I might have been unclear - I don't have any particular data about the actual occurrence of homosexual behavior across times and societies, but I do think it's a safe guess that there is more homosexual sex in the United states (gay bars and gay men and women living together openly) than in Afghanistan, simply on an opportunity basis. I think we can also say that times of peace and plenty are associated with sexual liberalization - in song and story at least - among those groups who benefit. Homo sapiens being an imitative creature, we might well conclude that accepting, positive images of sexuality almost certainly encourage some degree of imitation. Here again, in the short run, positive images of sexuality also probably work.
I also think that societies where women are objectified as reproductive property are usually hard-pressed economically (until we get down to the stone-age level of socio-economics, where people typically live in small, cooperative clan groups). Purely from a population biology standpoint, we would expect to see a species which needs to reproduce more (or, a given population of a species which needs to reproduce more) spending less time and energy on bonding behavior and more time on reproducing its genome
As to the possible adaptivity of homosexual behavior, I think that even if homosexuality produces a small percentage of what we might term "obligate" homosexuals who tend not to reproduce, the bonding benefit of homosexuality might overwhelm that loss if it keeps a social species together and therefore better able to provide for itself. The extreme case of something like this in animals is bees and ants where almost the entire population of females are actually made infertile by the presence of the queen. This is the extreme case of sexual division and specialization. Queens take on the job of actual reproduction and workers concentrate on "economic" reproduction and social bonding. Total reproductive capacity is clearly hurt by taking almost all females "off-line" but the survival rate for offspring is dramatically increased and ants and bees are still the most dominant social species on the planet, by some measures.
It may be that homosexuality played an important bonding role for our ancestors. It may still today, although bonding through language now predominates. From a biological standpoint, it would make perfect sense that a behavior which was once important but no longer serves the same purpose could increase in a population, so long as it does no harm. It could also go the other way, disappearing as it became more "vestigial" or, it could remain stable. It would all depend, biologically, on how the behavior is reproduced.
On a side note, I think it would be interesting to bring in the fact that anti-homosexual rhetoric has taken two very different, almost contradictory (but, oddly, often intersecting) paths. One line of "reasoning" is that homosexuality is licentious and that undisciplined, immoral people will all fall to the temptation if they are allowed. The other is that homosexuality is unnatural, reflecting an evil, perverted or diseased state of mind. I've often been intrigued by the intersection of these two kinds of rhetoric.
The "homosexuality as license" rhetoric is mainly older, but you can still hear it today. And of course this rhetoric assumes that homosexuality is a temptation people deny themselves. This I find fascinating. Is the anti-gay taboo keeping natural, homosexual desire in check or is homosexual desire a desire to break taboo - be "bad"? I don't get it.
The other idea is that homosexual desire is unnatural. This seems to break down into two more theories. One is that homosexuals are unnaturally "UN-tempted" by the opposite gender and their homosexual behavior is simply an outlet for the unnatural person to express sexuality. The other is that homosexual desire itself is a perversion and is the resultant, aberrant sexuality is a distraction from "natural", heterosexual, sexual desire. So does a gay man unnaturally ignore Angelina Jolie and therefore fall to gazing at Brad Pitt, or does his thrill at the sight of Brad's rounded shoulder prompt him to give the cold shoulder to Angelina's sublime curves?
I prefer a biological conclusion something like this: homosexuality is prevalent across time and populations. Therefore it must have, or have had, some positive benefit to the societies of ourselves or our ancestors in order to overcome its obvious anti-reproductive effect. It must, therefore, be "natural" in some respect, whether it is the product of genetic, physiological tendencies or social behavior tendencies or both. And, it doesn't happen to suit me. Although maybe I just haven't met the right guy.
boddi
On 11/25/05, Arash <arash at riseup.net> wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>