I found this topic very interesting, unfortunately I don't have much time to follow the whole thread these days.... but I'll intromit a bit anyway...
first of all, I'm not commenting it in agreement with the message replyed by this one I'm commenting.
Buddha1 said:
Sex between males is not always 'copulation', which is only a 'heterosexual' society's idea of sex.
But what would exactly be that "extended" idea of sex? Because of course if we change the definitions, then the conclusions that use the old definitions wouldn't be valid anymore.
I think that for sexual interaction should be considered the act of fertilisation and courtship. If we extend to much to things that aren't related to sex/reproduction, it totally misses the poinf of being called
sexual interactions. Would be just "social" interation, of some sort. When the same behaviors of fertilisation and courtship happen between individuals of the same sex, that would be homosexuality.
On the contrary, there are extremely few cases of heterosexuality. Mating between male and female takes place --- BUT only once in a year or two or even four years, when its time for reproduction. Therefore, the driving force can hardly be said to be a strong sexual desire, but rather a desire to procreate. Sexual desire for the opposite sex is though present is extremely transient, periodic and minimal. This is hardly heterosexuality. The male and female don't look back at each other one's the required copulation is over. A strong and continuing sexual desire would make them want to stick together, and even raise children together.
That's equating sexual desire with affection, with "falling in love", which I don't think it's true. I think that sexual desire would be better equated with desire to procreate. Yet not exactly, I see sexual desire more as a mechanism that ends up in procreation.
That doesn't mean, anyway, that it's required strict heterosexuality in order to procreate, it could occur only when procreation would be better strategically.
About raising offspring together, I can't see how it could be related with sexual appointment. I think it has to do only with costs and benefits and the necessity of passing away one's own genes. Many times, one sex will end up having more offspring by having multiple partners rather than raising the offspring with only one partner. I think that usually is the female which are somewhat constrained to raise the offspring, but inversions occur.
I think that both will raise the offspring together in cases which the development of the offspring is more expensive, only effective if done this way.
I think it could be counter argued that the offspring were allowed to be more expensive in species which already had male and female stronger bonds, rather than the bonds being generated by the expensiveness of the offspring.... hopefully these alternatives wouldpredict different things, but I can't think of any right now.
There is a strong case for the contention that the driving force for mating amongst animals is reproduction and not a sexual desire. E.g., there are species where there are no males, but females still have sex. These species are at a pre-sexual dimorphism stage, which all animal species were at one time. Therefore, sexual desire precedes reproduction. Nature seems to have ridden piggyback on an already existing sexual desire for same-sex, in order to accomplish reproduction after sexual dimorphism took place.
I'm a bit confused now....
First you said that desire for procreation is distinct of sexual desire; now sexual desire exists before the existence of sex itself, and looks pretty much as if it were desire to procreate.
I think that before sex, of course there was no way to have sexual appointment, only desire to procreate. But after/during the origin of sex, sexual appointment arises as a selective mechanism that makes mating between different sexes more effective than if it were purely random.
Also, there are species like the fish, where the male fish competes with other male fish in order to attract the female, and when the female comes and makes her choice the male frantically follows her. She drops her eggs and the male impregnates the eggs --- and not the female. Once the job is done, the male loses all interest in the female (and vice versa). The male does not even touch the female. Therefore, it is clear that a desire to procreate is primary, and a sexual drive for the opposite sex, if present is low --- whether it is in mammals or fish. (The same cannot be said of sexual drive for same-sex.)
And the fishes of the same sex, do they touch each other?
I think that fits well with what I said. Sexual drive doesn't need to be a desire to be all over the body of one individual of the other sex, but rather a mechanism that tries to ensure that the organisms will mate effectively. In this case, the males want to fertilise eggs rather than other sperm and females lay eggs to be fertilised rather than trying to lay on another egg or in sperm laid as if it was an egg.
If animals were heterosexual, there should not have been a need to fight at all. There are so many females. There should be one for each male. After all, darwinism assumes that nature works so hard to make animals procreate, and does not allow them to waste their efforts in non-procreation purposes, Further if nature really considers those who do not procreate a waste, why does it give the chance to mate only to a few males --- creating such a lot of waste. Surely, his theory is flawed.
That was the point that made me want to reply....
Well... darwinism doesn't assume that natures work hard for anything.... it's completely ateleological. It surely doesn't say that nature considers those who doesn't mate are a waste and then "try" to eliminate them. Nature doesn't consider
anything.
Sexual desire/selection would be an selective advantage in relation to mating randomly where sex already exist. But from that doesn't follow that there shouldn't or couldn't exist homosexuality or that the males should be fair with each other and share the females equally.
The latter because a male that mates with more females and avoid non-related males (or what are mistakenly recognized as that) will have more offspring than those who don't do that. That's very logical. It's not what nature is thinking, it is simply not "caring" if the other males will be wasted.
Homosexuality (or sexual abstinence) can occurs as long it's relatively neutral, not representing a disvantage. It wouldn'y be in many cases that I won't point right now, but as mating seasons were pointed as one of the few periods when heterosexual behavior occurs, I'll say just one: out of the mating seasons.
I think that then we shouldn't expect heterosexual behavior, or at least fewer mating attempts, because mating seasons probably evolved (my guess) because it synchronizes the development of the offspring with the most effective period of the year in a certain habitat, in relation to envioronmental resources. Outside that period, when resources are more scarce, "effective" mating would be more likely a "waste", while homosexual behavior could be neutral, if we're not talking of some species in which individuals of the same sex simply hate each other.
Those macho males who bang their heads to mate, are definitely not heterosexual. They invariably go back to their male companions with whom they have a committment (take the case of bottleneck dolphins or Chimpanzees). But it will be derogatory to call their love relationship 'homosexuality', which is a poor concept of sexual love between males.
Well, I agree. If we call sex the non-sexual interactions between individuals between the same sex, just because they're hanging around together, then a nuclear family would be some sort of endogamic orgy.
Males often fight with each other for lots of things --- it could be for territory, for food or for a male lover. But the heterosexual scientists only show them fighting for females to make them appear heterosexual.
I think I've heard about males fighting other males for territory or food, but I must confess that for male lovers is the first time. But I'm not surprised.
I just think that fight for females is more shown because it's the most evident, I guess that is when it's the mating season that the fights became more intense or frequent.
The closest counsins of men, especially the Chimpanzees share close love bonds with other males. For them male sexual bonds are an extremely important factor in their social fabric.Males grow stronger because of this. Packs of males hunt together, fight enemies together, take care of each other and even mate with females together. They never have such a relationship with a female.
That's explained, I think, by the finite social space theory, plus a byproduct of sexual desire mechanism.
Later I'll continue and put my views of sexual behavior in humans