It makes great sense to me why there are people who feel visceral disgust at the prospect of sexual activity with their siblings, and that there are men who feel visceral disgust at the prospect of sexual activity with men.
The first is clear to me, but the second isn’t. Why would homosexual male sex be a bad thing, as long as it didn’t cause men not to seek out women as well?
Of course some resources would be spent on it instead of on mating, but humans have a lot more sex in general than necessary for procreation, and many other ‘unnecessary’ social activities like games. The usual reasons given (e.g. bonding) also make sense between male pairs. Such sex could (counterfactually) also relieve some sexual tension without inviting jealousy, since another man might provide variety and quick simulation but not replace the long-term woman partner.
This seems to apply even more strongly to women, whose fitness doesn’t benefit from promiscuous heterosexual sex like male fitness does.
We can’t accept any explanations that would make, say, half of men gay, because that doesn’t fit with the facts!
We also need to understand why those explanations are in fact wrong, otherwise we’re risking retrofitting explanations to the data by choosing explanations without fully understanding what makes them right.
Why would homosexual male sex be a bad thing, as long as it didn’t cause men not to seek out women as well?
Primarily, that; secondarily, disease risk. It seems to me that there are many men who put up with women only for the sex, and if they could get that satisfaction elsewhere, they would.
The usual reasons given (e.g. bonding) also make sense between male pairs.
It looks like a number of ancient societies had sanctioned male-male sexual relationships, often but not always of the ‘old mentor / young protege’ variety. But it’s hard for us to tell how common those were (specifically, how many of those partnerships were actually sexual, instead of just knowing that some were).
This seems to apply even more strongly to women, whose fitness doesn’t benefit from promiscuous heterosexual sex like male fitness does.
Interestingly, female bisexuality seem much more common than male bisexuality, and also considerably more fluid.
That’s an excellent point I missed. If promiscuity with other men came at the expense of promiscuity with other women, it wouldn’t be a problem. But male promiscuity is often limited only by the number of willing and attractive partners, so it would still increase the number of overall partners.
The first is clear to me, but the second isn’t. Why would homosexual male sex be a bad thing, as long as it didn’t cause men not to seek out women as well?
Of course some resources would be spent on it instead of on mating, but humans have a lot more sex in general than necessary for procreation, and many other ‘unnecessary’ social activities like games. The usual reasons given (e.g. bonding) also make sense between male pairs. Such sex could (counterfactually) also relieve some sexual tension without inviting jealousy, since another man might provide variety and quick simulation but not replace the long-term woman partner.
This seems to apply even more strongly to women, whose fitness doesn’t benefit from promiscuous heterosexual sex like male fitness does.
We also need to understand why those explanations are in fact wrong, otherwise we’re risking retrofitting explanations to the data by choosing explanations without fully understanding what makes them right.
Primarily, that; secondarily, disease risk. It seems to me that there are many men who put up with women only for the sex, and if they could get that satisfaction elsewhere, they would.
It looks like a number of ancient societies had sanctioned male-male sexual relationships, often but not always of the ‘old mentor / young protege’ variety. But it’s hard for us to tell how common those were (specifically, how many of those partnerships were actually sexual, instead of just knowing that some were).
Interestingly, female bisexuality seem much more common than male bisexuality, and also considerably more fluid.
That’s an excellent point I missed. If promiscuity with other men came at the expense of promiscuity with other women, it wouldn’t be a problem. But male promiscuity is often limited only by the number of willing and attractive partners, so it would still increase the number of overall partners.