Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom

[Moontanman]

I know a couple of pansexual women, they can wear any look anything they like, the green nail polish is to be expected, licking a pan is bit over the top Both of them are practicing witches as well... Adriana I love you

 

I love Laci BTW...

Edited March 2, 2014 by Moontanman

[Dissily Mordentroge]

I find it amusing how the term 'homosexuality' is bandied about in this discussion. Individuals of our species can function anywhere along a broad spectrum of sexual behaviours. To assert there is 'pure' homosexuality or 'pure' heterosexuality is to deny this. What for instance do we make of so called heterosexual males imprisoned with other males for years resorting to male/male sexual encounters? Have they become homosexual? Are they simply desperate? Are they demonstrating a potential previously repressed by social pressure?

Labelling animals as 'homosexual' is just as fraught with potential confusion. Take for instance the common dominance display of one male dog over another by mounting and acting out a sexual motion. What does this mean? Why would we anthropomorphise such behaviour and describe it as homosexual?

What do we describe two men who love each other but have little or no interest in having sex together? All these discussions are in serious need of some careful definitions of the terms we accept on face value.

How do I describe myself, a male of our species who chooses to have sexual/romantic relationships only with other men yet now and again is turned on by the sight of female breasts. Yet having decided decades ago never to again subject myself to what I percieve as the emotional blackmail so many females of our species are addicted I decided to avoid any intimate involvement ? Am I a latent heterosexual? A misogynist? A repressed heterosexual? Simply neurotic? Frankly I don't care.

In short what I think I'm trying to say here is any discussion of such issues is as yet mostly outside the bounds of anything like empirical science.

Not that I suggest the immature science of psychology has yet answered these questions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And now for a little unscientific experimentation and amusement kiddies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8_pyKz1iY

Edited July 16, 2015 by Dissily Mordentroge

[MonDie]

I find it amusing how the term 'homosexuality' is bandied about in this discussion. Individuals of our species can function anywhere along a broad spectrum of sexual behaviours. To assert there is 'pure' homosexuality or 'pure' heterosexuality is to deny this. What for instance do we make of so called heterosexual males imprisoned with other males for years resorting to male/male sexual encounters? Have they become homosexual? Are they simply desperate? Are they demonstrating a potential previously repressed by social pressure?

 

When measuring male preference with a penile plethysmograph, IMO it sounds like men form a U-shaped curve, similar to what's been found for pupil dilation. You get varying degrees of flexibility, but with a strong unisexual bias. Phallometric bisexuals are sparse yet existent, but is this really just extreme flexibility?

Alas, this assumes phallometry is a perfect and complete measure of sexual preference.

 

 

I posted this elsewhere.

 

 

 

fruitless Splicing Specifies Male Courtship Behavior in Drosophila (Demir and Dickson, 2005) - Cell vol. 121

http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(05)00407-1

 

"Remarkably, fru^M and fru^Δtra females court wild-type females [...] they perform the male courtship ritual, and, like normal males, direct their courtship toward females (Demir and Dickson, 2005)."

 

It's hard to imagine how these mutations could persist unless they're advantageous in males, but it shows that it can happen. Furthermore, mutations that cause this should be very rare unless there are many different genes that converge on the same pathway.

Edited July 16, 2015 by MonDie

[Dissily Mordentroge]

When measuring male preference with a penile plethysmograph, IMO it sounds like men form a U-shaped curve, similar to what's been found for pupil dilation. You get varying degrees of flexibility, but with a strong unisexual bias. Phallometric bisexuals are sparse yet existent, but is this really just extreme flexibility?

Alas, this assumes phallometry is a perfect and complete measure of sexual preference.

Until and unless we can somehow manage to conduct phalometric measurements without the subject knowing the purpose I doubt the results could be taken as a complete measure of sexual preference. About as reliable as lie detector tests I suspect.

As to the origins, cultural or biological of homophobia is there any need to assume a single cause/origin?

I've observed recently ( excuse the anecdotal un-scientific observation) a number of previously homophobic adults having their feelings and expressed objections totally altered upon getting to know a gay couple with a four month old baby. Possibly a change induced by the parents being alpha males and disarming any preconceptions about stereotypes. But how on earth do we 'measure' any of this outside of the somewhat unscientific approach of psychology? More importantly, why does it matter and why are we trying to nail this question down?

[iNow]

More importantly, why does it matter and why are we trying to nail this question down?

Seven years ago when I created this thread, my objective was to attack head-on via real-world examples taken from nature the remedially false and self-evidently bigoted notion that homosexuality is "unnatural."

[MonDie]

On ResearchGate, there is a 1989 paper "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference". I recall it mentioning "signs of faking" as a criterion for exclusion. I will check the citation later.

 

I can understand aversion to homosexual contact as adaptive. It's wasted time and an unnecessary disease risk. I cannot explain homophobia, however.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Seven years ago when I created this thread, my objective was to attack head-on via real-world examples taken from nature the remedially false and self-evidently bigoted notion that homosexuality is "unnatural."

A noble aim, but given many of those involving themselves in such a debate probably have a powerful sub-conscious need to argue against your proposition one fraught with predictable difficulties. I'm also mindful, in the context of human behavior, the ambiguity and probable irrelevance of supposing any aspect of human sexual behavior could be examined in isolation from cultural influences, few if any of which could ever be accurately described and unambiguously 'natural'.

We could also consider ( forgive me if this has been previously discussed, I'm too lazy to read back through seven years of debate) behavior for any particular individual experienced as 'natural' could for others will be experienced as profoundly 'unatural'.

Maybe evolutionary psychology will eventually answer all these questions but we'd still face the invidious irrationality of religious fundamentalism not only telling us what was unatural but asserting it to be ungodly. Given the recent exposure of pedophilia within orgnised religion they're in no position to declare anything unnatural.

Sorry to take the discussion away from a scientific approach - - when dealing with human behaviour cultural influences can't be fully discounted.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Dissily Mordentroge

[StringJunky]

.... - - when dealing with human behaviour cultural influences can't be fully discounted.

Homosexuality predates culture. Oppressive cultures like Islamic culture, encourage the existence of homosexuality over and above those who are homosexually inclined... culture does have an effect but not necessarily in the way one might imagine.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Homosexuality predates culture. Oppressive cultures like Islamic culture, encourage the existence of homosexuality over and above those who are homosexually inclined... culture does have an effect but not necessarily in the way one might imagine.

Predates culture? Which particular primate ancestor are you thinking of? Oppressive cultures like Islamic culture, encourage the existence of homosexuality over and above those who are homosexually inclined ? I'm at a total loss to see how they encourage such and would be interested to know having spent some time in the middle east in all male bath houses. Given passive homosexual acts witnessed by the religious police in Iraq will see the 'guilty' given a choice between a state funded sex change or stoning to death. Mind you prominent imams and those caught indulging in the active role are usually let off.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Dissily Mordentroge

[StringJunky]

Any of our ancestors you care to mention. i read a report by a Saudi journalist that described gay life there ...it's tolerated as long as you don't draw attention to yourself or demand rights. Due to the strict social rules, otherwise straight Saudi men seek the furtive company of other Saudi men in order to find sexual expression outside marriage. This is what I meant by 'over and above'; there are men doing things they would not do in more amenable circumstances. Sex will be found, gay or not

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Any of our ancestors you care to mention. i read a report by a Saudi journalist that described gay life there ...it's tolerated as long as you don't draw attention to yourself or demand rights. Due to the strict social rules, otherwise straight Saudi men seek the furtive company of other Saudi men in order to find sexual expression outside marriage. This is what I meant by 'over and above'; there are men doing things they would not do in more amenable circumstances. Sex will be found, gay or not

 

I'm inclined to suspect you're right but how do we KNOW this?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Phi for All
fixed quote tags

[MonDie]

Dissily Mordentroge, you postulated that one could fool the penile plethysmograph. There is no shortage of research on this matter.

 

I found these old ones. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311045/

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/247332259_Instructional_control_of_penile_circumference_in_assessments_of_sexual_preference

 

This looks like an unpeer-reviewed submission since it says 1987 instead of 1988,

SIGNS OF FEIGNING IN THE PHALLOMETRIC TEST (Freund, Watson, & Rienzo)

 

also this one, possibly not peer-reviewed or not accepted

Voluntary Control of Penile Responses as a Function of Stimulus Duration and Instructions (Lalumiere & Earls, 1992)

 

and these abstracts http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2003767

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1546933

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796783900372

 

and this more recent, peer-reviewed 2011 paper,

THE INFLUENCE OF PRESESSION FACTORS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF DEVIANT AROUSAL (Reyes, Vollmer, Hall)

"We evaluated the effects of presession masturbation (1 participant) and arousal-suppression strategies (2 participants)."

---

 

The abstracts show that erection can be suppressed, but that subjects overestimate their success at this (Adams 1992) and have more difficulty doing this while actively describing the erotic content (Mahoney 1991). Furthermore, there was "some degree of suppression of erections but no significant enhancement of erections. (Adams 1992)"

The 2011 study says that the participant successfully "suppressed arousal to baseline levels only after he received a more specific suppression instruction," counting aloud back from 100.

Edited July 17, 2015 by MonDie

[Dissily Mordentroge]

"Dissily Mordentroge, you postulated that one could fool the penile plethysmograph. There is no shortage of research on this matter."

 

Thanks, very interesting but none of these studies investigate the implications of the subject's knowing having a measuring device attached to their sex organ.

Surely there's some possibility of thought processes along the lines of "Oh shit, they're measuring my responses to XYX so I'd better control myself and not get carried away with drooling over the images they show me otherwise I'll reveal something either I don't want to know about myself or something I don't want them to know about me"

A strange version of Schodinger's cat?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Dissily Mordentroge

[MonDie]

I hope you didn't miss the addendum.

I wonder. Could we try it on other primates? Would they care enough to suppress the erection?

Nay, other mammals. How far back does the erection go, anyway?

[Dissily Mordentroge]

I hope you didn't miss the addendum.

I wonder. Could we try it on other primates? Would they care enough to suppress the erection?

Nay, other mammals. How far back does the erection go, anyway?

 

 

 

 

I didn't miss the addendum but I'm still sceptical.

How far back does the erection go? With me as far as I can remember.

I'm still pondering the original intention of this thead was. A simple distinction between homosexuality being 'natural' or 'unatural'? If so what do we actually mean when we bandy these terms around? I suppose my focus though is a subjective and unscientific one in that for me sex with other males of my species I experience as very natural, sex with females of my species as very unnatural.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Dissily Mordentroge

[MonDie]

I suppose my focus though is a subjective and unscientific one in that for me sex with other males of my species I experience as very natural, sex with females of my species as very unnatural.

Obsessive compulsive disorder? Gender conflicts?

It's off topic anyway.

People with OCD often have sexual obsessions.