Greetings! Before I am incinerated by practically everyone with an opinion on this matter (it is said, after all, that walking in the middle of the road results in getting hit by traffic going both ways), please let me present my case.
As almost all of us acknowledge, the human species changes over time due to the preservation of positive genetic adaptations. In other words, a mutation in the part of my offspring's DNA which determines the rate of balding may result in him getting more sex for a longer period of time and creating more children than others without that mutation. Over time, the majority of the human population will feature this mutation as everyone with said mutation produces a larger amount of offspring. I do not mean to insult your intelligence here, but we must be very clear in what we are discussing, especially with such a speculative, complex and contraversial topic.
However, something non-genetic can be said to evolve at the same time. Our societies have dramatically changed in their structures and hierachies as well as their moral and practical beliefs. This has happened over a timescale far too short to be attributed to genetic changes: indeed these structures and beliefs have often changed within the space of a single generation, making genetic determination of so called "gut-feel" reactions highly improbable.
Sexuality is for the vast majority of the population entierly inescabable, and deeply embedded in the more complex issues of human psychology. Fundimentally, we are down to the old question of "nature vs nurture". Few would advocate the "blank slate" theory for all aspects of human psychology - it is undeniable that different modes of brain function and competence levels are responsible for a significant amount of the development of the human psyche. Similarly, the case of complete genetic determination is also extremely weak - society, situation and close relationships are pivotal in our psychologies. However, many phenomena can be analysed and said to correspond more or less one influence or the other.
For instance, the occurence of obesity can be said to result in only a very small part to genetics: while some people are more predisposed to gaining and keeping weight than others, societal acceptance and occurence of obesity can be said to be the determining factors. A similar case can be made of anorexia - while there may well be genetic links between sufferers, the causative factor is clearly social.
My proposition is that human sexuality is a blank slate at birth, and is moulded by situation and society into a relatively (but not completely) stable shape during development. I do not presume to know the details of how this comes about exactly, and I strongly suspect that it is a combination of factors, as opposed to variations of the same one: while it disturbs my sence of neatness to admit it, sexuality is sufficiently complex and prevelant in the psyche to demand this.
However, this is still all in the realm of theory. Let us examine some facts to see which way they fall.
The first issue I find is the existance of homosexuality at all. Clearly it is not a beneficial genetic trait (in terms of the viability, survival, and number of offspring) and any strong causatory genetic factors should have been bred out of the genepool. For me, this adds significant weight to the blank slate proposition.
Another issue that is occasionally mentioned is the similaries that tend to occur between groups of homosexuals and heterosexuals. While I do not in any way mean to suggest that these stereotypes encompass anything approaching a majority, these factors are noticable. This is often ignored due to the fact that this statement is usually accompanied by a lot of other nonsence which makes significantly less sense and demands significantly more investment of energy. However, I do not believe that this is the result of a genetic link: moreover, I would hold that the formation of these traits can be directly linked to the exhibition of these traits by societies often considered to represent gay or lesbian identity. As a good friend of mine once noted when he revealed his sexual preference "saying this doesn't mean I'm going to start talking silly".
Let's not just stick to homosexuality though - there are plenty of sexual fetishes which are considered throughly disturbing by the majority and yet find their adherants. By all accounts, a vast portion of these should have been bred out due to their impedance of the reproduction of genetic material - bestiality, a near-universal taboo, does not produce viable offspring in almost all cases. There are plenty of other fetishes which qualify - I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
The most problematic issue which I have examined so far is the fact that many animals have been obseved indulging in homosexual behaviour. To me, this is evidence that homosexuality is not strongly linked to a gene that has not been edged out in humans by some accident. However, even in herds, society is much less complex and influential than with humans. No "gut-feel" sense of right and wrong has ever been observed in cows, for instance, and plenty of predators live outside of societies almost entirely yet seem to almost exclusively mate with members of the opposite sex. This would seem to indicate a geneticly imprinted preference for the opposite sex within these animals. It is possible that they merely adjust and fit into the extablished societal structures for mating, but another possibility is that the ways of identifying mates differ for these animals: they are far more receptive to pheremones than we are, and unless a female is on heat, the male will not be attracted to her at all. However, choosing a mate is often remarkably similar to the human process however: displays of power and symetry of features (beauty serving as an indication that the organism is fairly free of parisites here). It may be possible that our ancestors, being social in a similar manner to us, had no use for pheremone cycles and functioned better by simply creating erotic beings, whose behaviour would be controlled by societal evolution rather than genetics. This idea has trouble with any incidences of decidedly non-social animals engaging in homosexual behaviour, but I don't know if there are any reliable examples of this.
If you accept the blank slate for sexuality, at least partially, it does have significant implications:
Significantly chaning societal attidudes about homosexuality may result in an increase in homosexual and bisexual behaviour. As it stands now, this may be a good thing: overpopulation is a serious issue, and there are no shortage of orphans.
It may be possible to programme a child's sexuality. With our current knowledge of human sexuality, this is not likely to be a practical possiblity for some time, but it is disturbing: I find any attempt to progamme people to be highly immoral.
It may be possible to alter your own sexuality. This is of course releted to just how stable it becomes before/after it first manifests itself, but it is a curious option. I doubt many would take it though, because as our sexuality is such a potent part of our psyches, changing it may involve all manner of compromises and changes which people are unwilling to undergo. Again, I find the deliberate programming of people disturbing, even with their consent.
Any thoughs, relevant facts, arguments or additional potential implications? I look forward to hearing them. Please keep them relevant to the above issues though: the topic is already very broad, and it would be easy to loose an interesting discussion in a quagmire of outrage and/or unrelated issues.
Regards,
Ascalon
As almost all of us acknowledge, the human species changes over time due to the preservation of positive genetic adaptations. In other words, a mutation in the part of my offspring's DNA which determines the rate of balding may result in him getting more sex for a longer period of time and creating more children than others without that mutation. Over time, the majority of the human population will feature this mutation as everyone with said mutation produces a larger amount of offspring. I do not mean to insult your intelligence here, but we must be very clear in what we are discussing, especially with such a speculative, complex and contraversial topic.
However, something non-genetic can be said to evolve at the same time. Our societies have dramatically changed in their structures and hierachies as well as their moral and practical beliefs. This has happened over a timescale far too short to be attributed to genetic changes: indeed these structures and beliefs have often changed within the space of a single generation, making genetic determination of so called "gut-feel" reactions highly improbable.
Sexuality is for the vast majority of the population entierly inescabable, and deeply embedded in the more complex issues of human psychology. Fundimentally, we are down to the old question of "nature vs nurture". Few would advocate the "blank slate" theory for all aspects of human psychology - it is undeniable that different modes of brain function and competence levels are responsible for a significant amount of the development of the human psyche. Similarly, the case of complete genetic determination is also extremely weak - society, situation and close relationships are pivotal in our psychologies. However, many phenomena can be analysed and said to correspond more or less one influence or the other.
For instance, the occurence of obesity can be said to result in only a very small part to genetics: while some people are more predisposed to gaining and keeping weight than others, societal acceptance and occurence of obesity can be said to be the determining factors. A similar case can be made of anorexia - while there may well be genetic links between sufferers, the causative factor is clearly social.
My proposition is that human sexuality is a blank slate at birth, and is moulded by situation and society into a relatively (but not completely) stable shape during development. I do not presume to know the details of how this comes about exactly, and I strongly suspect that it is a combination of factors, as opposed to variations of the same one: while it disturbs my sence of neatness to admit it, sexuality is sufficiently complex and prevelant in the psyche to demand this.
However, this is still all in the realm of theory. Let us examine some facts to see which way they fall.
The first issue I find is the existance of homosexuality at all. Clearly it is not a beneficial genetic trait (in terms of the viability, survival, and number of offspring) and any strong causatory genetic factors should have been bred out of the genepool. For me, this adds significant weight to the blank slate proposition.
Another issue that is occasionally mentioned is the similaries that tend to occur between groups of homosexuals and heterosexuals. While I do not in any way mean to suggest that these stereotypes encompass anything approaching a majority, these factors are noticable. This is often ignored due to the fact that this statement is usually accompanied by a lot of other nonsence which makes significantly less sense and demands significantly more investment of energy. However, I do not believe that this is the result of a genetic link: moreover, I would hold that the formation of these traits can be directly linked to the exhibition of these traits by societies often considered to represent gay or lesbian identity. As a good friend of mine once noted when he revealed his sexual preference "saying this doesn't mean I'm going to start talking silly".
Let's not just stick to homosexuality though - there are plenty of sexual fetishes which are considered throughly disturbing by the majority and yet find their adherants. By all accounts, a vast portion of these should have been bred out due to their impedance of the reproduction of genetic material - bestiality, a near-universal taboo, does not produce viable offspring in almost all cases. There are plenty of other fetishes which qualify - I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
The most problematic issue which I have examined so far is the fact that many animals have been obseved indulging in homosexual behaviour. To me, this is evidence that homosexuality is not strongly linked to a gene that has not been edged out in humans by some accident. However, even in herds, society is much less complex and influential than with humans. No "gut-feel" sense of right and wrong has ever been observed in cows, for instance, and plenty of predators live outside of societies almost entirely yet seem to almost exclusively mate with members of the opposite sex. This would seem to indicate a geneticly imprinted preference for the opposite sex within these animals. It is possible that they merely adjust and fit into the extablished societal structures for mating, but another possibility is that the ways of identifying mates differ for these animals: they are far more receptive to pheremones than we are, and unless a female is on heat, the male will not be attracted to her at all. However, choosing a mate is often remarkably similar to the human process however: displays of power and symetry of features (beauty serving as an indication that the organism is fairly free of parisites here). It may be possible that our ancestors, being social in a similar manner to us, had no use for pheremone cycles and functioned better by simply creating erotic beings, whose behaviour would be controlled by societal evolution rather than genetics. This idea has trouble with any incidences of decidedly non-social animals engaging in homosexual behaviour, but I don't know if there are any reliable examples of this.
If you accept the blank slate for sexuality, at least partially, it does have significant implications:
Significantly chaning societal attidudes about homosexuality may result in an increase in homosexual and bisexual behaviour. As it stands now, this may be a good thing: overpopulation is a serious issue, and there are no shortage of orphans.
It may be possible to programme a child's sexuality. With our current knowledge of human sexuality, this is not likely to be a practical possiblity for some time, but it is disturbing: I find any attempt to progamme people to be highly immoral.
It may be possible to alter your own sexuality. This is of course releted to just how stable it becomes before/after it first manifests itself, but it is a curious option. I doubt many would take it though, because as our sexuality is such a potent part of our psyches, changing it may involve all manner of compromises and changes which people are unwilling to undergo. Again, I find the deliberate programming of people disturbing, even with their consent.
Any thoughs, relevant facts, arguments or additional potential implications? I look forward to hearing them. Please keep them relevant to the above issues though: the topic is already very broad, and it would be easy to loose an interesting discussion in a quagmire of outrage and/or unrelated issues.
Regards,
Ascalon
