[lbo-talk] Re: Instinct

Arash arash at riseup.net
Fri Nov 25 03:26:10 PST 2005



> sex can be a mechanism of human socialization, as indeed we see in our
> behavior to this day (behaviors ranging from pair-bonding to
> prostitution make sex a social medium). Although it is by no means a
> clear corollary, the observed behavior of bonobos (Pan paniscus, our
> closest genetic relative) show that species engaging in homosexual
> social behaviors as well as heterosexual, suggesting that a broadening
> of sexual behavior may increase social bonding in primates. This would
> offer an excellent explanation of how it is that homosexuality (which
> would seem, on its face, to be anti-heterosexual and therefore
> anti-reproductive) could be an evolutionary advantageous behavior.

This could explain homosexual activity occurring among those who reproduce heterosexually but it doesn't explain the persistence of a segment of the population (2,4,6%?) that seems to lean toward exclusively homosexual attraction. Since this segment doesn't make much of a reproductive contribution you would expect evolution to select it out, but that hasn't been the case. Homosexuality might have some unseen compensatory value in perpetuating the species (some evidence shows women with homosexual relatives are more fertile than average) but so far a precise explanation hasn't been determined. I think similar homosexual population percentages have been found in other species so it's an even wider evolutionary puzzle.


> If this were a true theory it would tend to predict that groups of
> Homo sapiens that perceive themselves to be under threat would tend to
> be more misogynistic and homophobic than groups of Homo sapiens that
> see themselves as having peace and plenty. Indeed, that is what we
> tend to see. Sexual liberalization is very much associated with times
> of peace and plenty in human myth and history. The Pill and Roe v.

Boddi are you just offering this as food for thought, how the overall homosexual activity (not innate homosexual or heterosexual attraction) in a society could wax and wane over time? My comment on reinforcing macho-style institutions wasn't referring to this, it was a response to Brian and Joanna stating that both positions, believing in a static or mutable sexual orientation, could fulfill a desire for control. The former leaves one without needing to the question their sexuality and the latter lets one be active about control in demanding continued socialization/social reproduction of their sexual orientation. So a desire for control alone doesn't seem to explain the prevalence of one position over the other.

Arash



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list