How does evolution explain homosexuality? (Kingdom, celibacy, blood, experience)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

I would say yes, precisely because it is more accepted. Remember, we're talking incidence here, not some percentage of people who might have leanings that direction but can't act on them, which has been the case throughout history until now.

How exactly do you define homosexuality? I think the most common definition is attraction for someone of the same sex, not necessarily acting on that attraction.

Or, to approach it another way: if a man is attracted to other men, but keeps this secret and (despite his orientation) dates women, eventually marries a woman, and never has any sort of romantic or sexual experience with another man, would you consider that man homosexual or heterosexual?

Personally, I'd say he's homosexual. The fact that he's more likely to come out as a gay man now than he would've been a century (or even a few decades) ago doesn't change the fact that he was gay all along.

I can clearly see how societal acceptance would make it more likely for homosexual people to be more open about their orientation. I have much more difficulty in coming up with a mechanism that would allow societal acceptance to have an effect on what gender a person is attracted to in the first place.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Or, to approach it another way: if a man is attracted to other men, but keeps this secret and (despite his orientation) dates women, eventually marries a woman, and never has any sort of romantic or sexual experience with another man, would you consider that man homosexual or heterosexual?

I don't think your scenario is possible. Bisexual men are able to "perform" with both genders, and with store-bought lubes, women don't have to "perform" at all, but clearly a man needs a minimum sort of attraction to his sex partner in order to "perform" if you gather what I mean.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Francine

I don't think your scenario is possible. Bisexual men are able to "perform" with both genders, and with store-bought lubes, women don't have to "perform" at all, but clearly a man needs a minimum sort of attraction to his sex partner in order to "perform" if you gather what I mean.

There's always fantasization.

And if that doesn't work... it is theoretically possible to have a sexless marriage.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Francine

I don't think your scenario is possible. Bisexual men are able to "perform" with both genders, and with store-bought lubes, women don't have to "perform" at all, but clearly a man needs a minimum sort of attraction to his sex partner in order to "perform" if you gather what I mean.

I don't know, ask Mrs. Haggard.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Francine

I don't think your scenario is possible. Bisexual men are able to "perform" with both genders, and with store-bought lubes, women don't have to "perform" at all, but clearly a man needs a minimum sort of attraction to his sex partner in order to "perform" if you gather what I mean.

Not really, though it helps a lot. When having sex with women, I found it more enjoyable if I thought about men.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Not really, though it helps a lot. When having sex with women, I found it more enjoyable if I thought about men.

I can relate to that... When having sex with women, I find it more enjoyable if I think about latex.

[Soldano16]

Originally Posted by tomspug

This one makes no sense to me. Why is it that there are any homosexual tendencies in ANY species? Where do those instincts come from and why were they not weeded out by natural selection?

My readings came across a study that related homosexual behavior in mammals to conditions of overcrowding.

So it's s defence mechanism that has evolved for the community. It could have evolved so that the sex drive was reduced in those conditions but it obviously didn't work out that way. Somehow in nature, homosexual sex evolved as the solution.