Reposting from /r9k/, because derp

[Anonyomus No.1658514]

It's no secret that humans have always tended a little to the polygynous side (see: sexual dimorphism). Given a ~50:50 male:female ratio, most men in polygynous societies will either have one wife or no wife at all. (Of course not everyone obeys rules, male or female, and so it is also no secret that human beings also tend toward some promiscuity [see: the size of your nads].)

So, considering this, why would homosexuality be so unnatural in such a social animal as us? With over 50% of the male population historically not getting any from the ladies, or at least not getting much, seems sensible to me. Same goes for the ladies who must be sharing close quarters and cooperating with one another.

inb4 'But it's natural instinct to want to make babies!' No, it's our instinct to want to have sex--lots of folks were never in the know that sex led to babbys until SCIENCE!. It is not your instinct to want to make poop, it's your instinct to want to eat. This analogy ends at the fact that we love taking care of babies (though humans have a pretty high infanticide/abandonment rate), yet we're not as keen on cradling our poops...But that's not important at all.

[Anonymous No.1658543]

>lots of folks were never in the know that sex led to babbys until SCIENCE!

[Anonyomus No.1658579]

>>1658543
Hm, I probably did go too far out there, Bongo. Scratch that bit. I didn't mean modern science--just that we were probably having sex before we fully understood what it was for. But who knows, perhaps cave men were more in tune with these things than I've assumed.

How's the rest of it though, my monkey?

[Anonymous No.1658636]

The argument 'homosexuality is unnatural' contradicts itself because humans are a part of nature. Stop thinking so much into it, because all Religiousfags are gonna do is cup their ears and say NOO NOOO DAT MAKES NO SESNE.

[Anonymous No.1658684]

I think this is an interesting point, OP, and it would account for the existence of homosexuality in some polygamous societies, but not all (sub-saharan African societies shunned homosexuality despite the fact that the majority of them were entirely polygamous).

[wery No.1658852]

>It's no secret that humans have always tended a little to the polygynous side (see: sexual dimorphism)

Actually this is a common misconception. Sexual dimorphism in humans can be entirely put down to a more rigid "division of labour" in humans because women's big hips (which made them worse at a lot of activities) and the increased vunreability of babies due to them being born less and less developed- both of which are adaptions which allow us to have big brains without killing our mother's as we are born.

I'm not saying polygamy didn't happen, of course it did, but that doesn't mean it was the majority system. The emotional drive in humans really seems to be mostly monogamy (but with bits on the side when you can get away with it). If you can manage to legitimise your "bit on the side" as a 2nd wife, then good for you, but i think it's a social construct rather than a natural one. I don't think it's possible to be in love with more than one woman at any one time.

Nowadays we're started to see a trend for serial monogamy, but you have to remember that back in stone age times you wouldn't exactly have the same mate choice as you do nowadays, so for most men the mate they managed to secure was probably as good as they could get for the rest of their lives (another thing you have to remember is that women nowadays aren't pumping out babies like they used to (which would keep families together).

Then (and I'm only saying this coz it's 4chan) you might have differences between northern/tropical populations (harsher climate= more of a drive for monogamy?).

[wery No.1658854]

Anyway, back to homosexuality, your theory suggests that homosexuality isn't decided from birth. Congratulations on challenging common assumptions which have no scientific basis!!!!

Evolutionarily men are the dominant gender. Accept this (they are bigger and protect the women). Males who do not have the social confidence to act out a male role end up never acquiring one and instead try to assume a female role (gayness), females with too much social confidence end up trying to assume a male role (lesbianity).

Groups would have been smaller back then so becoming a "man" might not have seemed such a daunting task (i also don't think females would have been allowed even try to act like a male- using violence to put women in their place was probably acceptable back then). Levels of homosexuality would not have been as high as they are today. Very few people would have spent their entire lives as homosexuals (although a few particularly unsuccesful males may have spent a significant period before they became straight).

tl,dr: there's no evolutionary benifit to permanent homosexuality. A flexible sexuality would make a lot more sense (it would also fit better with your theory).

[Anonymous No.1658890]

>>1658514
Yeah, what's your point op? There is nothing logically wrong with your argument.

There is also no proof that any "natural" urge is a beneficial one for a species. I suppose we could evolve suicidal tendencies overnight. The evolutionary theory only really works if some other people evolve alongside us without that desire.

[Anonymous No.1658929]

>The emotional drive in humans really seems to be mostly monogamy

Impossible to prove at this juncture due to the meddling of culture and religion over the ages.

That 'bit on the side he/she when can get away with it' undermines the idea completely. It suggests that humans are more directed towards polygamy and only monogamous due to the above mentioned meddling.

Marriage is the cornerstone of the monogamy idea and it should be clear how well that's working out. It's only support is the idea of love but people are, without realizing it consciously, falling in and out of love all the time. The adverse effects of this I believe are caused by the confusion created by the forced monogamy.

[wery No.1658983]

>That 'bit on the side he/she when can get away with it' undermines the idea completely. It suggests that humans are more directed towards polygamy and only monogamous due to the above mentioned meddling.

You need to read up on the difference between social and sexual monogamy. Polygamy means pair-bonds with multiple partners, i don't think this is natural.

As for casual sex- wouldn't have happened much. Women would have wanted fathers for their children where possible. So that only leaves rape and cheating. Yes rape probably happened a lot. I think the desire to cheat would only have emerged once the woman had already produced a few children so the consequences of being caught cheating wouldn't have been so severe (i don't think cheaters would have been thought of too kindly in prehistoric socities).

>Marriage is the cornerstone of the monogamy idea and it should be clear how well that's working out.

Monogamy is suffering today for a few reasons. First of all greater mate choice. Second of all we have this culture of casual sex/casual relationships as a result of contraceptives. And finally women are producing a lot less children which could be tricking people's brains into thinking (maybe my partner is infertile, should investigate finding a new one).

biology aside, i think there's a moral imperitive to abide by monogamy and to keep it the standard in society. It allows everyone to enjoy having sex and raising children, which is not only hugely desireable in itself, but also imo creates a much more happy, cooperative society (where males cooperate with each towards shared goals for glory greater than their own instead of fighting each other endlessly over pieces of pussy).

[Anonymous No.1659067]

>>1658983
>You need to read up on the difference between social and sexual monogamy.

Are you suggesting that social pressure doesn't influence even people's sexual behavior?

>Polygamy means pair-bonds with multiple partners, i don't think this is natural.

But you not thinking it natural does not serve as evidence of that being the case. You're projecting ideas from a few hundreds years ago back on pre-history based on that.

If you assume polygamy natural then everything you say stops being a problem so what you're saying is based on your assumption.

>cooperative society (where males cooperate with each towards shared goals for glory greater than their own instead of fighting each other endlessly over pieces of pussy).

That would be hugely ironic (not to mention clearly not working) if you look back at how petty nearly all wars have been.

[wery No.1659126]

>>1659067

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Aspects_of_monogamy

># Social monogamy refers to two persons/creatures who live together, have sex with each other, and cooperate in acquiring basic resources such as food, clothes, and money.
# Sexual monogamy refers to two persons/creatures who remain sexually exclusive with each other and have no outside sex partners.

I don't think you can be in love with more than one partner at the one time, based on my obvservations of the worlds. If you choose to dissagree there's nothing i can do.

[Anonymous No.1659130]

>>1659126
hey wery, In my opinion you're wrong, now im going to bed.

it sucks nothing you can say will change my opinion.

i also dont care about your opinion.

[Anonymous No.1659136]

HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T JUST NATURAL, IT'S FABULOUS

[Anonymous No.1659143]

>>1659126
Polygyny only refers to having multiple wives, it's about maximizing the number of children that an individual man can have and has nothing to do with love or respect.

It's also common throughout human history, not to mention the history of sex on earth.

[Anonymous No.1659183]

>>1659126
>love
There's that word again.

I don't believe that love, if it exists, can only exist between two people. I also don't believe in the idea the love is eternal.

[wery No.1659185]

.>>1659143


Yes, but the concept of "wife" may not have existed in prehistory. Also, I'd like to think without controlling societies and cultures, human males were intelligent enough to use their strenght in numbers to demand a fair share. Rather than 50% of men losing out on reproduction, i'd be more inclined to think it was around 10% (incidentally the figure for homosexuality).

[Anonymous No.1659196]

>>1659185
Indeed. They did demand their fair share and women went and had sex with the alpha males anyway. Then they pretended that the baby belonged to the man who they "loved".

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. Let's do it. Let's be unfaithful.

[Anonyomus No.1659204]

>>1658890
>Yeah, what's your point op?

There isn't much of one; I intended this post for /r9k/ but they ignored it. I was just interested in what people would have to say on the topic. Also, I just wanted to test drive this explanation for why nobody should be worried about homosex. I figured /sci/ wouldn't be too bothered about the issue, but some people, even non-religious and non-homophobic people seem to get hung up on "sex is for making babbys which means gays are unnatural/aberrant/sickly". I thought that what I typed out in OP post is a pretty reasonable response to such claims.

>>1659136
True dat, Anonymous.

[Anonymous No.1659205]

males banging males, spreading disease and not furthering their own genes

makes perfect sense

[Anonymous No.1659221]

>>1659205

NOTHING MAKES SENSE. SHIT JUST HAPPENS AND WE DEAL OR DIE, BRAH.

[Anonyomus No.1659235]

OP here

>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-more-intelligent-me
n-not-women-value-sexual-exclusivit
>http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/09/effective_polygyny_in_humans_t.php

Just a couple of articles I came across while composing my OP post, for further reading on the topic if you're interested. These are just about polygyny, not homosexuality. Also, please enjoy these nice lesbians.

[Anonymous No.1659263]

>>1659204
OP, but homosex is gay. Also, what is babby?

[Anonyomus No.1659290]

>>1659263
Anonymous, babby is formed when girl get pragnent.