jack | (no subject)

Apparently, Desmond Morris proposes that men are gay when they fail to leave the "boys together" phase of development.

The articles read like odes to the "make plausible declarative statements telling stories about what might happen in [field of "soft" science] and pretend the fact that the conclusions accord with reality is evidence for the stories".

The comments are full of people objecting that what he says in no way accords with their experience.

My main reactions were to the first sentence, pointing out that by the theory of natural selection, heterosexual males are favoured by evolution. That this is so, I think *is* clear. And you can [edit:] tell this is the *only* case from evidence such as the extinction of honey bees (where all but one female bees in a hive are non-sexual) and the breeding out of sickle-cell anaemia (being a single-gene controlled contra-survival trait) in all of the human population.

And to the title. I don't know if male and female homosexuality are related or not. But an explanation that claims to explain one of them smacks of suspiciciosity to me.

I'm afraid I couldn't read further. Does anyone actually know any details? Presumably his book actually says something, you can't dismiss a theory based on its title, even if that would be fun :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)

And you can this is the *only* case from evidence such as the extinction of honey bees

I can't work out the missing word (?) here.

cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com

Thank you, edited. "Tell".

Nice identity, by the way :)

hm, okay, I still missing something. the only case of what?

Ah, sorry, that paragraph was possibly unclear.

I mean, that heterosexuality is an evolutionary advantage seems obvious. But his argument (as reported in headlines) sounds like he thinks it must be universal, and if it isn't, the exceptions must be some strange aberration explained by humans' complex socialisation. Whereas in actual fact, there are lots of exceptions to what seems the "obvious" best answer. (By "the only case" I meant, that heterosexuality should be universal.)

But there are many exceptions to everything having the "obviously" most advantageous trait, some genetically determined, for instance as a side-effect of some positive process, or having a hidden benefit. So being gay might have all sorts of explanation.

However, because I was being ironic, I didn't say "there are lots of cases where the obvious doesn't happen, so no surprise it doesn't happen here either," but "there aren't any cases where the obvious doesn't happen, so it must happen here too, wink wink"...

Ah, so it means, "[heterosexuality is obviously evolutionarily advantageous], so you can tell that [heterosexuality is universal] [from the evidence that things that are obviously not evolutionarily advantageous get selected out]" ← this bit is the ironic bit because they haven't really been selected out.

Maybe I need to turn up the heating knobs on my brain. (I've just installed them, they may be faulty). *twiddles*.

*heats up your brain*

However, I often write things a bit disjointed. They may or may not be clever, but they'd definitely be better if people (or me) understood what I was trying to say :)

ooer.

brain warmer with knobs on

:)Very cool :)

vyvyan.livejournal.com

What a peculiar article. Incidentally, he seemed at one point to fall into the trap of regarding the human species as essentially composed of men:

Bromhall suggests that there are four types of human male. [...] there is the Bureautype, still concerned with high status, but much more cooperative, making him the perfect business partner. Thirdly there is the Neo-type, more childlike, the exuberant, fun-loving family man. [...]when evolution took the human species down the road of increasingly playful, innovative behaviour as a new survival device, the process was not too precise. The ideal outcome would have been to create a species made up of a balanced mixture of reliable organisers, the Bureautypes, and creative fun-lovers, the Neotypes.

I can't help feeling that a species consisting only of these two male types would not have much evolutionary success :-) More seriously, are female "types" and female homosexuality of no interest or relevance to such an argument?

Yeah, exactly.

I suppose it's possible that male and female homosexuality have completely different causes; if that were the case studying only one could make sense. But it gives no reason to believe that.

For that matter, the whole "four types" thing sounds like pop psychology rather than science. Quite possibly the book justifies it, but I'm automatically suspicious. If someone whose opinion I trusted was telling me this, it'd sound plausible, but in these fields everything sounds plausible. And I no longer trust science books or newspapers without a reason. Do men really segregate into those types? If so, shouldn't that research have been published already, before anyone can base conclusions on it? And if not, then where's the foundation for this stuff?

I think my favourite comment was: "There are so many flaws in this theory because the premise is an invalid sterotype of gay men. There are plenty of gay men that are as dull as a box of rocks." Totally true, but has a "friends like this" vibe :)

I can't help feeling that a species consisting only of these two male types would not have much evolutionary success :-)

:) Sometimes evolution happens really quickly

Actually, the article (or the one in the paper paper) *also* had a section about, soon would female couples be able to reproduce without needing any man at all? It didn't say much about it, but it inspired the rather humorous picture at the top of page, of the traditional ape-to-(male)-man evolutionary picture, with the final transition of the man turned into a woman...

The idea of genetic reproduction by two XX individuals has been discussed a bit on the FTM community I read - obviously it's of interest to straight transguys who want to have their own kids with their female partners.

ewx.livejournal.com

What a load of nonsense. Someone should tell him that homosexuality is found in lots other species despite the absence of the unique features he ascribes to human males.

What's the latest on that? I know there were some instances, and some more research done once anyone woke up and looked, but don't have a link I can cite when i want to use that fact in conversation[1].

[1] I mean, when it's relevantly about evolution or gay rights. I don't just go around shouting "GAY DUCKS", though now I've thought of it, I might :)

I believe Biological Exuberance is the place to start. IIRC

emperor may have a copy.

bugshaw.livejournal.com

Queer Duck - he's intellectual, Queer Duck - he's homosexual

(link is Flash with sound)

(no subject)

Active Recent Entries