychology, "gender studies" in particular.

[230RN]

Aside:  My remark about six toes was an unfortunate bad example. I was going to edit it out, but by then Ragnar Danneskjold  had posted his remark, so I had to leave it in. 

[Firethorn]

And they adapt to live.  That doesn't make their condition correct.  And I disagree with you about sexuality being a "continuum".

Do you have any evidence that you can point to showing why you don't think that sexuality is a 'continuum'?

Asexual...Normal...Nymphomaniac
Heterosexual...Bisexual...Homosexual
Agressive...Passive
Social...Insocial
Adventurous...Cautious
Dominant...Submissive

All issues 'touching' upon sexuality, and all things I figure are more or less independent 'sliders' in the continuum of sexuality.  There are more, of course, but these are the first ones I thought of.

[roo_ster]

That's quite nice of you. I assume you ignore everything modern psychology, psychiatry, and gender studies have to say about this?

Not to comment on the "continuum vs binary" view, but ignoring most quackery such as mentioned above is as reasonable position as ignoring most astrology.

[230RN]

post deleted by poster

[MillCreek]

Not to comment on the "continuum vs binary" view, but ignoring most quackery such as mentioned above is as reasonable position as ignoring most astrology religion.

FTFY

[RevDisk]

And they adapt to live.  That doesn't make their condition correct.  And I disagree with you about sexuality being a "continuum".

Ah, I see you've never been to a college party that served alcohol.  I'm sorry for your loss. 

[taurusowner]

Firethorn, much of the motivation for my line of thinking is based in religion, and would probably mean nothing to you.

[roo_ster]

FTFY

Nah, that is not a fix. 

Most religion claims revelation as its source of knowledge (and use of reason subsequently) but makes little or no pretense as science.

Astrology, psychology, and gender studies claim(ed) the mantle of science while having very shaky bases for such claims. 

[Firethorn]

Firethorn, much of the motivation for my line of thinking is based in religion, and would probably mean nothing to you.

You're probably right.  For me, it's a simple question:  Do Heterosexuals exist?  Yes.  Do Homosexuals Exist?  Yes.  Do Bisexuals Exist?  Yes.  Are there bisexuals out there that prefer their own sex or the opposite sex more, even though they look upon both genders with sexual interest?  Yes.  There are those that claim to be heterosexual that 'experimented' with same sex stuff.  There's homosexuals that stayed 'in the closet' for 20-40 years and raised a family before 'outing' themselves, maintaining a sexual relationship with their spouse during that time.

Ergo, sexual preference is a continuum, just heavily weighted towards 'hetero'.  Due to social mores, it probably takes a strong homosexual cant for people to express the homosexual part.

I'm curious as to how your religious views differ from this?  How would you describe somebody who, of their own will, engages in sexual acts with members of both sexes because they enjoy it?

Oh, and I forgot a few sliders:

Monogamous...Polygamus
Long term...Short term

This is where you get things like lifelong marriages vs 'serial monogamy', affairs and multiple partner marriages.

[BridgeRunner]

Hm, if one is going to consider social structures, there's a good argument to be made that lesbianism in the context of a culture of polygamous marriage is adaptive.  Strengthening the emotional bonds between fellow wives could be significant, particularly when it comes to potentially life-threatening situations like pregnancy, birth, and infancy. 

Interestingly, I have known more than a few hippy-earth-mom types who hooked up--either with outright sexual relationships or with physically affectionate, sexually charged relationships with other women from their hippy-earth-mom groups; shared care of children and of each other during pregnancy/birth were a major factor most of these relationships.  In some cases the women were not married or were widowed/divorced.  In others, they were married, and the relationships were sometimes with the consent of the spouse, who deemed a sexual or semi-sexual relationship with another women to be some random sisterhood thing that didn't strongly affect the marriage.  I tend to think they are right. 

But then in the Greek model, the Spartan model in particular, male homosexuality was also highly adaptive.  Yes, people are generally biologically driven to reproduce, but we are also biologically driven to survive, and in the Greek model, a sexual relationship with a more senior soldier was a good way to work on staying alive during war.

Sexuality seems to be an expression of both attraction and in many cases of sealing a deal or creating a bond.  In both childbirth and war, a close ally who has one's back is almost always a good thing.  To take that literally can be an effective way of sealing the deal. 

Ymmv, fwiw, I've never formally studied gender theory or human sexuality, I just people watch and have had relationships with members of both sexes, and have spent some time in interesting (and heavily patchouli-and-sweat scented) circles.

[Firethorn]

Bridgewalker, you raise a number of very good points. 

When it comes to survival/reproduction with humans, the support structure for the mother is the most important thing.  Statistically speaking, a female only has to have very occasional sex to reproduce.  Animals with breeding seasons normally only need one mating to become pregnant; human odds with our hidden fertility periods are lower, but success rates are still high.  For males it's more about survival and breeding opportunities, of course.

While it's entirely possible for a female to become pregnant after one unprotected sexual act; they can also have hundreds and not become pregnant.  For some reason I come up with 6, properly timed, to be virtually certain, assuming the male and females aren't defective or incompatible.

For men there's two strategies that are frequently practiced by humans; The first is marriage: form a lasting relationship supporting one or more females, while attempting to ensure that he is the only one to mate with them; he helps raise any resulting offspring.  Many birds follow this strategy, lions, etc...  The second is more 'spread your seed wide' where the male attempts to breed as many females as possible, but gives limited to no support.  Lower chances per child; but chances for more children.  Bears, tigers, deer, etc...

Sexuality seems to be an expression of both attraction and in many cases of sealing a deal or creating a bond.  In both childbirth and war, a close ally who has one's back is almost always a good thing.  To take that literally can be an effective way of sealing the deal. 

This reminded me of Bonobos, who apparently use sex as a method of group bonding

[tyme]

I was going to write something about how comparing homosexuality with infertility is ridiculous, but Micro already did that.

Is bisexuality maladaptive too?

What if some white person prefers sex with black people and all black people are wiped out by some crazy white supremacist genetic engineer?  Are they maladapted as well because they would rather not do just -anyone- of the opposite sex?

Sexuality seems to be an expression of both attraction and in many cases of sealing a deal or creating a bond.

The bonding is also a consequence.

[BridgeRunner]

The bonding is also a consequence.

Good point. 

[Antibubba]

There was a time, even into the 20th century, when lefthandedness was considered to be a defect.  We now know it shows brain hemisphere dominance, but at one time it was considered the mark of the Devil.  If we could "cure" lefthandedness, would we be wise to do so?

One thing we have noticed in lefties is a tendency towards abstract and artistic thinking.  How does artistic ability, by itself, benefit the individual trying to pass down his genes?  Creativity might not help the individual, but it seems to aid the species as a whole.  Even when creativity and inventiveness fail (with often immediate and deadly consequences for that individual), overall, with enough attempts the species gains.

So might there also be a species benefit to homosexuality?  What is the impact on society of an individual who puts no effort into reproduction and wastes no energy on child rearing?  While

[roo_ster]

What is the impact on society of an individual who puts no effort into reproduction and wastes no energy on child rearing?

Negligible?

[MicroBalrog]

Wouldn't it depend on where they put that energy?

[Firethorn]

So might there also be a species benefit to homosexuality?

I've proposed that there might be a familial benefit; so yes, there's a distinct possibility of a species benefits; it might also be a side effect of a different adaptive trait.  Organics tend to be wierd that way.

Humans are a bit wierd on the social front - we have small family groups like wolves, but also large non-family groups like herds.  We have some social traits from both strategies.

What is the impact on society of an individual who puts no effort into reproduction and wastes no energy on child rearing?

Looks like your post got cut off, but there's plenty of non-reproductive hetero couples today; and plenty of homosexual couples that are adopting or 'hiring' the creation of offspring.  So I'd say that sexual orientation is a seperate matter than reproduction and child rearing.

I'd go with 'hard to say, but even somebody not rearing children directly are likely helping at least indirectly through paying additional taxes and working to provide the industry/infrastructure that helps children as well as adults'.

[Antibubba]

No, the post wasn't cut off--that is where I ended it.

  there's plenty of non-reproductive hetero couples today; and plenty of homosexual couples that are adopting or 'hiring' the creation of offspring.

Those are modern behaviors; I'm trying to find a historical, long-term advantage.

  So I'd say that sexual orientation is a seperate matter than reproduction and child rearing.

Again, that's a modern perspective.  For most of human history sexual attraction and reproduction were inseparable.  Contraception is a few centuries old, and reliable, female-controlled contraception (The Pill) is only 50 years old.

Certainly the presence of non-reproductive "aunts" and "uncles" benefits a clan or tribal entity, but is there an important survival difference between those who are aged out of reproduction, and those not interested in it in the first place?