> From: simon hackett <srmh196@soton.ac.uk>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:50:58 GMT
>
> Is it possible to say that 'true homosexuality is taken to be genetic'?
> Has a specific gene been identified yet? Has a gene in heterosexuals
> been discovered to explain heterosexuality? Personally, I believe
> sexuality is environmental in a lot of respects.
There's probably some of both: cultural homosexuality and genetic
homosexuality. Again, a BIDS search and a scan through the rest
of the Skywriting Archives will show you the ground we've already
covered.
> How can sexual jealousy be explained among homosexuals? Heterosexual
> sexual jealousy has been explained by basing it in the EEA, as being
> essential as the male can make sure the offspring is his, and the
> female can be assured that the male remains with her. What practical
> reasons can be put forward to explain homosexual jealousy? There are
> no complications of childbirth, no real need for 2 male partners to
> remain with each other (only in pack hunting species). Was this sexual
> jealousy formed as a result of a more structured society, where
> jealousy just ensures frequent or reliable sexual gratification? Or was
> this jealousy emulated from phenomena of heterosexual jealousy? These
> may seem very uninformed or prejudiced questions; they do not mean to
> be.
You're right. There should be (and is) much less sexual jealousy among
homosexuals. In fact, in his book on the evolution of human sexuality,
Donald Symons cited male homosexuality as an instance of how male
HETEROsexuality would have been if human females were not selective
(as they need to be, to protect their much fewer and more costly
chances to invest in reproduction). Male homosexuals often have (or
had, before AIDS) several partners in one night, and most do not form
long-lasting bonds. Symons was suggesting that female choice puts a
restraint on male sexuality (that male/male sexuality does not).
But there is a large cultural component too, and some male (and female)
homosexuals not only form lifelong bonds, but wish to have them
confirmed legally and religiously as marriages. Presumably jealousy goes
along with that too.
The issues of the evolution of sexual jealousy and the evolution of
homosexuality were separate ones, however.
> Not having oestrus in humans may have something to do with assuring
> breeding. Human females do not advertise when in ovulation, so it is
> impossible for the male to know the right time for fertilisation, and
> so therefor the right time to pass on his genes. Not having oestrus
> assures the female frequent male contact, as the male does not know when
> his task of reproducing will be complete. Not having an oestrus has
> similar implications as sexual jealousy.
That's right. Both jealousy and concealed estrus act to keep pairs
together. Concealed estrus should perhaps be re-named constant false
estrus, because in animals, all the female signs of sexual
attractiveness (the red swollen rump, which we do not find all that
attractive!) occur only during estrus; other times there is nothing
to interest the male, whereas the human female is attractive to the
human male all the time.
> Perhaps other mammals have a prominant oestrus, and advertise the fact;
> a)to make sure the time when they can breed is not missed b) as they do
> not have the same link between sex and reproduction, and do not form as
> complex sexual relationships as humans. The male has to be notifed when
> the time is right, so he does not waste his time on other members of
> the species when they are not having their oestrus period.
You're right that non-estrus is to prevent males (and females) from
wasting their time; and, yes, it probably it has to do with the greater
need for male investment in the successful rearing of young.
> Humans do not need to advertise as mammals do in oestrus, especially in
> todays society, as sex is an enjoyable experience, so therefor it is
> repeated. Although in some cultures/tribes, the link between sex and
> reproduction is not realised, the enjoyability of sex asures it is
> carried out frequently enough to increase the human gene pool, and the
> creation of future generations.
The point is that it is the attractiveness of sex that we are trying to
explain, and the explanation certainly isn't that it's based on
repoructive knowledge or intentions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:24:18 GMT