Re: So much is starting to make sense!
It could be that the genes in charge are the same for males and females...
I wonder if testosterone is the culprit. Male homosexuals might have lower levels of testosterone.
Nope, just looked it up and find that not to be the case. Hmmmm
Here is what I found:
It was originally assumed that homosexuality resulted from the individual lacking the male hormone testosterone and thereby being influenced by circulating female hormones. So testosterone supplements were given to homosexuals and while sexual desire was increased, the object of that desire did not change in any way.
Interesting. My theory is shot. Ok, so I suppose the point of differentiation is at the genetic level not hormonal level. And further reading seems to support this notion, although nailing down the exact source of homosexuality is not integral to this discussion.
We're really discussing the why
of homosexuality as opposed to the how.
But I still posit that rape could be an important element.
I disagree with the notion that they are the ones who stay behind though. I don't think that rape within the group is neccessarily a large issue. Humans in the tribal state operate more like our relatives the other primates. The group supports a few privileged members at the top of the social hierarchy. These are the members that are allowed to breed. Stepping over the line and attempting to breed (rape) out of that hierarchy has grave consequences.
Dr. Bloom covers this topic in the chapter entitled, "Fighting For The Priviledge To Procreate."
Let me start by saying that the danger comes from within and without. The male in a pair bond must fear the advances of other males within his social group, especially when he is away from his mate, and also fear the advances of males from rival bands when he is away. From reading The Naked Ape
by Desmond Morris I get the impression that the scientific community attributes the origin of the pair bond to this very real danger. A female who is monogamous and devoted for life to her mate is less of a risk than an uncommitted and promiscuous female. This applies to modern pair bonding too.
While it is true that the "group supports a few priviledged members at the top of the social hierarchy,"
I think there will always be challengers to the dominant males authority and right to the females. Just as their is infidelity in an unfortunately high percentage of todays marriages, it has always been so.
What male feels 100% comfortable leaving town while their wife stays home with a heterosexual friend? Use your imagination and think of all the possible scenarios. Sure love and trust go a long way, but the probability of infidelity is obviously higher than if this friend were a homosexual male.
And my idea about male homosexuals having less testosterone has proven false, so I imagine these males would indeed be ideal companions and protectors of the females as the heterosexual and more agressive males were on the hunt. By companions
I mean strong and able bodies that can handle the more physical duties of a primitve social groups daily activities...along with friendship. By protector
I mean against roaming bands of aggressive young males out to sow their seed.
Dr. Bloom says:
Then the newly triumphant members of the younger generation execute an atrocity. They wade into the screaming females, grabbing babies left and right. They swing the infants against the trees, smash them against the groun, bite their heads, and crush their skulls. They kill and kill. When the orgy of bloodlust is over, not an infant remains. Yet the females in their sexual primae are completely unhurt.
I imagine this is a factor. I would assume that the young, weak, or old and feeble would be next to useless in defending against a roving band of hormonally charged males. While there is strength in numbers, a small group of punk kids would have little difficulty overcoming an entire nursury or nursing home. The same goes for in hunter-gatherer times. A rival group of young males could devastate a camp of young or old humans.
Wouldn't it be far better to have adult or mature and healthy males there to stand their ground against agressors? Now, here comes my own personal bias and possibly ignorance, but I have always found homosexual men to be far less agressive than their heterosexual counterparts. I've attributed this effeminate nature to a lower level of testosterone, or a higher level of estrogen. I might do some reading on the subject in order to move away from biases and towards a more academic understanding of the abundantly clear behavioral differences between the hetero and homosexual human male. One could argue that a rival band of young hormonally-driven males could also lay waste to an equal-sized band of effeminate males. Or could they?Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 10/30/05 4:13 pm