All of these seem more like problems with monogamy than problems with bisexuality.
Polygamous people don’t have to worry about STDs or population collapse?
Relevant...?
As in, asexuals wouldn’t want to become sexuals? Oftentimes, they don’t. Being interested in a single gender is essentially ‘asexuality lite’ in that you both have the prospect of fulfilling sexual relationships and there are groups in which you can just set sex aside and focus on other things. The convenient thing about being straight is that the sex-free group is people similar to you- one of the awkward things about being gay is that the sex-free group is people dissimilar to you. (The group is also very tiny, ignoring asexuals: once you add a second lesbian, now there’s a chance the two of them will be attracted to each other.)
Polygamous people don’t have to worry about STDs or population collapse?
You might have a point about STDs, but I doubt it’s your true rejection—if that were all, it would just mean spending more effort toward education, prevention and cures. Mostly I was talking about the assumptions underlying your concern with jealousy / trust / cheating, unrequited connections, stable couples / childraising couples, and promiscuity.
And could you explain what you mean by ‘population collapse’? I’m confused.
As in, asexuals wouldn’t want to become sexuals?
Yes, but the point was more like: it goes both ways. If you have it, the advantages seem to outweigh the flaws; if you don’t, it seems the other way around.
And could you explain what you mean by ‘population collapse’? I’m confused.
As more men date men and more women date women, the amount of accidental childbearing decreases, and thus the total amount of childbearing. Beyond that, having a stable population is more than just 2.1 children per women- it’s generally expected to be painful to have the elderly as a larger fraction of the population.
I doubt it’s your true rejection—if that were all, it would just mean spending more effort toward education, prevention and cures.
Which is all I need to show something in the loss column, neh?
My true rejection is along the lines of “if it were better for everyone to be bisexual, everyone would be already be bisexual, thanks to evolution.” Obviously, modern society is not the EEA, but it’s a better place to start from than idealism.
My true rejection is along the lines of “if it were better for everyone to be bisexual, everyone would be already be bisexual, thanks to evolution.”
Gaining with respect to our utility functions is not what evolution selects for. If evolution has a choice in the short term between more miserable people who have more successful offspring and happier people with fewer successful offspring then evolution will have more miserable people. Don’t confuse what the blind idiot god does with what we want or would consider to be at all good.
Don’t confuse what the blind idiot god does with what we want or would consider to be at all good.
I’m not. Societies don’t have utility functions; they propagate forward in time through a blind process similar enough to evolution. As mentioned in an ancestral comment, I suspect I personally would be better off in a society where everyone were bisexual, but suspect that the overall society would be worse off.
As more men date men and more women date women, the amount of accidental childbearing decreases, and thus the total amount of childbearing.
Intuitively, I would have thought of this as a good thing, but
Beyond that, having a stable population is more than just 2.1 children per women- it’s generally expected to be painful to have the elderly as a larger fraction of the population.
is a good point.
My true rejection is along the lines of “if it were better for everyone to be bisexual, everyone would be already be bisexual, thanks to evolution.”
??? Let me get this straight: in this context, your definition of ‘better’ is ‘increases reproductive fitness’?
Let me get this straight: in this context, your definition of ‘better’ is ‘increases reproductive fitness’?
My original claim was “net social loss.” Such a term is purposefully vague, but I suspect it should be uncontroversial that something that leads to collapse or replacement counts as a net social loss.
Polygamous people don’t have to worry about STDs or population collapse?
As in, asexuals wouldn’t want to become sexuals? Oftentimes, they don’t. Being interested in a single gender is essentially ‘asexuality lite’ in that you both have the prospect of fulfilling sexual relationships and there are groups in which you can just set sex aside and focus on other things. The convenient thing about being straight is that the sex-free group is people similar to you- one of the awkward things about being gay is that the sex-free group is people dissimilar to you. (The group is also very tiny, ignoring asexuals: once you add a second lesbian, now there’s a chance the two of them will be attracted to each other.)
You might have a point about STDs, but I doubt it’s your true rejection—if that were all, it would just mean spending more effort toward education, prevention and cures. Mostly I was talking about the assumptions underlying your concern with jealousy / trust / cheating, unrequited connections, stable couples / childraising couples, and promiscuity.
And could you explain what you mean by ‘population collapse’? I’m confused.
Yes, but the point was more like: it goes both ways. If you have it, the advantages seem to outweigh the flaws; if you don’t, it seems the other way around.
As more men date men and more women date women, the amount of accidental childbearing decreases, and thus the total amount of childbearing. Beyond that, having a stable population is more than just 2.1 children per women- it’s generally expected to be painful to have the elderly as a larger fraction of the population.
Which is all I need to show something in the loss column, neh?
My true rejection is along the lines of “if it were better for everyone to be bisexual, everyone would be already be bisexual, thanks to evolution.” Obviously, modern society is not the EEA, but it’s a better place to start from than idealism.
Gaining with respect to our utility functions is not what evolution selects for. If evolution has a choice in the short term between more miserable people who have more successful offspring and happier people with fewer successful offspring then evolution will have more miserable people. Don’t confuse what the blind idiot god does with what we want or would consider to be at all good.
I’m not. Societies don’t have utility functions; they propagate forward in time through a blind process similar enough to evolution. As mentioned in an ancestral comment, I suspect I personally would be better off in a society where everyone were bisexual, but suspect that the overall society would be worse off.
Intuitively, I would have thought of this as a good thing, but
is a good point.
??? Let me get this straight: in this context, your definition of ‘better’ is ‘increases reproductive fitness’?
My original claim was “net social loss.” Such a term is purposefully vague, but I suspect it should be uncontroversial that something that leads to collapse or replacement counts as a net social loss.