the historical attribution of homosexual behavior in animals as “dominance displays”
When you think about it abstractly (i.e., try to ignore your modern tendency to alieve that anything that might make homosexuals look bad must be EVIL!!1!!) this makes a lot more sense than any modern theory I’ve heard.
I stated that too strongly… come to think of it there are some sexual behaviors that are, in fact, status contests between partners—like in hyenas. It’s not as ridiculous of a hypothesis as I made it out to be, and I agree that this is because of my own biases.
That said, I think it’s fairly clear that there are a large number of non-reproductive sexual behaviors found in nature which are not dominance contests between partners.
more sense than any modern theory I’ve heard.
Let me try to remedy that. Here are some hypotheses—not truth claims, just hypotheses.
-Our genomes contain both gender’s body plans. Unusual hormone levels in an individual might set off developmental pathways which give a male a female-typical brain, or vice versa, leading to atypical sexual orientation and sometimes behavior. It plays no adaptive role and decreases the organisms fitness. In such organisms, homosexual behavior will be rare in most individuals in the population while being extremely frequent among a small minority. The trait might pop up due to environmental abnormalities, or be maintained genetically due to pleiotropy, or any number of reasons. This is thought to be the case in humans and possibly in sheep.
(Basically, people sometimes have unusual genitalia and unusual secondary sex characteristics, so why should a good reductionist ever be puzzled by the notion that people might have unusual brains?)
-Sex might strengthen group bonds. Female and male bonobos are thought to use homosexually to strengthen group bonds. It’s involved in creating dominance hierarchies (Bonding with the dominant female causes her status to be conferred upon you)) but the sex in-and-of-itself is not a between-partners status contest.
When you think about it abstractly (i.e., try to ignore your modern tendency to alieve that anything that might make homosexuals look bad must be EVIL!!1!!) this makes a lot more sense than any modern theory I’ve heard.
I stated that too strongly… come to think of it there are some sexual behaviors that are, in fact, status contests between partners—like in hyenas. It’s not as ridiculous of a hypothesis as I made it out to be, and I agree that this is because of my own biases.
That said, I think it’s fairly clear that there are a large number of non-reproductive sexual behaviors found in nature which are not dominance contests between partners.
Let me try to remedy that. Here are some hypotheses—not truth claims, just hypotheses.
-Our genomes contain both gender’s body plans. Unusual hormone levels in an individual might set off developmental pathways which give a male a female-typical brain, or vice versa, leading to atypical sexual orientation and sometimes behavior. It plays no adaptive role and decreases the organisms fitness. In such organisms, homosexual behavior will be rare in most individuals in the population while being extremely frequent among a small minority. The trait might pop up due to environmental abnormalities, or be maintained genetically due to pleiotropy, or any number of reasons. This is thought to be the case in humans and possibly in sheep.
(Basically, people sometimes have unusual genitalia and unusual secondary sex characteristics, so why should a good reductionist ever be puzzled by the notion that people might have unusual brains?)
-Sex might strengthen group bonds. Female and male bonobos are thought to use homosexually to strengthen group bonds. It’s involved in creating dominance hierarchies (Bonding with the dominant female causes her status to be conferred upon you)) but the sex in-and-of-itself is not a between-partners status contest.