Sexual Orientation - Does It Actually Exist?

theartnomad · 2017-10-13T22:30:10+00:00

I’m on my phone and had a brief read of this, and I will need to find a link, but I remember my boyfriend telling me that in ancient times (Rome etc.) families where there were gay family members with partners had greater chance of survival. The male gay family members and their partners focused their energy on protecting the rest of the family including their siblings children and other members of the next generation, as they didn’t have to focus that energy on their own children. A ‘protective uncle’ of sorts. Meaning the following generation received extra protection, which ensured the family line carried on.

Edit: found it! link to a contemporary study

phantasmagnolia · 2017-10-14T05:30:57+00:00

So interesting! I think sexual attraction is not infallible. It doesn't line up all that well with the ideal mate in terms of offspring. Proximity for instance is such a big influence since having sex at all is more important than who we do it with. That we attach meaning to sex in ways other species don't, and the association to family and babies.

I think SO is not an inherent trait (just helpful to name the expressions) independent of others. Bisexuality can be explained easily since there are other motivators to have sex than reproduction. And since both bi- and homosexuality is practiced by many species it is less probable that it has to do with upbringing? I imagine if we only registered homosexuality in animal populations where resources were scarce it would have been known. There must be identical twins where one is hetero and the other gay too.

The connection to neoteny was intriguing. If homosexuality is a byproduct of evolutionary facilitation for tribe bonding or encouraging allegiance, neoteny should also be beneficial for this purpose. I do see how that is offensive and believe that this whole topic won't be widespread anytime soon because of how much longer it takes for an idea to spread in a nuanced rather than simplistic way -> 'homosexuality is a malfunction' or even cruder.

If not a byproduct of tribe bonding, then some other element that is beneficial enough to chance the reproductional risk of homosexuality.

PhantomDream09 · 2017-10-14T06:35:47+00:00

Thank you for sharing this!

There will be so many opportunities to use the 4 definitions of ‘natural and normal.’

natural: (1) happens in nature
normal: (2) frequent and often, (3) accepted by society (this changes over time), and (4) biologically normal. “Acting as designed by natural selection.”

All of these parameters speak to traits, behaviors, and permutations that offer some kind of advantage, assure survival, and aid the pursuit of success except for the more subjefctive and unrestrained playground of ‘society.’

I loved the ferilization example that was used to explain how biologically normal things may occur only rarely. It reminded me of how many animals will produce extraordinary numbers of offspring. The reason for these spectacularly numerous offspring being that only a small percentage will reach adolescence, and fewer still, sexual maturity. Sea turtles lay 110 eggs in a single nest, and they will create between 2 and 8 nests during a mating season. Impressive, but that’s nothing compared to the African driver ant. They can produce 3 to 4 million eggs every 25 days…and yet the Mola (ocean sunfish) shames them all. This fish releases 300 million eggs over the course of one spawning season.

High numbers of offspring are an easy way to offset the equally high rate of mortality. Many breeding seasons serve as feasting times for other animals that depend on them for their own survival. High numbers of offspring also indicate limited parental intervention, if any. Of course, such animals also do not require caretaking, they are born with all the instincts and information they need to survive. There are no ‘tricks’ or habits that must be learned, which would require older peers and parents to ‘teach.’

Complex animals (usually larger, more intelligent, and have complex social structure) tend to have lower numbers of offspring. With either the mother, or both mother and father, and possibly others in the social group, invest considerable time, effort, and resources in raising the young. The Harpy eagle for example, mates for life. A pair will raise 1 chick together every 2-3 years. The female will actually lay 2 eggs, but the parents only care for the egg that hatches first. The second egg is ignored, and usually does not hatch, but it is kept around in case the first chick dies. Then there’s the polar bear. Surviving in one of the most extreme environments on earth, polar bears will look after and nurse cubs until they are 30 months old. Point being, everything that animals do, is for the purpose of survival and continuing on as a species…except for giant pandas. They give zero fucks about anything. Stupid adorable pandas…

Obviously successful organisms will either suppress, out pace, and/or eliminate the abnormal aspects and deformities of their biology that hinder survival. Biology is not perfect, and evolution is a constant process that goes through endless trials and errors. Normally a healthy population has a good degree of variety, genetically speaking. However, even when the parents are healthy, there could be some unfortunate deformities and deviations that present in their offspring. Othertimes, animals will develop issues due to changes in their environment. Be it due to weather, new threats (parasites, unnatural animal that completely throws things out of whack), being driven from their normal habitat, onset of disease etc.

When the author talks about homosexuality being a possible abnormality and malfunction of how sexual orientation is normally assigned, I was floored. Sexuality is always considered ‘correct’ and ‘accurate’ even though we talk about many other abnormalities as clearly unnatural. The baby chicks imprinting on tractors honestly made me laugh, and the logic presented stands up from start to finish. One thing that has always bothered me is when people point to animals as a form of justification and normality of human homosexuality. I dislike when LIBERALS point to gay animal sex as a way to explain why human homosexuals are 'correct, natural, right, planned for through evolution,' that they have a productive and purposeful place that is to be expected and accepted. I haven't been able to properly articulate the difference between what they say and what is actually happening and how that relates to the concept of homosexuality, until this post actually! It provides the framework and terminology I was previously lacking to put clarify these thoughts. The most popular example that is constantly cited centers around animals that will have sex with other members of the same sex.

First of all, many animals have dominance displays and intricate social dynamics. Forced grooming, peeing on another peer, sitting on top, and mounting are just a few examples. There are also animals that masturbate, have sex (either with a same sex or opposite sex partner), get stoned, drunk, and high for fun! The consumption of plants, rotten fruit, and poisonous frogs or insects) are just a few ways animals have learned to kick back and have some fun.

Second of all, no animal species has homosexual sex in place of normal sex for the purposes of procreation. Some frogs and fish will actually change their sex if needed. If there are no males, then a few will change into males. These creatures are not trannies however, they have simply evolved in such a way that allows them to always maintain a balanced population.

Thirdly, sex is not something every mature animal gets to do. Most species require the males to compete with each other to the harshest extremes for the opportunity to sire offspring. This is one way to ensure that the strongest genes get passed on. Competition has created some ridiculous and nearly crippling exaggerated traits. Some birds of paradise will create intricately adorned nests, some males have plumage so heavy and elaborate that they can’t actually fly.

Not that females get an easy pass, as mating can prove fatal. Males will claw and bit to get better leverage and some species have frenzies. These massive gatherings sometimes attract predators, and can critically wound females. Some species have figured out a way to circumvent male competition. There’s a type of snake that will gather together to mate. Some of the males actually look and give off female pheromones, even though the snake is male. Normal males will actually mate with these ‘crossdressers’ and distract them from finding actual females. The tricksters are able to travel to the real females without issue and mate with them. There may be crossdressers in human societies, but they don’t dress up in order to successfully knock up a straight woman.

If we think of sexuality as something that is meant to serve a normal, evolutionary purpose, then it’s easy to describe homosexuality as a malformation without demeaning the person in question. If humanity could get to a point where we talk about homosexuality in the same way as other abnormalities that are not fatal (ignore AIDs etc and just assume normal health for this) that are noticeable, and deviate from the normal and natural population (maybe albinism, being totally hairless, blindness, deafness etc) then it’s possible to have a conversation about homosexuality in a way that does not demean homosexuals. The blind and those that have albinism are no less human, and they are not ‘bad’ morally in any way. It’s just how their genetics ended up, and these are noticeable deviations….but not evil or wrong or dangerous in the same way that psychopathy and other mental illness and contagious diseases can be.

No one goes around and says that elephantiasis is the ‘correct’ ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ condition for anyone that happens to suffer from it. Imagine the stupidity of telling someone that they were meant to be born with some abnormality that removes them from the norm in a negative way, and saying “oh, well evolution meant for this to happen. It serves a function!” If you wanted to go a bit darker, we could talk about genetic diseases and illnesses that do threaten not only the quality of life, but the length of it.

Simply put, no biologist looks at a weak, or abnormal and disadvantaged animal and says “this creature is as evolution intended” (again, evolution is the process by which organisms adapt over time to ensure continuation of the species and survival). Many abnormal animals die. Whether their own kind rejects them, or they are easily picked off by predators, or they succumb to the elements that they cannot thrive in. Not all disadvantages are deadly, but they nearly always make life harder. I mean, a bat that cannot use echo location to hunt, and a zebra born with a mangled leg that cannot heal don't hold out much hope for long term success.

Additionally, I think there is ample proof that sexual orientation can be flawed (pedophiles, transgender, and any straight person that repeatedly goes for the clearly wrong type). Just as animals can be affected by their environment for the worse, so too can people. I do think that some people are born homosexual, and others struggle with their sexuality due to abuse. When someone is held hostage, they can develop Stockholm Syndrome, which essentially acts as a survival device with heartbreaking repercussions. Historically, women had to learn to get along with invaders that swooped in and decimated their town/tribe etc. Women are far more likely to have a sliding scale sexuality than men. We also know that our cultural ideals have long been chipping away at the very identity of men, and now more than ever, we have weak and uncertain males....even worse, the number of men that are suddenly declaring they are trans...it's astounding and tragic.

It's odd that we can talk about how genetics and environment can affect practically every aspect of our physical and mental health....yet sexuality is somehow this inviolable steel vault that is always perfect and flawless.

Rivkariver · 2017-10-14T16:24:54+00:00

Having a fixed sexual "identity" is a very modern concept. In the past it was generally not defining you as a person. There were simply actions you took or didn't take.

I believe there's a fluid spectrum although some people are less fluid. I don't believe it's black and white for many many people, and it's very political. I think a lot of people go through unnecessary angst trying to figure it out, and that there are lots of adults who moved past the labels altogether.

Camille11325 · 2017-10-13T13:06:20+00:00

I agree completely with his arguments against the theory of sexual orientation and loved reading something that really made me question my assumptions. I personally do not believe that acting on homosexual desires is moral, and I’ve never been sure about the source of same sex attraction (e.g. genetics, environment, etc). Regardless I accepted the idea of sexual orientation without hesitation. It was taught in health classes since I was 10 years old and I’ve literally never heard anyone claim that it didn’t exist.

The two most compelling aspects of the blog post (for me) are his point about the infallibility of orientation and the imprinting analogy. Why is it that every single trait - physical or mental - has the capacity to fail in some way except for sexual orientation? Why are the accounts of homosexuals regarded as flawless insights that should be used to redefine how we think about everything related to human sexuality and reproduction? Why do people assume, like the hypothetical biologist, that what we observe is a feature not a bug?

To be clear I do think it make sense to have labels to categorize the different ways people can be attracted to each other. It is useful in the sciences and it is helpful for those who deviate from the norm to be able to refer to the category they belong in. So while I don’t think people are homosexual because of the separate entity of sexual orientation, I have no problem with terms like gay or lesbian.

I’m definitely going to be more mindful of how I discuss these subjects moving forward in light of my new take on sexual orientation vs attraction. I’ve always believed that being attracted to women is integral to male nature and that being attracted to men is integral to female nature. So it’s great to identify this blind spot and update my positions so that they are more consistent!

Never_Evil · 2017-10-13T19:10:54+00:00

Here, let me throw hormones into the mix, because it's the first thing I thought of: link

Someone with a bio background can inform/correct whatever is in that wikipedia piece there, but I found it incredibly interesting. The suprachiasmatic nucleus is responsible for controlling circadian rhythms.

Perhaps all sexual orientations are functions of the same purpose - to propagate creation during our daily, 24-hour lives - which is why it seems infallible.

The topic gave me a ton of food-for-thought, thanks!

phantasmagnolia · 2017-10-25T15:42:38+00:00

I just read this.

Around half of all heterosexual men and women potentially carry so-called homosexuality genes that are passed on from one generation to the next. This has helped homosexuality to be present among humans throughout history, even though homosexual men normally do not have many descendants who can directly inherit their genes.

"The trend of female family members of homosexual men to have more offspring can help explain the persistence of homosexuality, if we also consider that those males who have such genes are not always homosexuals," says Chaladze.

Title	Sexual Orientation - Does It Actually Exist?
Author	Camille11325
Upvotes	10
Comments	42
Date	October 13, 2017 12:23 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RedPillWives
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RedPillWives/comments/764f32/sexual_orientation_does_it_actually_exist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RedPillWives/sexual-orientation-does-it-actually-exist.208735 https://theredarchive.com/post/208735

Comments