homophobia and evolutionary psychology

[overtone]

Your statement is indicative of why you do not understand this issue.

 

What you think is IRRELEVANT...is very much RELEVANT TO MANY OTHER PEOPLE.

Why do you think that makes it relevant to the thread topic? Your personal obsessions may indeed be widely shared in your culture or among your subgroup of it, but this thread is in an Evolutionary, Morphology, and Exobiology subforum.

 

We are attempting to discuss the nature and implications of a hypothetical genetic basis for homophobia - whether you think your own evident and quite convincingly described involuntary disgust at your culturally mediated perception of indications of your culture's stereoptypical homosexual orientation is "normal" for a member of your culture is a long way from evolutionary concerns, and you have not provided us with much of a map for the connections.

 

 

I agree; if there were not that aversion yes we wouldnt reproduce so well.

Mechanism, please.

 

It's just as likely on guesswork grounds that we would reproduce better - or at least more prolifically and/or successfully under ordinary evolutionary circumstances - in the absence of homophobia.

 

Sequestering breeding-age women in relationships with unenthusiastic sexual partners, depriving children of the extra protection and resources of related adult men with no children of their own, reducing the pool of unencumbered adult men available to step in upon untimely deaths of parents or step up to meet hazards without as directly risking children's welfare, and so forth, would be damaging to reproduction - yes?

 

And that objection grants the unsupported hypothesis that homophobia increases the prevalence of heterosexual activity in human males.

 

The notion that taking a moderate (less than, say, 80) percentage of adult males out of a human breeding pool reduces the baseline reproductive potential of that population overall is without support in theory or in evidence, as far as I know. When biologists calculate the basic reproductive potential of populations with large mammal biology, they usually don't even count the males. In the US after the Civil War areas that had lost 2/3 of their breeding age males (corresponding to an exclusive homosexuality rate of over 60%) saw normal reproductinve rates, regardless - the percentage of non-breeding women was essentially unchanged once the violence of war had ended.

 

Reproduction in beings like us is seldom if ever limited by a shortage of willing males.

Edited June 17, 2013 by overtone

[MonDie]

It's just as likely on guesswork grounds that we would reproduce better - or at least more prolifically and/or successfully under ordinary evolutionary circumstances - in the absence of homophobia.

 

Sequestering breeding-age women in relationships with unenthusiastic sexual partners, depriving children of the extra protection and resources of related adult men with no children of their own, reducing the pool of unencumbered adult men available to step in upon untimely deaths of parents or step up to meet hazards without as directly risking children's welfare, and so forth, would be damaging to reproduction - yes?

 

Okay, so you're proposing a group selection mechanism that weeds out homophobia. I will not argue against that.

 

And that objection grants the unsupported hypothesis that homophobia increases the prevalence of heterosexual activity in human males.

 

The notion that taking a moderate (less than, say, 80) percentage of adult males out of a human breeding pool reduces the baseline reproductive potential of that population overall is without support in theory or in evidence, as far as I know. When biologists calculate the basic reproductive potential of populations with large mammal biology, they usually don't even count the males. In the US after the Civil War areas that had lost 2/3 of their breeding age males (corresponding to an exclusive homosexuality rate of over 60%) saw normal reproductinve rates, regardless - the percentage of non-breeding women was essentially unchanged once the violence of war had ended.

 

Reproduction in beings like us is seldom if ever limited by a shortage of willing males.

 

Okay, so the amount of reproducing done by a heterosexual guy depends upon other factors, perhaps economic ones. But we weren't necessarily suggesting that an exclusive heterosexual would "benefit" from these homophobic genetics. Suppose that an otherwise bisexual man gets this genetic homophobia. Without the trait, he could hook up with males or females. With the trait, he was bound to hook up with females exclusively.

The matter of 'how bisexual' may or may not be relative to the strength of cultural pressures. There will always be people who engage in a behavior even though it is stigmatized.

 

depriving children of the extra protection and resources of related adult men with no children of their own

 

Interestingly, the kin selection hypothesis really complicates the idea of a homophobia 'gene'.

 

Both reproduction and kin selection benefit the individual's genes.

If the kin also possess the homophobia gene, then it does not matter whether he makes his own offspring or nurtures the offspring of his kin. Either way, he's perpetuating the gene. If the kin don't possess the homophobia gene, then the homophobia gene benefits its own perpetuation by inducing the reproduction strategy.

On one hand, the homophobia gene doesn't have to contribute to overall fitness to perpetuate itself, it just has to induce the individual to pass it on when his kin do not possess it also. On the other hand, a gene that lowers the overall fitness of its host has less potential. Suppose that, for the sake of individual fitness, the bisexual is better off taking the kin-selection path. In this instance, the non-homophobic variation would perpetuate more effectively than the homophobic variation.

 

However, the above considerations may be trivial in the end. If it's true that individual fitness is greater with the kin-selection strategy, the non-homophobic variation can probably be considered beneficial the group. Even if the homophobic gene spreads initially by inducing reproduction, it would eventually spread throughout the group. Once the entire group has the homophobic variation, that group may be less adept than a group with the non-homophobic variation.

 

Considering the above, I think there's a good chance that a kin-selection mechanism would work against the perpetuation of homophobia genes. Interestingly, the kin-selection mechanism was found to be in action on Somoa, where the culture was non-homophobic. They gave homosexuals a distinct gender category called "fa'afafine".

Link to an article on the Somoa study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm

 

However, note that the kin-selection mechanism isn't universal. There was no support for it in an England study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010468

 

---

 

To address a side issue, I just looked up some terminology for varying types of homophobia.

 

We need to keep in mind that "homophobia" is discussed in two different ways in the literature. #1 involves an irrational discomfort or anxiety around homosexuals, and #2 involves something more like a rationalized dislike. In addition, this thread seems to have introduced a narrower third definition, one involving a disgust in the presence of homosexual sexual behaviors.

I suggest that we call #2 heterosexism or sexual prejudice.

I suggest that we call #3 homoerotophobia, as #3 seems to align well with Wainwright's intended use of the term (Girshick 32-33).

Edited June 18, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Gian]

Why do you think that makes it relevant to the thread topic? Your personal obsessions may indeed be widely shared in your culture or among your subgroup of it, but this thread is in an Evolutionary, Morphology, and Exobiology subforum.

 

We are attempting to discuss the nature and implications of a hypothetical genetic basis for homophobia - whether you think your own evident and quite convincingly described involuntary disgust at your culturally mediated perception of indications of your culture's stereoptypical homosexual orientation is "normal" for a member of your culture is a long way from evolutionary concerns, and you have not provided us with much of a map for the connections.

 

 

Mechanism, please.

 

It's just as likely on guesswork grounds that we would reproduce better - or at least more prolifically and/or successfully under ordinary evolutionary circumstances - in the absence of homophobia.

 

Sequestering breeding-age women in relationships with unenthusiastic sexual partners, depriving children of the extra protection and resources of related adult men with no children of their own, reducing the pool of unencumbered adult men available to step in upon untimely deaths of parents or step up to meet hazards without as directly risking children's welfare, and so forth, would be damaging to reproduction - yes?

 

And that objection grants the unsupported hypothesis that homophobia increases the prevalence of heterosexual activity in human males.

 

The notion that taking a moderate (less than, say, 80) percentage of adult males out of a human breeding pool reduces the baseline reproductive potential of that population overall is without support in theory or in evidence, as far as I know. When biologists calculate the basic reproductive potential of populations with large mammal biology, they usually don't even count the males. In the US after the Civil War areas that had lost 2/3 of their breeding age males (corresponding to an exclusive homosexuality rate of over 60%) saw normal reproductinve rates, regardless - the percentage of non-breeding women was essentially unchanged once the violence of war had ended.

 

Reproduction in beings like us is seldom if ever limited by a shortage of willing males.

well i don't know, but i would have thought that more aversion to homosexuality would mean more potential reproduction. But of course it may not just be reproduction itself. Certainly there was a shortage of eligible men around for several years after WW1 although Im not clear how that affected reproduction levels

 

However it may be what is SEEN to be better potential reproductivene potential rather than what is ACTUALLY reproductive potential. Men with what was thought to be an aversion to homosexuality would have been seen as better potential breeding stock by society in, say, the early middles ages, or in the prehistoric whatever the actual reality. (In those days for example it was believed that older men were incapable of fathering healthy children.)

 

Thus natural selection of men who by a natural quirk were particularly averse to homosexuality -and seen to be- would cause them to survive that much better and so reproduce better, and thus become more dominant.

 

Feedback any1?

 

GIAN

 

 

 

To address a side issue, I just looked up some terminology for varying types of homophobia.

 

We need to keep in mind that "homophobia" is discussed in two different ways in the literature. #1 involves an irrational discomfort or anxiety around homosexuals, and #2 involves something more like a rationalized dislike. In addition, this thread seems to have introduced a narrower third definition, one involving a disgust in the presence of homosexual sexual behaviors.

I suggest that we call #2 heterosexism or sexual prejudice.

I suggest that we call #3 homoerotophobia, as #3 seems to align well with Wainwright's intended use of the term (Girshick 32-33).

Yes I agree. What is commonly called homophobia is anything but an irrational fear, it's usually very calculated and socially constructed.

 

My gf's mum is an arachnophobe. It's not that she hates spiders personally or goes on demos saying 'send spiders home.' But she screams and would probably jump through the window if a spider scuttles across the floor despite knowing the spider is probably far more scared of her than she is of it.

[Ringer]

Ringer...I actually am not taking this issue personally but I can understand why you might think so due to my typing style. LOL!

The thing is since it seems that way to me, and others, it makes you writing style irritating to read. The reason being any information you're actually trying to convey gets lost in all the other stuff that doesn't lend anything to your point. Frankly, most of your posts seems passive aggressive, mildly insulting, and condescending. You may want to rethink how you're writing so you can actually get a point across without seeming like an ass.

What I DO feel is important is to point out WHY an issue exists and what can be done to work things out...and this working things out would be specific to communication, understanding and finding common ground.

Science isn't about finding common ground, it's about explaining things based on evidence.

I do not think it is helpful or beneficial for anyone to say or think that just because another person or group thinks and feels and believes differently than I do that there is something wrong with that person or group or there is something that must be forcefully changed.

It doesn't matter if it's helpful or beneficial, it matters if it fits evidence. I didn't see anyone saying anything about something being wrong with you, or you need to be forcefully changed. I may have missed it if someone did say that and I would disagree with that statement to a degree. What has been said is that homophobia and disgust toward homosexual acts is culturally adopted, and unfounded disgust or hatred toward a group that doesn't harm others should be discouraged.

I support Gay Rights and Gay Marriage. I do not feel that anyone who does not has something wrong with them or is Homophobic because they do not support these issues.

I support racial equality and interracial marriage. I do not feel that anyone who does not has something wrong with them or is racist because they do not support these issues.

As well I do not think it is anyone's place to tell another what they can or cannot do as long as it does not hurt anyone.

Agreed

Obviously...some here feel it is their place to tell others they are doing something wrong and they are misguided, ignorant and wrong for doing, acting or feeling a certain way. I reject this notion.

 

Split Infinity

Many feel that it is important to undo culturally conditioned disgust of minorities. I would agree with this. Many find this sort of feeling tends to be correlated with misinformation about those minorities, ie ignorance, and I would agree to a degree.

 

 

Split Infinity....Prat? Really? LOL!

This is the type of thing I mean when I say condescending and passive aggressive.

well i don't know, but i would have thought that more aversion to homosexuality would mean more potential reproduction. But of course it may not just be reproduction itself. Certainly there was a shortage of eligible men around for several years after WW1 although Im not clear how that affected reproduction levels

 

 

However it may be what is SEEN to be better potential reproductivene potential rather than what is ACTUALLY reproductive potential. Men with what was thought to be an aversion to homosexuality would have been seen as better potential breeding stock by society in, say, the early middles ages, or in the prehistoric whatever the actual reality. (In those days for example it was believed that older men were incapable of fathering healthy children.)

 

Thus natural selection of men who by a natural quirk were particularly averse to homosexuality -and seen to be- would cause them to survive that much better and so reproduce better, and thus become more dominant.

 

Feedback any1?

 

GIAN:-)

Well you're creating a false dichotomy of homosexuality and reproduction, and of homosexuality and heterosexuality. There is no reason to assume that some levels of homosexual behavior would not convey a selective advantage or be selectively neutral. Those traits can could epistatically cause "pure" homosexuality (meaning total aversion to heterosexual behavior) which may cause selective disadvantage. But since the alleles can 'hide' in the population due to total aversion needed specific allelic combinations.

[overtone]

Okay, so you're proposing a group selection mechanism that weeds out homophobia.

I proposed no specific mechanism of enforcement for my observations of potential evolutionary gain - my observations would be amenable to kin selection, say, or even direct individual selection for the occasionally important breeding functions of homosexual males (they might operate as a reserve pool in event of calamity, or be themselves protected against some vulnerability of too-rigid heterosexual orientation), not just group selection.

 

 

Thus natural selection of men who by a natural quirk were particularly averse to homosexuality -and seen to be- would cause them to survive that much better and so reproduce better, and thus become more dominant.

So now what you need is some evidence or argument that such an unintuitve and odd situation ( beating up on one's tribal allies and non-competitive genetic kinfolk, ridding one's close group of a subset of its otherwise competent and effective but non-competitive adult males), would increase the number and improve the reproductive odds of one's children.

 

Note the primary threats to one's children: violence from other humans, predators, failure of the tribal adults to provide food or shelter, disease and mishap exacerbated by neglect, etc.

 

 

well i don't know, but i would have thought that more aversion to homosexuality would mean more potential reproduction

You would need a serious argument and a great deal of evidence to overcome the standard observations and obvious problems with such "thought".

 

 

However it may be what is SEEN to be better potential reproductivene

potential rather than what is ACTUALLY reproductive potential. Men

with what was thought to be an aversion to homosexuality would have been

seen as better potential breeding stock by society

Societies don't do any breeding in the genetic sense, but they are in resource competition with other societies. A society that imposed damaging selection pressures on its members would be handicapping itself.

 

The only sense I can make of that is sexual selection - human females in some isolated cultures might have somehow come to prefer overt male homophobes as breeding partners, because they have grown to be healthy surviving adults in spite of their obvious handicap of homophobia.Seems like a stretch, though - how does one display homophobia without displaying risk and hazard for one's children, relatives, etc?

 

And we're still stuck with the reasonable possibility that the predisposing genetics for homophobia and homosexuality are identical, the same stretches of code.

Edited June 18, 2013 by overtone

[Gian]

Well you're creating a false dichotomy of homosexuality and reproduction, and of homosexuality and heterosexuality. There is no reason to assume that some levels of homosexual behavior would not convey a selective advantage or be selectively neutral. Those traits can could epistatically cause "pure" homosexuality (meaning total aversion to heterosexual behavior) which may cause selective disadvantage. But since the alleles can 'hide' in the population due to total aversion needed specific allelic combinations.

 

 

Perhaps not, but people at the time may have thought of them as such.

 

Eg if we went back to a town in say 12th century France, women may have felt (unconsciously) 'men who are averse to homosexuality are better than men who arent so I want that sort of man more.' This trait if it is genetic/enogenous may be advantageous economically and/or be part and parcel of lots of other traits conducive to social and economic prosperity and thus better survival.

 

So such men reproduce and survive just that bit better. The reality is immaterial; it's the way people in the said village may have seen it which would influence outcomes.

 

However, if such an aversion is no longer considered in today's society, homoerotic-phobia (aversion to the sight or idea of gay sex) I suppose may eventually breed itself out.

 

GIAN

[overtone]

 

Eg if we went back to a town in say 12th century France, women may

have felt (unconsciously) 'men who are averse to homosexuality are

better than men who arent so I want that sort of man more.' This trait

if it is genetic/enogenous may be advantageous economically and/or be

part and parcel of lots of other traits conducive to social and economic

prosperity and thus better survival.

 

So such men reproduce and survive just that bit better

So you are going on the sexual selection tack - the only one that made much sense to me.

 

But you still need a couple of things: an entire population (or at least a dominant majority) of women simultaneously acquiring that preference; a reliable but undamaging way to display the trait; a direct genetic influence on the trait; and a lack of competition from more beneficial female preferences. And you need this situation to be peculiar to the populations now displaying the trait and genetically isolated, and so strong it takes effect in just a few generations.

[Ringer]

Perhaps not, but people at the time may have thought of them as such.

 

Eg if we went back to a town in say 12th century France, women may have felt (unconsciously) 'men who are averse to homosexuality are better than men who arent so I want that sort of man more.' This trait if it is genetic/enogenous may be advantageous economically and/or be part and parcel of lots of other traits conducive to social and economic prosperity and thus better survival.

I was making a statement about homosexual traits being passed on. When I said aversion to some sexual behavior I was implying an aversion to act in that manner, not being averse to those who engage in those behaviors.

 

So such men reproduce and survive just that bit better. The reality is immaterial; it's the way people in the said village may have seen it which would influence outcomes.

 

However, if such an aversion is no longer considered in today's society, homoerotic-phobia (aversion to the sight or idea of gay sex) I suppose may eventually breed itself out.

 

GIAN:-)

Since homosexuality was, and still is, strongly repressed in many areas of society the idea that homophobia would undergo such strong selective pressures in such a short amount of time is extremely far fetched. Also, one would need to explain why male homosexuals are hated on a far greater scale than female homosexuals, as well as why homophobia is a predominantly male trait. Here's some reading on some of the studies that have been done on homophobia:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/overview.html

 

 

On another line of reasoning. Male homosexual behavior differs only in that there is no vaginal intercourse. If aversion to homosexual behavior was biological anal and oral would be a punishment not a reward.

[MonDie]

On another line of reasoning. Male homosexual behavior differs only in that there is no vaginal intercourse. If aversion to homosexual behavior was biological anal and oral would be a punishment not a reward.

EDIT: Forget it. I came to doubt my claim the more I thought about it.

Anyway, if I contain even a trace of homophobia, it's probably been exacerbated by my more generalized social inhibitions.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Gian]

 

Since homosexuality was, and still is, strongly repressed in many areas of society the idea that homophobia would undergo such strong selective pressures in such a short amount of time is extremely far fetched. Also, one would need to explain why male homosexuals are hated on a far greater scale than female homosexuals, as well as why homophobia is a predominantly male trait.

 

 

 

Well I don't know about such selection taking that long; I have personality traits which Im told I got from my grandad who dies b4 i was born; and I suppose if my gf were equally quick to aggression our kids would grow up violent! And I think most people would agree personality traits are very visible from generation to generation.

 

I emphasise again the societal/ political dislike of homosexuals is not what im talking about, i'm talking about phobia in the true sense of the word, an irrational aversion to gay sex the way some people are averse to spiders. I dont think that homosex-phobia, and the homophobia most people mean are the same thing. I know people who are totally gay-friendly, but if they were to see say gay porn go 'euuuggh!!!' (Personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest, dunno why, but it does bother alotta my mates.)

 

Thanks for the reference I'll check it out later

 

GIAN

[Delta1212]

Well I don't know about such selection taking that long; I have personality traits which Im told I got from my grandad who dies b4 i was born; and I suppose if my gf were equally quick to aggression our kids would grow up violent! And I think most people would agree personality traits are very visible from generation to generation.

 

I emphasise again the societal/ political dislike of homosexuals is not what im talking about, i'm talking about phobia in the true sense of the word, an irrational aversion to gay sex the way some people are averse to spiders. I dont think that homosex-phobia, and the homophobia most people mean are the same thing. I know people who are totally gay-friendly, but if they were to see say gay porn go 'euuuggh!!!' (Personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest, dunno why, but it does bother alotta my mates.)

 

Thanks for the reference I'll check it out later

 

GIAN

Something to consider: the most common number one fear of young men as self-reported in research surveys is being perceived to be gay. The easiest way for someone who is afraid of being seen as gay to "prove" they aren't is to act visibly disgusted at homosexual acts.

 

This doesn't mean that anyone who says they are disgusted or acts disgusted definitely isn't disgusted, nor does it mean that they are really gay, but it does mean that it's fairly likely that any show of disgust is going to be somewhat exaggerated from the true reaction of the person in a significant percentage of people simply because it's how they think they're supposed to react and they don't want the social stigma involved in people thinking they weren't disgusted enough, which does still exist in a lot of places even as wider acceptance of homosexuality has come about.

[Gian]

Something to consider: the most common number one fear of young men as self-reported in research surveys is being perceived to be gay. The easiest way for someone who is afraid of being seen as gay to "prove" they aren't is to act visibly disgusted at homosexual acts.

 

This doesn't mean that anyone who says they are disgusted or acts disgusted definitely isn't disgusted, nor does it mean that they are really gay, but it does mean that it's fairly likely that any show of disgust is going to be somewhat exaggerated from the true reaction of the person in a significant percentage of people simply because it's how they think they're supposed to react and they don't want the social stigma involved in people thinking they weren't disgusted enough, which does still exist in a lot of places even as wider acceptance of homosexuality has come about.

what really started me thinking about this topic was this;

from 03.55-06.44 and 09.33-end.

 

 

I don't think these lads are afraid of being gay, or seen as such, nor do I think this is a learnt dislike. i think what they feel is endogenous.

[MonDie]

I despise that thumbnail image. Could you at least

next time? Those types of links are an option in the advanced editor.

---

Does there have to be a dichotomy between endogeny and learning? Consider Pavlov's dogs. The response of drooling from food is probably genetic (or endogenous), but that endogenous response can be associated with other things through learning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
When a dog learns what a bell is and to drool in response to the bell, it doesn't mean the drooling is somehow inauthentic or artificial. The learning of associations may be inevitable, or even necessary.

 

Of course, there is the genetics vs. environment study posted by overtone (here they are again). I think it's a mistake to assume that being influenced by genetics is the same as being unlearned, as if 30-50% genetics means that 30-50% of the behavior would remain after all environmental factors are removed. The studies don't let us conclude that homophobia is unlearned and cannot be eliminated through cultural change. I would argue that all uniquely human behaviors require some degree of learning.

The study can only take into account environmental variations (and genetic variations) that are found within that sample population. Everyone is presumably living in the same country, sharing the same culture, so there is a limit on how much their environments can vary. On the other hand, if half of the participants were shipped off to Africa at birth, there would be greater variation in environmental factors, thus we would probably see a higher percentage for environmental influences.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study#Methods

Typically these three components are called A (additive genetics) C (common environment) and E (unique environment); hence the acronym "ACE". It is also possible to examine non-additive genetics effects (often denoted D for dominance (ADE model); see below for more complex twin designs).

 

...

 

Go to the article if you want to see how they calculate A, C, and E.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Gian]

I despise that thumbnail image. Could you at least

next time? Those types of links are an option in the advanced editor.

 

---

 

Does there have to be a dichotomy between endogeny and learning?

Thanks for the feedback still reading through it.

 

I don't like the image either, didnt know there was a way of concealing it.

 

I agree I don't know if the nature/nurture debate which comes up in so many different contexts is really very useful. The're all one and the same -except that alot of people treat the 'nurture' bit as a sort of behavioural problem. The gay guy talking to the footballers in the clip seemed to think they were just eing unintelligent. I think it's a bit more fundamental than that. But still reading through all your stuff and links

GIAN

[Ringer]

Well I don't know about such selection taking that long; I have personality traits which Im told I got from my grandad who dies b4 i was born; and I suppose if my gf were equally quick to aggression our kids would grow up violent! And I think most people would agree personality traits are very visible from generation to generation.

Selection does take that long. I wasn't arguing that inheritance doesn't happen, but using one individual doesn't mean selection is happening. Even if you have children who were equally quick to aggression you have to take into account the frequency of aggressiveness vs. non-aggressiveness in the entire population, not in a single family.

I emphasise again the societal/ political dislike of homosexuals is not what im talking about, i'm talking about phobia in the true sense of the word, an irrational aversion to gay sex the way some people are averse to spiders. I dont think that homosex-phobia, and the homophobia most people mean are the same thing. I know people who are totally gay-friendly, but if they were to see say gay porn go 'euuuggh!!!' (Personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest, dunno why, but it does bother alotta my mates.)

 

Thanks for the reference I'll check it out later

 

GIAN:-)

How do you not talk about societal/political dislike of homosexuals when you haven't showed evidence that there is any other kind?

[MonDie]

Gian, I didn't read the articles entirely, and I didn't even know about ACE until I thought to question my own interpretation of the study. For the sake of my argument, you just need to know the basics of how ACE are calculated.

 

---

 

Dogs hump eachother to show dominance. If fictional novels are anything to go by, humans do this too (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). I found this article on idebate. Apparently, primates use male-male rape to assert dominance. However, I haven't found any scientific backing for the hypothesis that homophobia is related to the fear of dominance rape.

That hypothesis could explain why, to me, men with emphasized sexual characteristics who I am not close to can be disconcerting when they appear to be making sexual gestures. (The initial discomfort usually fades quickly with more exposure).

 

Question: In ecology, both males and females have to deal with rape by males. What are the differences?

Edited June 22, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Gian]

Selection does take that long. I wasn't arguing that inheritance doesn't happen, but using one individual doesn't mean selection is happening. Even if you have children who were equally quick to aggression you have to take into account the frequency of aggressiveness vs. non-aggressiveness in the entire population, not in a single family.

How do you not talk about societal/political dislike of homosexuals when you haven't showed evidence that there is any other kind?

I don't have any firm evidence that a repulsion about gay sex is endogenous I'm just thinking about it, that's why I originally put the question.

In the video clip I entered above some football players are asked about what they feel about gay sex and I felt their repsonses were somehow more fundamental and endogenous than something learned. This is something Ive seen myself. Still thinking about it and reading all the stuff people have posted. Cheerz

GIAN

[MonDie]

men with emphasized sexual characteristics

 

Whoops, I meant seconday sex characteristics.

Either way, I think it was very misleading for me to use the term. Blame the caffeine.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die