From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 01:09:46 GMT
Hi Wim, (and DMB)
> Thanks for your posting of 13 Dec 2003 12:20:18 -0700! You've said it much
> better than I could have done it.
>
> The only think I might want to add is, that there are also biological
> behaviour and characteristics (i.e. hardwired patterns of behaviour and
> morphology) that have no 'survival value' yet, but that are nevertheless
> 'tolerated' by nature, because they have little negative 'survival value'
> either (e.g. albinism). They exist because they are a probabilistic outflow
> (the outer ranges of the Bell curves) of other behaviours and
> characteristics. They form a 'reservoir' of natural variation ('fenotypes' I
> think they are called by biologists) that enable a species to adapt to
> different circumstances. Maybe being at the outer range of some Bell curve
> is why homosexuals are only a small percentage of the population?
As you know I accept your definition of static latch of social patterns of
value as unconscious copying of human behavior (actually, I see such a
static latch as applying to some other mammals as well). Based on this
definition, I was surprised that you would so whole-heartedly agree with
DMBs claim that homosexuality is hardwired through DNA (though we are
edified to know that DMB is "All Man.") Excuse my crudeness but I find it
hard to believe that there is a "pussy-loving" gene or a "dick-fancying"
gene. I have heard that the biological triggers for sex are mostly
pheromones. Since humans have very few instinctual behaviors (and use so
many smelly soaps. perfumes, and deodorants), I suspect that while our drive
for sex is biologically latched, the triggers for that drive are mostly
socially latched. They are tied up in issues of status and related to
societal roles.
In other words, why does DMB have such a fetish for French maid costumes?
Certainly there is no French maid fancy gene. Recall also that in some
cultures in human history, even man-boy pedophilia was a symbol of social
status. Also, so that I don't offend Mark and perhaps others again, not
that saying that our sexuality is socially rather than biologically latched
makes it no more of a choice than it would be if it were biologically
latched. Changing our sexuality would be literally changing our
personalities. I predict that we will never isolate "the gay gene."
Again. I can somewhat understand why DMB would see sexuality as biologically
latched since he does not use the same definitions of the levels as we, but
do you really see human sexuality in all its complexity as a purely
biological pattern?
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 01:09:25 GMT