'The Biology Argument' (A non-libidoist perspective)

[Jockey]

The theory that claims that homosexuality is due to a confluence of genes regarding masculinization and/or feminization does not make the claim that this is done through testosterone levels, nor that degree of masculinity and/or femininity dictate - rather than influence- sexual orientation.

[kulosle]

Randomness. It envelops everything from where any givin partical is at any given point in time, or your genes. Randomness in genes especially are necesarry to ensure survival. Not only is your gene combinatio. Random, but so is what gene is expressed. You can express recesive traits even if you also have the dominat version. Also a cell can choose to change what a sequence of dna is telling it what to do. This is so you can gain or loose a trait if need be for survival. Also mutation is random. DNA is not set in stone. It will try anything. Nothing is unnatural.

[Scottthespy]

Asexuals don't make sense from a reproductive standpoint. Does that make us lesser beings? Of course not. We aren't basic animals with the basic drives anymore. There are more things for humans that 'eat, sleep, drink, sex'. We can make a mark on the world in other ways. Or not do that. Just being able to have kids doesn't mean your progeny are of any use to the world. In fact, my generations children are growing up with less survival instinct than ever before, and are more likely to be eaten by bears than actually further the survivability of the race.

I like the argument that asexuals are mother natures birth control. Its simple, somewhat plausible, and logical. Think about it. Over population is a problem...other species have died out as a result of overpopulating and depleting all the resources, then starving to death. Some species must have built in ways of preventing this. Chemical, dna, something. Humans are WAY overpopulating. A signal may well have started flipping on in some of us, saying 'no need to make more! We got plenty thanks!'

But my favorite thing to point out to biologists when they bring up the 'it doesn't make sense' argument is that humanity, nay, life in general doesn't make sense. Look at all the hundreds of millions of tiny little insignificant things that have to go right for a human baby to be born healthy and 'normal', and it becomes a statistical miracle that any one ever is. Look at anomalies like vestigial wombs in men, like extra limbs trying to grow on people. Look at the "Mystery Diagnosis" and "Extraordinary People" series' to see what happens when everything doesn't go right, and tell me how a girl born with no sense of pain, who scratches her own eyes out because she can't feel, makes more sense than some one who doesn't like sex. Look at medical conditions that are a hindrance in one place and a blessing in another...like Sickle Cell Anemia...a disease that causes some red blood cells to deflate, and form sickle shapes instead of donut shapes. These cells can carry less oxygen, meaning you can't process oxygen as well, and thus are considered bad...everywhere where malaria isn't rampant. See, sickle cells also can't carry malaria, so where malaria is a huge problem, sickle cell anemia makes you less likely to get it. Look at viruses, which work by re-writing your genetic code to cause your cells to produce whatever it is that virus needs instead of doing what they're supposed to. Look at all these things and try to tell me that some one with slightly deadened nerves in a particular place, or a reduced/missing hormonal response to a particular activity, is 'unfathomable'. Do not be naive, would be biologists. LIFE does not make sense from a biological stand point. I am just another, slightly less common anomaly in the long string of perplexing anomalies that make up life in general.

[Elin]

Randomness. It envelops everything from where any givin partical is at any given point in time, or your genes. Randomness in genes especially are necesarry to ensure survival. Not only is your gene combinatio. Random, but so is what gene is expressed. You can express recesive traits even if you also have the dominat version. Also a cell can choose to change what a sequence of dna is telling it what to do. This is so you can gain or loose a trait if need be for survival. Also mutation is random. DNA is not set in stone. It will try anything. Nothing is unnatural.

What? No! That's not how biology works at all. I agree that randomness underlies many processes in nature, but not as how you described it. Random mutations in genes (and non-gene DNA) are indeed what allows evolution by natural selection to proceed, and you are right in that DNA is not set in stone and the combination of alleles one inherits is largely random. However, cells do not choose what to express (or, not consciously; I suppose you could have been using a metaphor, but it is incredibly poorly-worded); traits are not gained or lost for survival (they are simply gained or lost; there is no impetus) and DNA does not actively "try" anything (in fact, one might even say that the point of having DNA, rather than RNA, is to prevent rampant mutations, since genetic fidelity is so very important). Dominance of traits is not as straightforward in many cases, I agree, but these cases should be regarded as the exceptions to the principle, not something to be taken for granted. I appreciate the point you are trying to make here -- that randomness is a fundamental feature of the universe we live in -- but you could have certainly been more accurate in your phrasing, so that the non-random effects of natural selection are not conflated with "intent".

(I forgot to multiquote, but eehh, responding to Scottthespy next)

I would actually like to argue that life does, in fact, make sense. Not to detract from the wonder of life at all, but we have a pretty good idea of the principles that shape the evolution from chemicals to simple single-celled life-forms to multi-celled creatures like us. it would actually not make sense if natural selection fails to eliminate those life-forms that do not propagate themselves as efficiently. I agree that there is much that we do not know (and probably will never be able to know, or prove) about life, but to consider life entirely accountable to a series of anomalies, or miracles, is to throw away pretty much all the work we've done in biology. It is true that randomness is the source of variation and thus the "raw material" for evolution, but while evolution does not have an intent or a purpose, its results are definitely non-random, by the simple logic of "if something is good at making copies of itself, it's gonna hang around longer than those that aren't".

The examples (eg. girl who feels no pain) you raised are probably de novo mutations rather than traits preserved through generations, I would think. And I freaking love viruses, so thanks for putting that up as an example! (Nevertheless they are actually quite fathomable, to me. They are literally the idea of growth and replication stripped to its barest bones by natural selection, yeah? Little blueprints that contain the instructions to make more of those blueprints! Whereas sexuality, gender identity, etc? That's quite the bone to gnaw on.)

Also, I take issue with the "population control" idea, because that would require a pretty specific set of genes to become widespread enough in the population, and once activated they would, by their own definition, be eliminated from the gene pool. I think the idea of natural selection at the population level is a bit outdated by now...? Besides, this hypothesis once again borders on "intent behind evolution, by the species and for the species", which makes me fairly wary. (But then, it could always turn out to be true. That'd actually be pretty cool.) I'm not sure; I don't study evolution, so probably I'm not very credible a source at all, ahaha. I do think that if anything, an asexual trait might have been selected for because of something akin to the communal insects, but as I stated before I strongly believe in a non-genetic basis for sexuality. I mean, emergent properties and all, I really dig that. I sort of tread the middle ground between a reductionist point of view and... the opposite of it, I guess, whatever that is.

But! I see where you're coming from. We've definitely moved past that point where leaving behind more offspring is the most important thing to an individual, because the actions of a person can have so much wider ramifications, as compared to individuals in a population of, say, tuna, or stick insects, etc, and our society can actively support those that would otherwise be massively disadvantaged so that they survive. I think that's why we can get away with so much behaviour that doesn't work towards self-preservation.

So yeah, tl;dr -- just wanted to argue a few points about biology, evolution, and randomness. Also, inviting people to prove me wrong and educate me, if that so takes your fancy! And finally, reiterating my belief in sexuality not having a genetic (or, at least, a purely genetic) basis, because that does justice to neither sexuality not genetics. Sorry for writing so much aaaah but I've been thinking about biology and (a)sexuality and stuff a lot, ehehe!

[Scottthespy]

Elin, just got around to reading your post. I liked it, and wanted to respond to your response. I'd first just like to point out that I offered chemical reactions as a possible cause for some individuals of a species having the instincts that drive and lead to reproduction more or less shut off. As an example, some frog species can tell when there's too many males in the population, and some of the males turn female. I'm pretty sure they aren't taking a census, so the easiest way for biology to tell would be the hormonal or chemical content surrounding them being full of male indicators and lacking in female ones. Its an interesting, if ungrounded, thought that a more complex organism may be able to tell by the chemical surroundings that there are just too damn many of it for the area and start killing off certain drives to compensate. Like lemmings. No, not that they all jump off cliffs. That's been proven as a fabrication. But when the population gets too big, some of their fear centers get dimmed to give them the motivation to leave, seek out new territories to live in. This does, since they're engaging in riskier behavior, also result in a few accidental deaths.

I also wanted to say that I'm not trying to discount anything humanity has learned about biology or genetics or life. I'm just saying that with so, so much that we don't yet know, and so many of the things we have learned coming right out of left field and shocking us as to their origins, its terribly silly of any one to insist we can predict whats going to be useful or how it will manifest itself next. Or for any one to say 'that's not natural'. Potentially everything is or could wind up being 'natural'. People end up with all the craziest mutations simply because there was a single gene turned on or off, and for whatever reason that happened, we don't always know. Much of what we do know, and take for scientific fact, may turn out to be wrong. Its happened many times before in human history.

The point of the examples I gave was simply to point out a few other scenarios where something doesn't work quite the way we expected it to. Just because we don't have an explanation for why YET, doesn't mean its not explainable, or indeed, a bad thing. Of course, one could also argue that we are human beings, people, and a little compassion goes a long way. If some one doesn't want to bone, why take issue with that? Its not like there isn't an ever expanding ocean of breeders waiting for you to come swimming.

[Manly Ace]

I like the argument that asexuals are mother natures birth control. Its simple, somewhat plausible, and logical. Think about it. Over population is a problem...other species have died out as a result of overpopulating and depleting all the resources, then starving to death. Some species must have built in ways of preventing this. Chemical, dna, something. Humans are WAY overpopulating. A signal may well have started flipping on in some of us, saying 'no need to make more! We got plenty thanks!'

Who is "mother nature" exactly ? A beautiful lady who has so much time to waste in playing with all of us ? No. So far it's only a belief and you could perfectly replace it by the word "god".

Homosexuality has always existed, even when death rates were very high and when people reached their adult form with difficulties. So it doesn't make sense.

So why most people are not asexuals nowadays ? Why homosexuals and asexuals are not simply sterile ?

And to think that some members wondered why I assumed that heterosexuality was the very meaning of reproduction for most people, in my last topic...

[Astrochelonian]

I went through 12 years of Catholic school. This was, indeed, the argument they used against homosexuality, and even hetero relationships where a partner is on birth control. "You cannot reproduce through this union, therefore it is a bastardization of the marriage covenant, and the sacred act of sex blah blah blah."

Not because it was unnatural. But because it was unable to produce children.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that my morality teachers would have even looked down upon a sexless marriage, because literally, in Catholic dogma, marriage=children, and that's that. Any sort of marriage that does not result in biological children, or at least an attempt to make biological children, be it because it's a celibate/asexual marriage, a cis gay marriage, a hetero trans marriage, etc, is not to be respected in the eyes of God.

Which, in my opinion, is obviously bollocks.

My morality teacher told me that a hetero couple having anal was only moral if it was foreplay that led up to babymaking. Any sex that didn't have (even the slightest- hence why natural family planning was allowed) the possibility of pregnancy was considered sinful. Anal sex alone=sinful, just like masturbation- it's an abuse of your sexuality. Anal sex combined with p/v sex? Ok. Because that leads up to something that can result in a child.

AND NO I SWEAR I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP.

As someone who has gone through 13 years of Catholic school (including Kindergarten), I'd just like to verify that this is completely true. I've been given the same speeches. Another thing to add is that in the Catholic Church, if you know someone is infertile before you marry them, technically you're not allowed to have a Church-sanctified marriage. On top of that, if you find out that your partner is infertile after you get married, that's grounds for an annulment. For those of you who don't understand why that's a big deal, being physically abused isn't even grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church, but infertility is. Also, oral sex and fingering both fall under the same category as anal. *coughs* bullshit *coughs*

Infertility is in no way grounds for annulment of a Catholic marriage, before or after the fact. According to Canon Law: "Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of". An annulment means the marriage never existed (because it was entered into without full consent or with deception or some other similar reason). If a marriage actually existed, but turned abusive, Catholics are not expected to remain in the marriage. Anal sex is not ever considered ok.

As to the topic at hand, sure, asexuality doesn't help one directly reproduce, so one could be considered a biological dead end (not accounting for the "more time to devote to help your siblings/cousins' offspring" theory). So? Why does it matter? Doesn't mean anyone is useless or bad or can't enjoy life and contribute to humanity. Tons of things (color-blindness, being near-sighted, having fallen arches, etc) aren't evolutionarily advantageous and no-one cares.

[Angelnoir]

This article talks about alloparenting and sexual fluidity in women from an evolutionary perspective.

And though I don't see how it could be applicable here, it's still an interesting read concerning this topic.

[Amoeba-Proteus]

I like the argument that asexuals are mother natures birth control. Its simple, somewhat plausible, and logical. Think about it. Over population is a problem...other species have died out as a result of overpopulating and depleting all the resources, then starving to death. Some species must have built in ways of preventing this. Chemical, dna, something. Humans are WAY overpopulating. A signal may well have started flipping on in some of us, saying 'no need to make more! We got plenty thanks!'

Who is "mother nature" exactly ? A beautiful lady who has so much time to waste in playing with all of us ? No. So far it's only a belief and you could perfectly replace it by the word "god".

Homosexuality has always existed, even when death rates were very high and when people reached their adult form with difficulties. So it doesn't make sense.

So why most people are not asexuals nowadays ? Why homosexuals and asexuals are not simply sterile ?

And to think that some members wondered why I assumed that heterosexuality was the very meaning of reproduction for most people, in my last topic...

Perhaps, we don't have the drive/desire to limit further population explosion? But are not sterile in order to still allow recovery if in a time of desperate need, for the survival of the species? I don't know... just a suggestion.

Again, not suggesting this is definitely the way it is, but I think the concept in it's own is kind of interesting.

[Animatescapist]

Infertility is in no way grounds for annulment of a Catholic marriage, before or after the fact. According to Canon Law: "Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of". An annulment means the marriage never existed (because it was entered into without full consent or with deception or some other similar reason). If a marriage actually existed, but turned abusive, Catholics are not expected to remain in the marriage. Anal sex is not ever considered ok.

Huh, thanks for correcting me! Apparently I've had several very misinformed Religion teachers.

[Amoeba-Proteus]

Elin, just got around to reading your post. I liked it, and wanted to respond to your response. I'd first just like to point out that I offered chemical reactions as a possible cause for some individuals of a species having the instincts that drive and lead to reproduction more or less shut off. As an example, some frog species can tell when there's too many males in the population, and some of the males turn female. I'm pretty sure they aren't taking a census, so the easiest way for biology to tell would be the hormonal or chemical content surrounding them being full of male indicators and lacking in female ones. Its an interesting, if ungrounded, thought that a more complex organism may be able to tell by the chemical surroundings that there are just too damn many of it for the area and start killing off certain drives to compensate. Like lemmings. No, not that they all jump off cliffs. That's been proven as a fabrication. But when the population gets too big, some of their fear centers get dimmed to give them the motivation to leave, seek out new territories to live in. This does, since they're engaging in riskier behavior, also result in a few accidental deaths.

I also wanted to say that I'm not trying to discount anything humanity has learned about biology or genetics or life. I'm just saying that with so, so much that we don't yet know, and so many of the things we have learned coming right out of left field and shocking us as to their origins, its terribly silly of any one to insist we can predict whats going to be useful or how it will manifest itself next. Or for any one to say 'that's not natural'. Potentially everything is or could wind up being 'natural'. People end up with all the craziest mutations simply because there was a single gene turned on or off, and for whatever reason that happened, we don't always know. Much of what we do know, and take for scientific fact, may turn out to be wrong. Its happened many times before in human history.

The point of the examples I gave was simply to point out a few other scenarios where something doesn't work quite the way we expected it to. Just because we don't have an explanation for why YET, doesn't mean its not explainable, or indeed, a bad thing. Of course, one could also argue that we are human beings, people, and a little compassion goes a long way. If some one doesn't want to bone, why take issue with that? Its not like there isn't an ever expanding ocean of breeders waiting for you to come swimming.

These kinds of examples in nature (and more) always make me wonder if we really do understand biology nearly as well as we think we do. We've made so many huge advancements in the scientific field, and have so far to go, it's endless. Always new things to learn. And of course, we make mistakes.

We observe these kinds of things in nature, where some other instinct seems to kick in or even turn off, in the case of too large a population, or too many males present, or other reasons, which I find incredibly interesting.

People are so quick to insist asexuality is unnatural (well, anything that isn't heterosexual), saying it doesn't make sense with biology, and those who don't feel positive nervous responses from sex are unnatural or impossible, but maybe there's simply a lot we're not understanding about biology. If they want to argue against it from a biological perspective, then I don't at all see why it isn't reasonable to suggest there's a biological reasoning behind it that we simply don't understand. Maybe the instinct has been turned off? Who knows! Genes play a huge role in biology, but perhaps instinct or other changes have a much greater influence than we know. Not everything needs to be controlled by genes. Or we might just simply not be interested, and that's it. Again, who knows!

[Elin]

Elin, just got around to reading your post. I liked it, and wanted to respond to your response. I'd first just like to point out that I offered chemical reactions as a possible cause for some individuals of a species having the instincts that drive and lead to reproduction more or less shut off. As an example, some frog species can tell when there's too many males in the population, and some of the males turn female. I'm pretty sure they aren't taking a census, so the easiest way for biology to tell would be the hormonal or chemical content surrounding them being full of male indicators and lacking in female ones. Its an interesting, if ungrounded, thought that a more complex organism may be able to tell by the chemical surroundings that there are just too damn many of it for the area and start killing off certain drives to compensate. Like lemmings. No, not that they all jump off cliffs. That's been proven as a fabrication. But when the population gets too big, some of their fear centers get dimmed to give them the motivation to leave, seek out new territories to live in. This does, since they're engaging in riskier behavior, also result in a few accidental deaths.

I also wanted to say that I'm not trying to discount anything humanity has learned about biology or genetics or life. I'm just saying that with so, so much that we don't yet know, and so many of the things we have learned coming right out of left field and shocking us as to their origins, its terribly silly of any one to insist we can predict whats going to be useful or how it will manifest itself next. Or for any one to say 'that's not natural'. Potentially everything is or could wind up being 'natural'. People end up with all the craziest mutations simply because there was a single gene turned on or off, and for whatever reason that happened, we don't always know. Much of what we do know, and take for scientific fact, may turn out to be wrong. Its happened many times before in human history.

The point of the examples I gave was simply to point out a few other scenarios where something doesn't work quite the way we expected it to. Just because we don't have an explanation for why YET, doesn't mean its not explainable, or indeed, a bad thing. Of course, one could also argue that we are human beings, people, and a little compassion goes a long way. If some one doesn't want to bone, why take issue with that? Its not like there isn't an ever expanding ocean of breeders waiting for you to come swimming.

Wow, the frog example is really interesting! I hadn't heard of that before at all. I can see how that works! I now think that at once you surpass some level of complexity (sort of like a threshold?) in terms of social interaction, "intelligence", etc, behaviours that promote survival that don't have a genetic basis can be preserved and propagated just as well as genes that do the same.

I quite agree with the rest of your post! I guess I could have come across as insisting that asexuality is unnatural (because we can't find an explanation for it, or whatever other reason), which wasn't really what I meant at all -- sure, it's not expected, but then, as you have pointed out, a lot of things aren't, and that doesn't make them bad. I think that's more of a semantic difference, so fundamentally you and I agree. And, of course, compassion is sorely needed.

People are so quick to insist asexuality is unnatural (well, anything that isn't heterosexual), saying it doesn't make sense with biology, and those who don't feel positive nervous responses from sex are unnatural or impossible, but maybe there's simply a lot we're not understanding about biology. If they want to argue against it from a biological perspective, then I don't at all see why it isn't reasonable to suggest there's a biological reasoning behind it that we simply don't understand. Maybe the instinct has been turned off? Who knows! Genes play a huge role in biology, but perhaps instinct or other changes have a much greater influence than we know. Not everything needs to be controlled by genes. Or we might just simply not be interested, and that's it. Again, who knows!

Indeed! I feel like there's a tendency to try and explain everything genetically, even though by doing that you are overlooking a lot of other processes, such as communication, learning, development in response to the environment, and a host of other stuff that pertain specifically to human (society).

[Manly Ace]

I like the argument that asexuals are mother natures birth control. Its simple, somewhat plausible, and logical. Think about it. Over population is a problem...other species have died out as a result of overpopulating and depleting all the resources, then starving to death. Some species must have built in ways of preventing this. Chemical, dna, something. Humans are WAY overpopulating. A signal may well have started flipping on in some of us, saying 'no need to make more! We got plenty thanks!'

Who is "mother nature" exactly ? A beautiful lady who has so much time to waste in playing with all of us ? No. So far it's only a belief and you could perfectly replace it by the word "god".

Homosexuality has always existed, even when death rates were very high and when people reached their adult form with difficulties. So it doesn't make sense.

So why most people are not asexuals nowadays ? Why homosexuals and asexuals are not simply sterile ?

And to think that some members wondered why I assumed that heterosexuality was the very meaning of reproduction for most people, in my last topic...

1) Perhaps, we don't have the drive/desire to limit further population explosion?

2) But are not sterile in order to still allow recovery if in a time of desperate need, for the survival of the species? I don't know... just a suggestion.

3) Again, not suggesting this is definitely the way it is, but I think the concept in it's own is kind of interesting.

1) This is not exclusive to asexuals. Some of them still want biological children.

2) It would contredict the "born that way" theory.

3) You can think and say whatever you want because everything said thus far is just a pure belief. :D

[Amoeba-Proteus]

I like the argument that asexuals are mother natures birth control. Its simple, somewhat plausible, and logical. Think about it. Over population is a problem...other species have died out as a result of overpopulating and depleting all the resources, then starving to death. Some species must have built in ways of preventing this. Chemical, dna, something. Humans are WAY overpopulating. A signal may well have started flipping on in some of us, saying 'no need to make more! We got plenty thanks!'

Who is "mother nature" exactly ? A beautiful lady who has so much time to waste in playing with all of us ? No. So far it's only a belief and you could perfectly replace it by the word "god".

Homosexuality has always existed, even when death rates were very high and when people reached their adult form with difficulties. So it doesn't make sense.

So why most people are not asexuals nowadays ? Why homosexuals and asexuals are not simply sterile ?

And to think that some members wondered why I assumed that heterosexuality was the very meaning of reproduction for most people, in my last topic...

1) Perhaps, we don't have the drive/desire to limit further population explosion?

2) But are not sterile in order to still allow recovery if in a time of desperate need, for the survival of the species? I don't know... just a suggestion.

3) Again, not suggesting this is definitely the way it is, but I think the concept in it's own is kind of interesting.

1) This is not exclusive to asexuals. Some of them still want biological children.

2) It would contredict the "born that way" theory.

3) You can think and say whatever you want because everything said thus far is just a pure belief. :D

1.) I know some do want biological children. If the 'limiting population' theory was somewhat true, it wouldn't be perfect because of this. It could limit the 'reproducing because they feel like they have to or have an uncontrollable desire to mate', but the 'wanting to care for/have a child' obviously... limits that limit? (Pardon my wording.

2.) Clarify? (Sorry, my brain is mush right now from writing a report all day, I'm totally missing what you're saying.)

3.) Fair enough. I wouldn't say it's my personal belief. I don't know what my personal belief is. Just open to anyone's suggestions. :)

[kulosle]

Elin, it is my belief that everything is conscious. Your individual cells, your dna, and every single atom. Some times this leads me to say things in a less academic way, not that i was trying to be acedemic. I did not mean yo imply tha dna just spins a wheel and decides what to "try" i just ment to say that dna ay sone point in time will probably mutate into each given poasibility at a differeny point in time. Yes recessive expressoon is not the norm but its still a possibility and there for adds to the randomness. And when i said genes are gained and lost for survival i didnt mean that each time it happens is because the dna knew it needed to do that to survive, i was saying a species has to be able to loose or gain traits in order to survive. And well have to disagree about whether or not any of this is done consciously.

I also would like to agree with everyone who said we rely on biology to explain things too much (self plug consciousness studies). I believe there are a lot more factors at play. I was just give a biological explination for the people out there that insists there has to be one.

[Elin]

Elin, it is my belief that everything is conscious. Your individual cells, your dna, and every single atom. Some times this leads me to say things in a less academic way, not that i was trying to be acedemic. I did not mean yo imply tha dna just spins a wheel and decides what to "try" i just ment to say that dna ay sone point in time will probably mutate into each given poasibility at a differeny point in time. Yes recessive expressoon is not the norm but its still a possibility and there for adds to the randomness. And when i said genes are gained and lost for survival i didnt mean that each time it happens is because the dna knew it needed to do that to survive, i was saying a species has to be able to loose or gain traits in order to survive. And well have to disagree about whether or not any of this is done consciously.

I also would like to agree with everyone who said we rely on biology to explain things too much (self plug consciousness studies). I believe there are a lot more factors at play. I was just give a biological explination for the people out there that insists there has to be one.

Really can't say that I agree with what you said here, but yeah, let's agree to disagree, as long as you understand that your attempt to give a biological explanation runs counter to what we understand with biology (that's really my only bone to pick with you -- I have nothing against your beliefs; it's the iffy science that gets to me).

[Scottthespy]

I like the argument that asexuals are mother natures birth control. Its simple, somewhat plausible, and logical. Think about it. Over population is a problem...other species have died out as a result of overpopulating and depleting all the resources, then starving to death. Some species must have built in ways of preventing this. Chemical, dna, something. Humans are WAY overpopulating. A signal may well have started flipping on in some of us, saying 'no need to make more! We got plenty thanks!'

Who is "mother nature" exactly ? A beautiful lady who has so much time to waste in playing with all of us ? No. So far it's only a belief and you could perfectly replace it by the word "god".

Homosexuality has always existed, even when death rates were very high and when people reached their adult form with difficulties. So it doesn't make sense.

So why most people are not asexuals nowadays ? Why homosexuals and asexuals are not simply sterile ?

And to think that some members wondered why I assumed that heterosexuality was the very meaning of reproduction for most people, in my last topic...

I use mother nature as a cutesy euphemism for 'the complex planet upon which we live'. I'm not trying to suggest there is an actual consciousness behind it. Its like saying 'Fate' when one simply means "that's just the way it worked out".

[Honey_Badger]

I laugh in these people's face and point at my shiny ecology and biology textbooks. Usually they shut up when they realize that they have very little knowledge of evolution to begin with and that I have bugswatter books to back me up. :D

[Amoeba-Proteus]

I laugh in these people's face and point at my shiny ecology and biology textbooks. Usually they shut up when they realize that they have very little knowledge of evolution to begin with and that I have bugswatter books to back me up. :D

Hah hah, pretty much...

I sometimes have to resist the urge to point out "You do remember I'm a biologist... I can discuss genetics/etc. aaall day." :P

I've been resisting arguing from a scientifically accurate standpoint in this thread so far.

[Elin]

I laugh in these people's face and point at my shiny ecology and biology textbooks. Usually they shut up when they realize that they have very little knowledge of evolution to begin with and that I have bugswatter books to back me up. :D

Hah hah, pretty much...

I sometimes have to resist the urge to point out "You do remember I'm a biologist... I can discuss genetics/etc. aaall day." :P

I've been resisting arguing from a scientifically accurate standpoint in this thread so far.

Do contribute your scientific accuracy! :D I, too, am a biology-person (thought not quite yet a biologist).

[Mycroft is Yourcroft]

I like the idea that certain genes contributing towards asexuality could be activated based on the environment of the individual/ their mother (maybe a certain number of people encountered in a certain space...?). I think it's cute! :D

I know it happens with frogs, so maybe other more sophisticated beings (namely us, though sometimes I wonder) could share that ability too!

[Scottthespy]

I laugh in these people's face and point at my shiny ecology and biology textbooks. Usually they shut up when they realize that they have very little knowledge of evolution to begin with and that I have bugswatter books to back me up. :D

Hah hah, pretty much...

I sometimes have to resist the urge to point out "You do remember I'm a biologist... I can discuss genetics/etc. aaall day." :P

I've been resisting arguing from a scientifically accurate standpoint in this thread so far.

Do contribute your scientific accuracy! :D I, too, am a biology-person (thought not quite yet a biologist).

Yes, please do. I don't like spouting out of date or inaccurate information, so if anything I've said is so I'd like to know. Also, since this is the biology argument, having a few biologists around to hash out the more interesting or freaky facts would be interesting. I'm an armchair biologist and took biology in high school, so I've got some basic info, and I watch a lot of medical shows that talk about the causes both genetic and other, so I know several vague examples, but I lack hard facts and in depth knowledge.

[eskazula]

I went through 12 years of Catholic school. This was, indeed, the argument they used against homosexuality, and even hetero relationships where a partner is on birth control. "You cannot reproduce through this union, therefore it is a bastardization of the marriage covenant, and the sacred act of sex blah blah blah."

Not because it was unnatural. But because it was unable to produce children.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that my morality teachers would have even looked down upon a sexless marriage, because literally, in Catholic dogma, marriage=children, and that's that. Any sort of marriage that does not result in biological children, or at least an attempt to make biological children, be it because it's a celibate/asexual marriage, a cis gay marriage, a hetero trans marriage, etc, is not to be respected in the eyes of God.

Which, in my opinion, is obviously bollocks.

My morality teacher told me that a hetero couple having anal was only moral if it was foreplay that led up to babymaking. Any sex that didn't have (even the slightest- hence why natural family planning was allowed) the possibility of pregnancy was considered sinful. Anal sex alone=sinful, just like masturbation- it's an abuse of your sexuality. Anal sex combined with p/v sex? Ok. Because that leads up to something that can result in a child.

AND NO I SWEAR I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP.

As someone who has gone through 13 years of Catholic school (including Kindergarten), I'd just like to verify that this is completely true. I've been given the same speeches. Another thing to add is that in the Catholic Church, if you know someone is infertile before you marry them, technically you're not allowed to have a Church-sanctified marriage. On top of that, if you find out that your partner is infertile after you get married, that's grounds for an annulment. For those of you who don't understand why that's a big deal, being physically abused isn't even grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church, but infertility is. Also, oral sex and fingering both fall under the same category as anal. *coughs* bullshit *coughs*

HOLY SHIT I DID NOT KNOW THIS.

Damn.

I guess that my morality teacher disagreed with the whole "denying infertile couples marriage" thing, because she never brought it up.

Either that, or she knew it'd cause too much backlash from the parents.

EDIT: Just read Astro's post. Now I know why the infertility thing was never brought up. Because it was never canon. But I was taught that any sort of foreplay was acceptable as long as it led to "baby making."

[Amoeba-Proteus]

I did not go to a Catholic school, and all I can say, is what I'm reading here regarding Catholic schools sounds completely ****ed...

[kassafrass]

hmmm... well i feel like their biology argument could potentially be used against them. When looking at the long run, human beings have not been on this planet very long, and species constantly go in and out of extinction, often growing/shrinking to fir their natural habitat. I don't think any research has been done but I have just been learning about Malthus, and Malthusian checks in school and because of the growing population could it not be possible that asexuality is a kind of check? a way of the population stabilizing itself, or decreasing population naturally? If this were the case which would be very hard to prove, asexuality would be completely natural biologically. Just a thought I've been entertaining for a while.

[Scottthespy]

hmmm... well i feel like their biology argument could potentially be used against them. When looking at the long run, human beings have not been on this planet very long, and species constantly go in and out of extinction, often growing/shrinking to fir their natural habitat. I don't think any research has been done but I have just been learning about Malthus, and Malthusian checks in school and because of the growing population could it not be possible that asexuality is a kind of check? a way of the population stabilizing itself, or decreasing population naturally? If this were the case which would be very hard to prove, asexuality would be completely natural biologically. Just a thought I've been entertaining for a while.

I'll have to look into malthusian checks. That sounds like the kind of thing we were talking about a while back when we said it could be a sort of naturally developed birth control.

[Amoeba-Proteus]

hmmm... well i feel like their biology argument could potentially be used against them. When looking at the long run, human beings have not been on this planet very long, and species constantly go in and out of extinction, often growing/shrinking to fir their natural habitat. I don't think any research has been done but I have just been learning about Malthus, and Malthusian checks in school and because of the growing population could it not be possible that asexuality is a kind of check? a way of the population stabilizing itself, or decreasing population naturally? If this were the case which would be very hard to prove, asexuality would be completely natural biologically. Just a thought I've been entertaining for a while.

I'll have to look into malthusian checks. That sounds like the kind of thing we were talking about a while back when we said it could be a sort of naturally developed birth control.

Yup, this was pretty much what I was trying to get at as a biological argument in return.

[kassafrass]

well Malthusian checks are basically more natural disasters ie. floods, hurricanes, famines...etc. But it was made a while back so it if reevaluated and studied it could possibly fit into the category. And I must have missed that bit of the thread whoops. I'm not a sociologist/scientist of any sorts but it just stuck out when I was reading through the thread.

[Amoeba-Proteus]

I thought it was an interesting perspective.
Populations typically have something to eventually balance themselves out, whether it's a predator, territory, common disease, etc. We've overcome a lot of what would have been limits, and without completely dominating the planet, there's not a lot of natural factors slowing us down. Anything that's really "limiting" us is our own doing (referring to food shortages and space issues), so perhaps reducing/eliminating the sex drive in some people is a small natural attempt at trying to reduce population growth?
We're still able to reproduce should something happen and the population were to decline at an alarming rate, but don't feel an extreme drive to seek sexual partners. One could conclude that therefore, those people are less likely to reproduce than others (I know some people do want children, but just putting a general suggestion out there). The way I see it is... most animals: Do you think they want young? Or they have young due to their sexual drive, driving them to mate. And because deer don't use condoms, that's the ultimate outcome, and the original goal of nature and the drive in the first place. (Course, there may be exceptions.) Humans reproduce at an insane rate, and if you want to speak nature about it, people essentially mate approx. 3 times a week, not just during a mating season like most animals (there are exceptions), however we've developed methods to reduce risk of pregnancy. Either way, our population is still skyrocketing, so perhaps nature is making a small attempt to slow it down a bit....? Nothing else is.

[Scottthespy]

Technically, nothing in nature is 'intended' to work a certain way...its developed and then works or doesn't. And genetic dead ends, weather helpful to the species at large or not, don't pass on their genes very much. So if it is genetic, its probably some sort of recessive gene that can 'turn on' it the right triggers are hit...sort of the way cancer can be turned on if enough of the right triggers are hit.

Another massive population drop that's just about to happen that has absolutely nothing to do with biology and everything to do with sociology, is Japan. Just...all of Japan. The women are becoming more 'go getter' and the men are becoming androgynous...the women complain the men are week and the men complain the women are too picky. Less and less are Japanese people interested at all in relationships, let alone children. They get their 'jollies' elsewhere when they do need them, and the population is rapidly aging without anywhere near enough babies to replenish the ranks. Which is a shame, because the Japanese are masters of small space living...if it was all Japanese people, 7billion would fit in this world with no issues...hell, 9 billion would probably still be comfortable.

Back to the topic at hand though, if there is nothing to keep a species in check, it tends to over populate, eat everything, then either move or starve...very virus like. Humanity spreads far too quickly, because 'forward thinking', 'compassion', 'medicine', and a whole host of other 'good things' we have cause us to out wit every single thing that gets thrown at us. Do you people realize we have a tentative cure for Rabies now? Rabies! That was a 100% kill rate in everything that went symptomatic for as long as its been known of...but now we've potentially outsmarted it. Not just preemptively either...there is a girl alive in the world today who is history's first known rabies survivor. We can cure everything. We live longer, spread out more, consume ever greater amounts in our drive for happiness. No animal can touch us...none have the desire, after so many centuries of learning that humans have a lot of ways of killing for such fragile, useless looking creatures. We've outsmarted nature...and very possibly ourselves in the process.