The Big Snoopy Thread of S-E-X
-
Evolution by natural selection only really predicts that for things that are zero cost. The greater the cost of a behaviour, the more likely it will get weeded out. Which isn't to say that homosexuality is that bad in evolutionary terms: if it increases the survival rate of nephews and nieces, it could indeed be quite strongly adaptive. Dawkins's insight about genes being the unit of selection, not people, is useful here.
You also have to be very careful about anthropomorphism here. It's not that there's any sort of a goal happening in the process. Rather, stuff that works (inside the constraints of the environment), keeps working.
-
Evolution by natural selection only really predicts that for things that are zero cost. The greater the cost of a behaviour, the more likely it will get weeded out.
Oh absolutely, but then we get into all sorts of conceptual difficulties, such as: how do we measure evolutionary cost. And how the environmental context affects this cost. And what all the other competing organisms are doing - that is: whether their carried costs aren't higher.
I'm guessing that homosexuality actually carries a very small cost, overall. Pretty much anything north of 100% homosexuality leaves the door open and in many cases - my guess: for the majority of women for the majority of history - even being at the far end of the spectrum wasn't an issue (your sexuality doesn't matter very much if nobody's asking your opinion on the matter).
Filed under: and that's only if we're considering sexuality an independent trait
-
I'm guessing that homosexuality actually carries a very small cost, overall
It seems to be pretty prevalent in the animal kingdom, that's for sure. Almost as if $DEITY doesn't actually mind a bit of man-on-man action (or woman-on-woman, or ghost-on-horse, whatever floats your boat).
-
Also, evolution doesn't necessarily optimize for every individual's genes to spread forward; only the majority. That's why you have things like altruism and self sacrifice.
A hero sacrifices themselves to save many other people that are maybe genetically related, but not direct descendants. Hero's genetic line dies off, but some of the related genetic lines survive and carry some of those genes with them.
Careful there. Group selection tends to fail hard when faced against individual selection. As Dawkins put it, genes are selfish. Imagine that we inserted a "hero gene" in a group of individuals, causing them to sacrifice themselves for the good of a million other individuals. What happened to the great gene? It went kaput in just one generation.
Evolution is often counterintuitive. It's worth dedicating some serious reading time. Still, the fact that homosexuality exists is indisputable proof that homosexuality exists. So unless you want to believe it's caused by the fluoride in the water (I'm fairly sure we have no evidence at all of it being correlated with external factors), it must be something biological.
-
The radical feminist BS is just as stupidly close-minded as the anti-gays crowd.
They find homosexual activity practiced by wild animals that supposedly only ever have sex to procreate and not pleasure. It seems like that would have shut up the "gay isnt natural" crowd.
-
The radical feminist BS is just as stupidly close-minded as the anti-gays crowd.
They find homosexual activity practiced by wild animals that supposedly only ever have sex to procreate and not pleasure. It seems like that would have shut up the "gay isnt natural" crowd.
The mistake you make is thinking that the 'anti-gay' crowd is interested in logic and reason :P
-
There is theoretically nothing wrong with liking purple or pink. Except the societal bullshit about being a real man means that stuff is unmanly or some such bollocks.
By that definition, I'm borderline with some of my interests. But once I stopped caring about trying to find a label that fitted, I was so much happier in myself.
-
By that definition, I'm borderline with some of my interests. But once I stopped caring about trying to find a label that fitted, I was so much happier in myself.
Labels are for clothes, and then only to tell you how to wash them
-
-
Labels are for clothes, and then only to tell you how to wash them
Precisely my point.
(Not that I generally look at the labels much, they all go in the washing machine at a relatively cool temperature and never get thrown in a dryer.)
-
they all go in the washing machine at a relatively cool temperature and never get thrown in a dryer
The one sensible way to do laundry.
-
Labels are for clothes, and then only to tell you how to wash them
Labels are for lots of things, and some are more useful than others. See the farce that is the No Labels crowd.
-
some are more useful than others
Especially the ones that tell you "You should've eaten it six months ago, you dope!"
-
int i = 0; belgium: i++; // Labels have another use! cout << i << endl; goto belgium;
-
// Labels have another use!
If God meant us to use labels with goto, He wouldn't have created line numbers.
-
If God meant us to use labels with goto, He wouldn't have created line numbers.
Line numbers weren't created. They came about through natural processes.
Filed under: Wake up, sheeple.
-
Line numbers weren't created.
Surely, their integrity, their uniqueness and ordering in magnitude is proof of intelligent design.
-
Certain people would also tell you they were sexy too.
-
If each line defines a dinner plate, then it is sexy, if the line is sexy, then the line number is sexy.
A => B => C
-
A => B => C
Which is sexier, a line number that's used by GOTO or one that's used by GOSUB?
-
GOSUB
It depends on your personal preference. It's pretty obv GOSUB will be preferred by the more dominant people. I would assume the inverse for those of a more submissive nature.
-
You'd assume wrong. I'm a huge fan of GOSUB personally.
-
Surely, their integrity, their uniqueness and ordering in magnitude is proof of intelligent design.
You've not seen the line numbers I used to write.
-
I'm glad you're a sub, it will make things much easier ;)
-
It isn't given, it is earned.
-
- Tacos
- Tacos
- Tacos
- Male
- Tacos
- Tacos
-
Well, since 0 is heterosexual and 6 is homosexual, 27 would probably be literally killing people of the opposite gender to avoid social contact with them.
-
-
Not a fan of the Kinsey scale as it assumes a binary. As for my ranking 2.5
-
4.5
-
female
-
female
-
I view myself as female only in the respect of it being a biological reality. I reject heteronormative gender roles though. I have both femine and masculine traits and feel unashamed of that.
-
female
-
-
This post is deleted!
-
-
Yes, there are other options. Not everyone is straight up XX or XY. There are cases of XXX, XXY, XXXX and XXXY and possibly even more than that.
And that's just biology, without even getting into the distinction between sex (biological) and gender (psychological/identity)
-
Oh, I'm perfectly aware of this. It's just that I'm not aware of people digging down into specific chromosome sequences of their partners (or themselves, for that matter). In fact, I'm not even sure which of these actually manifest themselves as readily identifiable phenotypes (though a cursory glance at Wikipedia offers some answers).
I'm being a bit flippant here, but the Kinsey scale does not address a person's own sexual characteristics, but their response to the sexual characteristics of others. A cursory examination of available pornography (an exercise left to the Reader) will - in fact - demonstrate a possible third axis: attraction to hermaphrodites. However, as hermaphrodites represent a combination of male and female charcteristics, I have to wonder whether separating them out is warranted.
From a more humanistic perspective, we could argue that biological characteristics pertaining to sex are only a small portion of what contributes to the ultimate sexual attractiveness of person X to person Y. Life's messy like that, but trying to account for all of these subtleties leads us down to an exercise in pure enumeration, without deriving any abstract skeleton we could hang a theory on.
-
I can see where you are coming from but the question of who we are sexually attracted to is more complex than biology.
And then gender roles and perception of gender suddenly seems more meaningful that you might expect.
I would for example say that femininity is something that sells me both on the male and female partners I chose. And if you end up choosing male partners for femininity and also have female partners - does that really make me "less" queer. (Not that I take offense a bit of straightness.)
But aside from there are plenty of people who strongly identify as third gender or gender-less and there are others who are attracted to these people as partners.
So I think it's valid to question this binary as a means of understanding attraction.
-
It must really suck to only be attracted to people with XXXY chromosomes.
-
the question of who we are sexually attracted to is more complex than biology
Certainly, but unless we assume some level of abstraction (such as the two main sexual phenotypes), we're stuck in describing each case in its individual detail. The Kinsey scale is a blunt instrument, but it does allow us to make some pronouncements about the sexual make-up of the populace for precisely that reason. The more independent variables we introduce, the closer we get to the - otherwise rather obvious - observation that each person is a special snowflake.
gender roles and perception of gender suddenly seems more meaningful that you might expect
I have a lot of problems with the way the "meaningfulness of gender" is being pushed in today's society - and even more problems with those doing the pushing. Gender - as opposed to biological sex - is a cultural construct and, as such, falls under the "GOG Uncertainty Principle" - you cannot study it without altering it. Gender has become a Big Thing, because a lot of people have a vested interest in making it a Big Thing - this applies equally to the Conservatives and Progressives, as far as I'm concerned.
there are plenty of people who strongly identify as third gender or gender-less
That's another thing: what (if anything) do these terms actually mean? An impassionate, external observer draws the line between what people are and what they think themselves to be. Again, I think that the gender question is a trendy topic nowadays and that leads me to take any pronouncements in this sphere with a large grain of salt.
Ultimately, I agree that an instrument like the Kinsey scale cannot give us a complete insight into human sexual attraction. Peoples is hard. However, within the sphere it does address, I'm finding it difficult to see a third option. I did bring up the question of hermaphrodites, but whether that's something for a different axis or merely an additional qualifier for someone who positions themselves somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale is another matter entirely.
-
I'm finding it difficult to see a third option.
I feel as if you don't know enough non-binary people* to understand what type of issues the phrase “assumes a gender binary” is shorthand for. One example of a potential issue would be a person who identifies as a certain gender and has all of the characteristics of that gender, except they have different genitals than you would expect. Now, for all intents and purposes that person could be considered a member of their preferred gender, the only time that might be called into question would be during sex. And yet, even when sex isn't on the table, a lot of people take the stance that only genitals can determine gender.
* Disclaimer: neither do I, I mean, I read a lot of internet but in practice I don't spend a lot of time getting to know people.
-
One example of a potential issue would be a person who identifies as a certain gender and has all of the characteristics of that gender
See, that's the thing. I don't really put much stock in what people identify themselves as, nor gender characteristics that don't translate into sexual phenotype.
the only time that might be called into question would be during sex
Which, as far as the Kinsey scale is concerned, is the only time it matters.
As I've said above, as far as the Kinsey scale is concerned, the person answering the question matters less than the object of their attentions. As far as I'm concerned, a man who finds other men attractive is homosexual and it doesn't matter very much if he would prefer to think of himself as a woman.
We could start introducing additional gradations into the scale (for example: man who is attracted to men who act like women), but that way madness lies. People are complex and if we are to account for all those complexities, we're left with seven billion special snowflakes and no unifying principles.
Filed under: stylistic clumsiness caused by early hour and lack of coffee
-
-
As far as I'm concerned, a man who finds other men attractive is homosexual and it doesn't matter very much if he would prefer to think of himself as a woman.
Ah, you're one of those kinds of haters.
-
I keep seeing this image. Is there a context there I should be aware of?
-
There is a particular faction of feminists who include only XX women. The picture is an example of such.
-
There is a particular faction of feminists who include only XX women.
Sounds sensible to me, although the criterion seems more likely to be "women who are identifiably women".
-
Sounds sensible to me, although the criterion seems more likely to be "women who are identifiably women".
I don't think they would agree with you. Better to sit this one out, I'm thinking...
PROTECTING FEMALE-ONLY SPACES IN THE UK
Radical feminists met in London on 8 and 9 June in an openly publicised venue, despite threats, intimidatory tactics, distortions and misrepresentations of our politics. Overblown hype from those w…
http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/RF3.png
-
Image link is broken for me and I haven't really got time for reading feminist blogs at the moment, but I'll have a look when I get home.
-
Wait, "Radfem 2013" was supposed to be an actual "conference for radical feminists"? What the hell, I'm pretty sure a "Conference for radical muslims" wouldn't get too far.
I'll have a look when I get home.
You probably shouldn't. No really, it's not a rational thing to do (unless you already read a lot of feminist blogs). We are extremely biased, both externally and internally, to pay more attention to "radical" or "extreme" people. This ends up building a completely wrong models of reality in our minds, causing more political drama, 10000-post flamewars on IT forums, etc. about issues that barely exist at all.
-
I'm pretty sure a "Conference for radical muslims" wouldn't get too far.
I think "protecting male-only spaces in the UK" would take off like a lead balloon as well.
Also: am seeing the feed @boomzilla posted now.
-
Wait, "Radfem 2013" was supposed to be an actual "conference for radical feminists"? What the hell, I'm pretty sure a "Conference for radical muslims" wouldn't get too far.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Overweighting the "radical" part?
We are extremely biased, both externally and internally, to pay more attention to "radical" or "extreme" people.
That's true. It's generally more interesting, etc. But it's the radicals that tend to effect more change, too. Also, these are the sorts of people in charge of Women's/Gender Studies departments at universities, and a lot of people go through their garbage.
-
I am acquainted with several trans people (female to male) who look entirely and completely male externally. Would they be welcome at rad-fem events? what if they have fully completed gender reassignment surgery?
"women only" is as moronic as "left handed people only". Fortunately, transphobic radical feminists will probably do a very good job at mobilising the "good" feminists, if I can say such a thing without sounding like a terrible person (I probably can't, but I've done it now, I mean the non-radical feminists) against the weird women's hyper-rights thing that's been building up a head of steam.
Women's Hyper-Rights!
-
Would they be welcome at rad-fem events?
look entirely and completely male externally
I'm guessing: no.
-
Would they be welcome at rad-fem events?
I have no idea. I try not to predict the behavior of crazy people.
