All: Do men and women need each other beyond purposes of reproduction?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

A different conversation here got me wondering about this after talking about breathing and inspiration being applied as sex stereotypes. Watching historical fiction shows and films, it's evident that females and males paired for the most practical of purposes, which above all seemed to center around having children. Of course, it also seems like according to popular opinion (even now) was/is that the purpose of women is to serve men, and men are meant to provide for and protect women.

But I wonder if in a larger sense, women and men provide different types of inspiration for each other just by virtue of their sex characteristics and how they reconcile their existence in the world as members of whatever sex they are.

I still struggle to understand the purpose of same-sex attraction since it doesn't facilitate biological reproduction which seems to be our biological purpose as human beings. It would seem useless at best and harmful at worst. So I wonder if a sex-typed inspiration to one's life may be what gives another purpose to homosexual people. But perhaps that's regressive and is only further sex stereotyping something that need not be.

all 46 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I still struggle to understand the purpose of same-sex attraction since it doesn't facilitate biological reproduction which seems to be our biological purpose as human beings. It would seem useless at best and harmful at worst.

A fundamental, driving purpose of all plants & animals species is the perpetuation of the species, which involves the species reproducing and evolving. But this doesn't mean that every single individual member of a plant or animal species must or will reproduce. Only some members need to reproduce to keep a species going & evolving.

In nature there are and always have been individual plants & animals that can't reproduce, or don't reproduce for one reason or another. And homosexuality is seen amongst many animal species other than humans. Male-to-male and female-to-female sex acts are natural occurrences & homosexuality as a sexual orientation amongst homo sapiens is a natural variation.

Moreover, it's to the benefit of the long-term survival & betterment of the human species that some people don't reproduce. Raising, worrying & financially supporting children consumes a lot of time and resources. It's always good that some people aren't bound up in such activities so they can focus on & accomplish other things - things that the rest of society will benefit from in various ways.

Look, for example, at the contributions made by the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen, Emily Dickinson, Louisa May Alcott, Susan B Anthony, Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem. Thank goddess, I say, that they didn't get bogged down having kids. (And I say that as a woman who has had kids.)

The question of what our purpose is as human beings is a different topic, one for theologians & philosophers rather than biologists. Some say our purpose is to obey & love god. Some say it's to love one another. Some say it's to prepare for the afterlife. Some say it's to make the world a better place. Some say it's to be fruitful & multiply like the Bible says. Some say there's no purpose or point to it at all, it's all a cosmic joke.

The claims that homosexuality is useless & harmful strike me as very homophobic statements reminiscent of yesteryear.

What's useless about people of the same sex connecting, loving, comforting, pleasuring, supporting and caring for one another? Does everything human beings do have to be "useful"? Who decides what's useless & useful - and what's the criteria?

Why is homosexuality harmful? To whom? And how?

Although I happen to be mostly heterosexual & nearly all my sexual relationships have been conventionally het, my own life would be much diminished if I hadn't had the chance to know all the lesbians and gay men who have been my close friends, colleagues, acquaintances, neighbors, business owners, bartenders, restauranteurs, gym operators, hairdressers, architects, doctors, therapists & all sorts of other integral members of the communities I've lived in my whole life. I truly owe my life to several persons who happen to be homosexual - the psychotherapist I saw for 17 years until her untimely death, lesbian friends who took me into their home and cared for me when I was very ill & could not care for myself, and several gay male friends who have always been there for me when life has taken a bad turn. As I've been there for them.

The entirety of Western culture would be much diminished without gay men & lesbians too.

I don't get what you are trying to say in the rest of your OP, so I can't address your larger point. But it occurs to me that maybe you're confused coz you're getting too many of your views about sex, biology, sex stereotyping and human society from

Watching historical fiction shows and films

Instead of cracking books about anthropology, history, biology, sexual politics and so on - or watching nature & science documentaries.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The claims that homosexuality is useless & harmful

This also means that infertile people (and kids, and women after menopause) or childfree people are harmful and useless as well.

strike me as very homophobic statements reminiscent of yesteryear.

Like those societies, where infertile and gay men were considered "less men" and were put into separated low class group (like hijras or kathoey). At same time in those societies lesbian women were forced to have kids and infertile women were murdered.

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, Violet, OP is conflating homosexuality with not reproducing. Which ignores that a) lots of lesbians & gay men do have children, and always have done so; and b) lots of other people who weren't/aren't homosexual through human history have not reproduced for a wide variety of reasons - infertility, poor health & disability, early death, choice/preference, never got the chance, no interest in sex & coupling up, dislike of children, tokophobia (a real problem for women that is quite understandable under any circumstances, but especially when there was/is high rates of maternal mortality in/after childbirth), membership in religious orders that require swearing off sexual partnerships, marriage & family life... and so on.

Moreover, OP seems to think that everyone who experiences "same-sex attraction" is homosexual, which is certainly not the case.

Finally, OP seems to think that most human beings who walk the earth are the result of consensual coitus between males & females engaged in romantic pair bonding. When, in fact, many of the earth's human inhabitants historically were & still are the result of rape in and outside marriage - including child rape by fathers, brothers & uncles - as well as of forced & arranged marriages & other coercive, abusive situations in which the sexual attraction & orientation of the girls & women who became/become pregnant did not factor in at all.

In warfare, mass rape & impregnation of girls & women has been commonly employed (as happened in Nanjing China when the Imperial Japanese invaded in WW2, in Bosnia in the 1990s, & in Germany when the Soviet forces headed to Berlin in the spring of 1945). But even in situations that are far less violent, the fact remains that many girls & women become pregnant in the context of relationships that they did not enter or stay in by choice and in which they have little agency or say, and their own sexual attractions, urges & orientations are not factors in what sex acts they engage in or determinants of whether they become mothers.

Seems the historical fiction shows and films OP spends time watching don't include the likes of Tess of the d'Ubervilles, Eastern Promises, Rob Roy, Lost in Bejing, The Color Purple, The Magdalene Sisters, Sin and Redemption and many, many more.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, Violet, OP is conflating homosexuality with not reproducing. Which ignores that a) lots of lesbians & gay men do have children, and always have done so; and b) lots of other people who aren't homosexual through human history have not reproduced for a wide variety of reasons - infertility, poor health & disability, choice/preference, never got the chance, no interest in sex & coupling up, dislike of children, tokophobia (a real problem for women that is quite understandable under any circumstances, but especially when there was/is high rates of maternal mortality in/after childbirth), membership in religious orders that require swearing off sexual partnerships, marriage & family life... and so on.

I deeply sympathize with others who can't reproduce but who may want to. I myself can't, and I have a lot of friends and family who have been unable to for various reasons, and I would never believe they are harmful or useless. Many of my friends don't want to have children, and I would never believe they are harmful or useless, either. I quite love all of these people dearly and would feel the world would be missing some very important people if they weren't here.

Moreover, OP seems to think that everyone who experiences "same-sex attraction" is homosexual, which is certainly not the case.

I know that's not true, but I omitted bisexual people because they could be in a healthy heterosexual relationship and possibly reproduce in that context.

Finally, OP seems to think that most human beings who walk the earth are the result of consensual coitus between males & females engaged in romantic pair bonding.

I would hope that most people are, but I understand that's a fantasy and far from the truth.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It's probably an old-fashioned view that itself is harmful, not homosexuality. What I said maybe doesn't sound very kind, but I'm asking from genuine curiosity.

I suppose my larger point is about the need humans have for each other beyond reproduction, or about the purpose of being a human being when having children appears to be what humans are supposed to do. When looking at reality as plainly as it appears, it seems like biologically that is what our purpose is.

But I like that you bring up the ways that plants and animals have non-reproducing members, and somehow that all fits into the natural order of things.

You're almost certainly right though that I should probably be spending more time learning from more academic sources rather than fiction.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Fleurista, I don't say this to be mean, but it's really become apparent to me that even though you "identify as" a woman and claim you "live as" a woman, you really have no idea about the reality of the vast majority of girls' & women's lives, particularly outside the contemporary West and but also for many within the West even today. Initially, I thought it was just that you were uninformed about female biology and the vast array of physical differences between male & female human bodies that go beyond the reproductive systems and the implications & consequences of all these differences. But it seems you also have little sense of what girls & women experience through our lives in the context of male-dominated, male-centric, male-supremacist human societies, families, clans/tribes, religious traditions, legal systems, economies, power structures, political movements, forms of government and so on.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You're probably right. I grew up rather sheltered and my worldview is probably small. I'm ignorant of a lot of things, so it would be quite fitting for me to be ignorant of that, too, which I obviously am.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Women do not need men in any way shape or form outside of reproduction. I cite all of history up to the present day how men have made women's lives significantly worse than they would have been without men. Even in liberal democracies, sexual harassment, assault, rape, domestic abuse are still huge problems. Every single one of those women would have been better off without men in their life. That's for sure.

All the positive traits men have, women also have. The only thing that men really have going for them is their brute strength which is too frequently abused. In patriarchal societies "Might Makes Right". Throughout history up to the present day men have not been protectors. They are what women need to protect themselves from. Women can easily use cooperation with other women to make up for the lack of raw brute strength negating the need for the male sex entirely in day to day life.

Sure there are good men out there. They aren't special though. There are plenty of good women too. It really is a no brainer which of the two sexes in humans is safer on average to be around. I'm inclined to believe that women are the backbone of civilization, despite laboring under the yoke of Male Tyranny & Male Violence.

The Ultimate solution to Male Violence & Male Tyranny: Kenya's Women only village

There is much more to evolution than just reproduction. It is a lot more complicated especially with social animals. Cooperative species like ants do just fine with most of their members not sexually reproducing. Males are so useless in a lot of these cooperative animal groups that they are often used solely for reproduction then die due to a shorter life span or by being kicked out of the colony.

There are matriarchal groups of animals like elephants that kick males out of the group when they get old enough, likely because adult male elephants are too troublesome.

Animal Kingdom Matriarchs

Grandmother Hypothesis

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You make a compelling case for women to not need men. Do you think the same is true of men, that they don't need women beyond reproduction? I'm inclined to agree with you, but I did like what some of the other commenters said about people needing people as a whole, everyone needing everyone (unless I misunderstood what they were saying). Do you think that there might be any truth to that at all?

You and a couple other people mentioned the nature of humans being social animals, and how that sets apart our needs from other animals. I think I'm going to have to look into exactly what that means, or all the implications of being a social animal. There probably is more purpose there that I'm just having difficulty seeing.

Thank you for sharing the articles and video!

[–]comradeconradical 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you think the same is true of men, that they don't need women beyond reproduction?

Then who would manage the household and provide non-reproductive sexual pleasure?

Sarcasm, but really studies show that single women are the happiest demographic, and single men are miserable. It's common knowledge in feminist dating circles that men rely on women not only for sex but to keep their lives together. This is of course intensified by childcare and "wifely duties", but is slowly changing as women gain independence from men and no longer need to live as slaves to them, at least in some countries, but not everywhere sadly.

In sum, in developed countries where women can support themselves financially, I think men need women more than women need men.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So for men it's less about needing women to have children with, and more about historical expectations of women to perform certain supportive roles and duties that ease life for men. That's very interesting, it makes quite a lot sense though.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Self sufficient men don't need women either. The men who won't do well without women are the NEETS, Husbands who have been treating their wives as free domestic servants for the past few decades, men who need caregivers and boys.

Women do the vast majority of the work raising children even in two parent households. If women and girls suddenly vanished there would be a lot of orphans and a lot of irresponsible dads who would need to start picking up the slack and actually take care of their boys. "At the same time, solo parents remain overwhelmingly female: 81% of solo parents in 2017 were mothers, as were 88% in 1968." Source

As per usual women are doing the most thankless and difficult tasks when it comes to caregiving. "Estimates also suggest that the majority of caregivers are female. The percentage of family or informal caregivers who are women range from 53 to 68 percent, according to the Family Caregiver Alliance. While men also provide assistance, female caregivers tend to spend more time providing care than male caregivers (21.9 versus 17.4 hours per week). Further, women are likely to assist with more difficult caregiving tasks, such as toileting and bathing, while men are more likely to assist with finances or arrange for other care (Family Caregiver Alliance, 2012). " Source

Stats like these are why I believe women are the backbone of civilization. If we weren't around doing all of this free essential labor, the disturbingly high percentage of irresponsible men would have to shape the fuck up or society would collapse, because they outnumber the good non parasitic men by a good margin. Especially in more misogynist cultures where women are basically property passed from the father to the husband.

People are social animals, so they do need social interaction and benefit from it, they just don't necessarily need that social interaction from the opposite sex.

Being social doesn't set us apart from other animals. There are countless examples of animals with complex social hierarchies and systems. Scientists are discovering more and more animals actually have culture and pass it down to the next generation, communicate with each other and teach things to their young. Tool use is more common than once thought.

This is one of my favorite articles about animal culture and inventiveness. I found it funny that even in this troop of monkeys males were less inclined to learn from females. A pattern that is also frustratingly common in human societies.
"Masao Kawai, another of Imanishi’s students, described this phase as “pre-cultural propagation.” Imo had innovated a new behavior that spread to her peers. Age and sex both influenced its transmission: Younger monkeys and females were more likely to learn potato washing than adult monkeys and males. The next stage began when Imo and her peers matured and reproduced. Now the behavior spread to the next generation with every new baby, males as well as females, learning sweet-potato washing from its mother. Age and sex were no longer factors. “Pre-cultural pressure is working,” Kawai wrote. A new behavior had become fixed within the troop." Source

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for quoting and sharing those articles, that's very interesting to know!

I'd never heard of a 'NEET' before, but it does seem like those types of men who would be more dependent on people in general. Much of their reliance on women seem related to caregiving of all manner, so it would behoove them to spend more time doing that and learning how to be better caregivers themselves (just doing it!).

Based on what you and others have shared, the reliance of either sex on the other beyond matters of reproduction all seems to boil down to needs of companionship, general social stimulation and sex-based or sex role-based expectations. The first two needs could be more based on our needs as social creatures, whereas the latter is only related to sex based on stereotypes. If humanity was totally sexless, then the first two points would stand, and the sex-based ones couldn't exist. Really, then, beyond reproductive purposes, it seems like the only true need women and men have for each other is based on sex stereotypes and sex role expectations. As long as we are sexed, we'll have needs of companionship and social interaction perhaps with people of specific sexes, but only because women and men exist. So maybe someone of one sex may need someone of the opposite sex for something, but there are people who maybe don't need someone of that sex at all, or maybe even anyone of their same sex.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don’t know. If it weren’t for reproduction, sexes wouldn’t exist at all. I don’t really thing there is anything intrinsic about being a female or male other then reproduction. Practically, there are lots of things about how we are that are because of that, but it’s socially created indirectly not because being a female or male makes someone a certain way. If sex didn’t exist, there’d still be all kinds of people.

Homosexual people, like myself I guess, still want to same things in life and may want to raise kids too so it’s not like straight relationships are better or more complimentary. It seems like it has a lot more to do with the individuals involved complimenting each other and loving each other, not something to do with reproduction. I feel like I can have a meaningful life even though I can never reproduce. Homosexuality isn’t useless or harmful. If our sexuality makes us feel good or makes us happy, then it’s not useless.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don’t know. If it weren’t for reproduction, sexes wouldn’t exist at all. I don’t really thing there is anything intrinsic about being a female or male other then reproduction. Practically, there are lots of things about how we are that are because of that, but it’s socially created indirectly not because being a female or male makes someone a certain way. If sex didn’t exist, there’d still be all kinds of people.

Maybe then it's a bit like Omina said where people may need people, or everyone inspires everyone, and men and women may need each other beyond reproduction but it is not because they are men and women.

Homosexual people, like myself I guess, still want to same things in life and may want to raise kids too so it’s not like straight relationships are better or more complimentary. It seems like it has a lot more to do with the individuals involved complimenting each other and loving each other, not something to do with reproduction. I feel like I can have a meaningful life even though I can never reproduce. Homosexuality isn’t useless or harmful. If our sexuality makes us feel good or makes us happy, then it’s not useless.

I understand having the same dreams and desires as heterosexual people, the same feelings and needs. It's a bit difficult to see the good or purpose when it seems like the majority of humanity procreates, but maybe I'm looking at things through a distorted or old-fashioned lens. Or just looking at the idea of purpose a bit too clinically.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Maybe then it's a bit like Omina said where people may need people, or everyone inspires everyone, and men and women may need each other beyond reproduction but it is not because they are men and women.

Yes, that makes sense to me.

It's a bit difficult to see the good or purpose when it seems like the majority of humanity procreates, but maybe I'm looking at things through a distorted or old-fashioned lens. Or just looking at the idea of purpose a bit too clinically.

I’m not sure if I understand. I feel like we can internalize pressure from other people about reproduction. I totally have at times. That may not be what you mean though. I don’t really think much about purpose. It seems like something we feel or believe personally and not something from evolution. It seems like a very sad way of looking at life and not kind to homosexual people or people who don’t reproduce. My sexuality is good even if it there is no evolutionary purpose. We don’t have to find one. I don’t think you are homophobic, but you seem to have some very conservative/heteronormative views.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not sure if I understand. I feel like we can internalize pressure from other people about reproduction. I totally have at times. That may not be what you mean though.

That is what I'm talking about, and I probably have myself.

I don’t really think much about purpose. It seems like something we feel or believe personally and not something from evolution. It seems like a very sad way of looking at life and not kind to homosexual people or people who don’t reproduce. My sexuality is good even if it there is no evolutionary purpose. We don’t have to find one.

I suppose it really is unkind and sad, and bleak. There's nothing comforting in thinking of things that way.

I don’t think you are homophobic, but you seem to have some very conservative/heteronormative views.

I've always thought I was open-minded and liberal, so it confuses and disappoints me I'm coming across as far from it. But it's probably obvious enough by now that I'm rather ignorant and maybe not as open-minded as I thought. Discussions like this hopefully change that at least a little.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But I wonder if in a larger sense, women and men provide different types of inspiration for each other just by virtue of their sex characteristics and how they reconcile their existence in the world as members of whatever sex they are.

I think it has to do more with competition and in general the desire to have a social life, not necessarily about sexes.

So I wonder if a sex-typed inspiration to one's life may be what gives another purpose to homosexual people.

Do they have other purposes, though? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, but to me they have the same life heterosexual people have when it comes to social interactions. Tons of them also have the same desire for reproduction, they just find alternative ways to get there.

I personally think that if we were a mono-sex race, we would have a very similar society and personal goals to the one we have now. We wouldn' t have sexism or homophobia, but I have the feeling that we would have other things to replace those.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think it has to do more with competition and in general the desire to have a social life, not necessarily about sexes.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you speaking of just having more variety of human beings so as to facilitate more diverse social interactions?

Do they have other purposes, though? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, but to me they have the same life heterosexual people have when it comes to social interactions. Tons of them also have the same desire for reproduction, they just find alternative ways to get there.

I would think they have other purposes, but it's harder for me to see what they are as they relate to biology. My idyllic side wants to believe that there is more to our purpose in life, but the rational side of me sees procreation as the fundamental purpose we have.

I personally think that if we were a mono-sex race, we would have a very similar society and personal goals to the one we have now. We wouldn' t have sexism or homophobia, but I have the feeling that we would have other things to replace those.

I totally feel the same way about that.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you speaking of just having more variety of human beings so as to facilitate more diverse social interactions?

No, I am talking about the fact that those inspirations you were talking about are, in my opinion, more influenced by people in general than people of the other sex. I am not sure I can explain it better but in two words, I don' t think men are of inspiration for women more than other women, and I don' t think that women are of inspiration for men more than other men. It' s simply that they are different people who can bring the desire in ourselves to compete or be social with them.

That' s why I said that if we were mono-sex we would behave the same way: if there were only males or only females, we would have the same behaviours, because what we are seeking is comparing ourselves to others not to ones of the other sex specifically.

I would think they have other purposes, but it's harder for me to see what they are as they relate to biology. My idyllic side wants to believe that there is more to our purpose in life, but the rational side of me sees procreation as the fundamental purpose we have.

I think our fundamental purpose is to survive until we die more than reproduction. Same goes for any other animal, by the way. I know it sounds cynical but I don' t (surprisingly) mean it that way: we fill our lives with things to make sure that we are happy-ish enough that we want to keep going for as long as we can. That means goals, passions, social interactions, ambitions, whatever you can think of. I think reproduction is mid way between those goals etc... and purpose of life, because it can' t be as trivial as a hobby, but I also don' t think it' s as important as self-preservation and survival.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ahh I see! That makes sense. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that people inspire people, everyone inspires everyone. Despite reproductive purposes, women and men inspire each other, though not because of their sex necessarily.

I think our fundamental purpose is to survive until we die more than reproduction. Same goes for any other animal, by the way. I know it sounds cynical but I don' t (surprisingly) mean it that way: we fill our lives with things to make sure that we are happy-ish enough that we want to keep going for as long as we can. That means goals, passions, social interactions, ambitions, whatever you can think of. I think reproduction is mid way between those goals etc... and purpose of life, because it can' t be as trivial as a hobby, but I also don' t think it' s as important as self-preservation and survival.

That doesn't sound cynical at all, that's actually a kind of comforting thought. I'd like to believe that it's the case.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I still struggle to understand the purpose of same-sex attraction since it doesn't facilitate biological reproduction which seems to be our biological purpose as human beings.

Just from a brain's perspective, all other considerations aside -- we have this fancy neocortex and it allows us to do stuff like thinking about thinking about thinking, so we're inclined to use it for all kinds of things . . . including falling in love for its own sake, giving our sexual orientations a primary role in our lives, creating things, finding meaning, watching Jane Austen adaptations . . . brains gonna brain.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Just from a brain's perspective, all other considerations aside -- we have this fancy neocortex and it allows us to do stuff like thinking about thinking about thinking, so we're inclined to use it for all kinds of things . . . including falling in love for its own sake, giving our sexual orientations a primary role in our lives, creating things, finding meaning, watching Jane Austen adaptations . . . brains gonna brain.

Thinking about thinking about thinking is probably what leads to so much turmoil and problems, plus results in strange threads in online forums. I do quite like the simplicity of your answer, though!

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not gonna lie -- I have to diagram it out in my own head. But it's a neocortex kind of thing to do!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Love it 😊

[–]grixitperson 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is the "good uncle" theory, which says that a social species like ours benefits from having a small but steady incidence of non reproducing members who can provide extra supported for related family members. Since humans have such a high sex drive, this is easier to achieve by diverting the attraction than by muting it. It's an intriguing theory, but maybe just a little too neat.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was raised with the "spinster aunt" theory too. The two theories are similar but slightly different, reflecting conventional sex roles. The "good uncle" theory says extra males who don't marry & reproduce are needed to provide for families in economic ways and as protectors, particularly in households where the father himself is dead or disabled. The "spinster aunt" theory says extra female relatives who don't marry & reproduce are needed to provide families with female carers, child minders, housekeepers & educators who are unencumbered by marriage partners or prospects and have no children of their own to tend to.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hadn't heard of this theory until you and Omina mentioned it, and I quite like it. It's very interesting to think about, at least, and perhaps there really is something to it.

[–]anfd 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I still struggle to understand the purpose of same-sex attraction since it doesn't facilitate biological reproduction which seems to be our biological purpose as human beings. It would seem useless at best and harmful at worst.

Same-sex attraction doesn't need to have a biological/evolutionary purpose to explain its existence. The tendency to think that almost every characteristic of an organism must have evolved "for" something, or otherwise it wouldn't exist, is criticized as adaptationism.

I'm not a scientist but my working hypothesis is that same-sex attraction is an accidental offshoot of heterosexual attraction (which in is hard to argue is not an adaptation for a specific purpose) that probably doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose. There's the theory of inclusive fitness (helping relatives pass on their genes helps some your genes get passed on as well, because you share 50%, 25% etc. or your genes with your closest relatives), but I think to apply that to homosexuality is probably too "adaptationist" for my taste.

My guess would be that same-sex attraction is better explained as something developing in an atypical way, because embryo development is a complex matter where things can go "wrong" (from an evolutionary perspective; no moral judgement intended). My guess is also that something like this is behind some people "feeling like the other sex".

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

embryo development is a complex matter where things can go "wrong" (from an evolutionary perspective; no moral judgement intended). My guess is also that something like this is behind some people "feeling like the other sex".

Sorry to be a pedant, but when putting forward theories that homosexuality & cross-sex "gender identity" arise coz of what happens in utero, I think it's important to use the proper terms. An embryo is the name for developing humans in utero from the second week to the eighth week or through the seventh week after fertilization. Whilst sex development begins from the moment of conception, most of changes that those who advance the theories you are referring to happen after an embryo has officially become a fetus.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Same-sex attraction doesn't need to have a biological/evolutionary purpose to explain its existence. The tendency to think that almost every characteristic of an organism must have evolved "for" something, or otherwise it wouldn't exist, is criticized as adaptationism.

I'm not a scientist but my working hypothesis is that same-sex attraction is an accidental offshoot of heterosexual attraction (which in is hard to argue is not an adaptation for a specific purpose) that probably doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose. There's the theory of inclusive fitness (helping relatives pass on their genes helps some your genes get passed on as well, because you share 50%, 25% etc. or your genes with your closest relatives), but I think to apply that to homosexuality is probably too "adaptationist" for my taste.

The theory of inclusive fitness sounds a bit similar to the "gay uncle" theory a couple others here brought up. It actually sounds like something between adaptationism and the "gay uncle" theory. I kind of like that. Adaptationism makes a bit of sense and seems logical, but to explain something that would otherwise not seem adaptationist (like homosexuality), inclusive fitness seems to make sense. All three theories might be able to coexist, couldn't they?

My guess would be that same-sex attraction is better explained as something developing in an atypical way, because embryo development is a complex matter where things can go "wrong" (from an evolutionary perspective; no moral judgement intended). My guess is also that something like this is behind some people "feeling like the other sex".

The idea of things going "wrong" is what's a bit depressing to think may be the case, since it seems like the original purpose of a human being becomes lost. I'd be inclined to agree with you about that, though, but in light of the theories that you and others have presented, I'm reevaluating that perspective.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

It would seem useless at best and harmful at worst.

The same can be said of your posts, and yet you're writing them anyways. Ask yourself why.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not really sure why they would be harmful, but I can see them being useless or unhelpful. But I'm really sorry if anything I've posted wasn't helpful or it harmed you or anyone in any way.

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Re-read my comment. Again, ask yourself about why you do these things. When you answer it for yourself, you'll answer it for others.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I've asked myself and could continue to, but I don't understand how you've reached your conclusions, and you not wanting to elaborate in your comments makes them all the more confusing. I appreciate you having faith in me to find reasons I'm unable to, though!

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I like your posts. I can't see anything you've written as harmful. This is a discussion board. We should be free to debate and discuss.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't think of same-sex couples as fundamentally different from opposite-sex couples, minus the reproduction aspect. If I were a guy and with my partner as a guy, I can't see our relationship being any different from how it is now. Maybe we'd have sex a different way, but the basis of our relationship would be the same in terms of friendship, companionship, intimacy, teamwork, etc.

I'm sure I'm not a typical example, but I don't believe there is any gendered aspect to my relationship with my partner. In my eyes, our dynamic is irrelevant to our respective biological sexes.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think of same-sex couples as fundamentally different from opposite-sex couples, minus the reproduction aspect. If I were a guy and with my partner as a guy, I can't see our relationship being any different from how it is now. Maybe we'd have sex a different way, but the basis of our relationship would be the same in terms of friendship, companionship, intimacy, teamwork, etc.

The reproduction aspect is perhaps being made as more important than it really is by virtue of this being a heteronormative world that encourages a viewpoint of heterosexual supremacy. The idea that as animals, reproduction is somehow more important than friendship, companionship, intimacy, teamwork, etc. seems to make the most sense when looking at things clinically. I like the way you're seeing and interpreting this, though.

I'm sure I'm not a typical example, but I don't believe there is any gendered aspect to my relationship with my partner. In my eyes, our dynamic is irrelevant to our respective biological sexes.

That's a very interesting way of looking at your relationship. You're not discounting the attraction to the person based on sex, but you're giving the overall humanity precedence, and I quite like that. I would hope it were a more typical example than not, that seems quite healthy and something admirable to strive for.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, if you're looking at it strictly from a biological perspective, every species is designed to reproduce. But that doesn't mean that all individual members of that species have to reproduce. And it doesn't mean that the ability to reproduce makes heterosexual couples superior over others. Straight couples can reproduce and be negligent or harmful to their offspring. The ability to create life doesn't mean that you're able to properly nurture life.

That's a very interesting way of looking at your relationship. You're not discounting the attraction to the person based on sex, but you're giving the overall humanity precedence, and I quite like that.

Thanks. Yeah, I'm attracted to my partner because of his biological sex (that's obviously a crucial aspect for sexual attraction), but it's about much more than that. I'm not attracted just to any person with a male body. I'm attracted to him also because of who he is as a person and how he relates to me. I think we relate as individuals, not as representatives of our biological sexes.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I may have gotten carried away in emphasizing the importance of biological realities. And that's a very good point about creating life vs nurturing life. You've given me quite a bit to think on.

[–]valleyoftherogue 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No.