Homosexuality and lesbianism have often been depicted as the
perverted opposite to heterosexuality.. but is this really the case?
It may be that homo/les is the norm, and that heterosexuality is only
considered normal because of societal pressure.. or does this polarity
issue may miss the point entirely. What if bisexuality is the natural
state of sexuality in Human beings, and that we are forced by society to
choose where we take our pleasure from.
        Or, what if we aren't even *that* predetermined in orientaton?
What if the natural state of human sexuality is to seek pleasure, no
matter the source?
        What do you think? 

211 responses total.

i agree with the last one....however, due to the fact that the race must con0
tinue, there are alot of hereros or bi's......

I think that in nature we are drawn to people of the opposite sex in order
to create new life, well not just for that reason, but biologically speaking,
but there are so many great qualities of the same sex, why is unnatural to
be srawn to someone of the same sex. If they can fulfill your needs then that
is great.

I'm too much of a biologist.  Heterosexuality is probably the norm.  But
I beleive that sex in any form is for pleasure and social bonding. 
<You know all of those  feelings that are created by having sex>
But on the other hand, homosexuality is probably not selected against.  But
I'm running out of time so I will elaborate later.  :)

        Alright.. <Selena waits for elaboration..>

There could be some selevctive pressure to favor homosexulity, 
most of the world for most of history, marriage was universal, few people
didnt get married.  So If a person was homosexual, some theories suggest 
that you were maore likely to marry whoever your parents wanted you to, and
if you did have extramarital affairs, they wouldnt result in children
There are a couple more but I have misplaced my athro notes  :)

This response has been erased.

actaully, depends on the culture......the arwaks for instance had
no set mates...the women raised each child they had, and switched partners
whenever they wanted with no hard feelings whatsoever.

(6 was a goof, and I thought I'd aborted it... stupid grex!)
At any rate, I don't see how those select homosexuality.  Selection pressures
don't care about marriage:  the more children, the more genetic survival,
regardless of whether those children are bastards.

That would assume that children from single parent families did as well at
reproducing as their counterparts who grew up with two parents.  I would
assume it wouldn't make much of a difference, but it theoretically could.

Not necessarily, traditionally.  Depending on the culture and social class,
bastards might be raised as if the mother's husband were the father.
(for purposes of hiding the shame)
(or b/c the mother lied about the affair)

alot of cultures had a tradition of taking up children.  if the father wasnt
sure it was his or didnt claim the child it was abandoned.
Actually <and i wish i could find my sources> 'bastards' didnt do as well as
legetimate children, and children of single families didnt do as well either.

We are talking about 6000 years of recorded history, and millions more 
non-recorded... yes, there were cultures where bastards were abandoned and left
to die.  There were cultures (still are) where they are stigmatized and 
peripheralized.  Then again, there are cultrures (still) where the punishment 
for homosexuality is death (or life imprisonment) -- there's  at least one
IRanian living in asylum in the U.S. b/c he would be imprisoned or killed
if he returned home.
  
Val, are you arguing that in some cultures there are no selection restrictions
favoring heterosexuality (I would agree), or that in some cultures there are
selection restrictions favoring homosexuality ( I would disagree)?

Both :)  But mainly the former.  All I can say is that I'm spouting theories
<other peoples theories at that>  and they can never really be proven true
Even natural selection is still a theory :)

        Well, "just a theory" would sum up most of our scientific
knowledge, seeing as there are really veryfew Laws..

I think that humans should find pleasure in any way that they can. 
Heterosexuality may be viewed as the norm because, biologically, it is
instinctive for animals to reproduce and continue the species.  It may be true
that I find more pleasure with men, but the idea of satiating myself with a
women doesn't disgust me.  I happen to very open-minded.  Anyway, the bottom
line is that "pleasure" is the cultural norm, therefore I feel that
heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual relationships are all equally
acceptable.

point i have to make:
        The Arawaks of Hati had no marrage, and therefore no bastards.

        Sarah, I concur with your view, mostly. Sex isn't about a 
need to propogate the species anymore.. the world is overcrowded
already!
        Greg, what you're saying, then, is that the study of how
well "bastard" or simgle-parent children do in life would be
pointless in the context of the Arawaks?

yes.
quite.
and that many tropicall cultures have the same set up.

        Really? That i wasn't aware of. Can you name me some? Do they have
a "everyone share the child" view, or what? How is the young one raised?

        Also, greg, what are these cultures' views toward homosexuality,
or bisexuality?

<blink>
well, the arawaks we will never know, considering the spaniards committed 
genocie on the entire population of them.....
some others.....well, MANy in the brazilian rain forest......

        Right. THESE cultureS. Plural. How do they deal with it?

as far as i know, they do not....they just kinda let everyone do what they
wanna do and take care of problems as they arrise.

        Hmm.. any chance of looking up the info, or giving us te names
of some of these tribes, so we can?

shure, i will try......lots of nationall geographics on it though.

This is from Valerie, the resident anthropologist:
There are no societies that have no cocept of marriage, i.e., there is 
always some sort of regulation of reproductive activity and status of
goods in regard to inheritance.
There are some (in fact, many) societies in which the child is perceived
of as being the mother's, i.e., specific paternity is irrelevant.  In 
these cases, it is typically a direct male relative who takes the role of
"father" (this relative usually being her brother, if she has one).
Sexual practice and mate selection does vary widely across cultures.  There
is for instance a culture in India (or somewhere around there) where a
woman can indicate sexual readiness by leaving a broom outside her house.
Hence bastardhood would be irrelevant here -- the adults responible for 
the child are the mother and one of her brothers.  The fathers *can* claim
paternity if they desire, but they don't hate to.
She's heard of the Arawaks, but doesn't remember the details there.  They're
apparently a fairly standard example, so a convenient source would be an
anthropology textbook.
Hope all this is elucidating.  :)

hmmm, all i know is what they tell us in civ classes.

        Thanks, Valerie/Brighn! I think that what was said, though,
largely agrees with the bits of info from greg, just that the
"no concept of marriage" detail is off.

I wasn't disagreeing with Greg, which is why his response is puzzling.
I was offering some of the additional details you requested, Selena hon.

        I understand, brighn.. I was trying to point that out to greg!

Is it actually true that the ancient Greeks considered Gay sex healthy, or
is it something we just invented?

well,i know that the spartians used to have "messes" in whice men lived
, slept, ate, everything together.......and yes, quite a few became lovers
a wife could not be taken untill a certian age (that age escapes me at teh
moment)......and even then, the man continued to live with the guys....

Actually, one view common among the Gay community right now is that the 
concept of *heterosexuality* is fairly new, like a few hundred
years old.  Not that heterosexuality itself is new, but rather
the separation of it from all other sexualities (as opposed to the
separation of sex from procreation which would necessarily be mixed-gender
from sex for pleasure which could be either).
I dunno.  At any rate, no, we didn't invent the concept.  Many
cultures have male-male or female-female sex to varying degrees of
social acceptability.  Including the Greeks.

        If I understand it right, the Spartans were encouraged to
have lovers among the ranks..

of course they were, created even more feverent fanatic loyalty.

From what I understand too, in certain cultures semen had to be transferred
from an older experienced man to a younger man.  You weeren't born with 
what you needed to father children, you had to get it from someone else.

        Transferred?

I am at the library but I swear I can't find anything on the arawaks...tell
me what countray they are from and I will get you the information:)

originall inhabitents of hati.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss