AHC: Homosexual oriented civilization or country
- Thread starter Alexpira
- Start date
Social obligation to have children. Just close your eyes and think of Achilles.
Bruce
Probably not enough. There are obvious biological reasons why humans are more attracted to the opposite sex rather than their own. A society in which children are just a social obligation can't compete with a society where it is encouraged for other reasons outside of social obligation.
Their was a period in Japan where among the Samurai class (and thus those who imitated their social norms) it was considered more honorable to be with another man than with a woman.
I think though that the social obligation thing would be a major part of it, afterall China's population is'nt so huge just because it's a fertile area, Confucianism promotes an obligation to procreate and in general does'nt oppose hoosexuality, rather it's more a 'you can be with another man, just as long as you have children and take care of them'.
So all in all you need to have a society that's developed a mixture of social obligation and stigmitization of relations with women, which can be seen with thoese Papuan tribes, is'nt that difficult.
The real thing you need to do as well is to keep the Western Englightenment ideas of sexuality from taking root.
I think though that the social obligation thing would be a major part of it, afterall China's population is'nt so huge just because it's a fertile area, Confucianism promotes an obligation to procreate and in general does'nt oppose hoosexuality, rather it's more a 'you can be with another man, just as long as you have children and take care of them'.
So all in all you need to have a society that's developed a mixture of social obligation and stigmitization of relations with women, which can be seen with thoese Papuan tribes, is'nt that difficult.
The real thing you need to do as well is to keep the Western Englightenment ideas of sexuality from taking root.
Actually, no, there are a lot of ways around that.
After all, humans have had some reproductive technologies since before written history; something as simple as semen transfer would work.
(And when you consider the Cybelline tradition, and countless similar traditions, it's not hard to imagine one where potential priestesses are encouraged to try to contribute semen before castrating themselves.)
That is more bisexuality than homosexuality. Bisexual societies are common enough. Homosexual ones are soon extinct.
iirc from my understanding, the principle violation was the perversion of the Judaic values of hospitality (i.e. raping and stealing from their guests, etc.) The bit on whether it was a condemnation of homosexuality is fairly suspect and reinterpreted later, since there was plenty of heterosexual debauchery going on as well.
Who are you calling "we"?
Sorry, something of a digression on a possible ritual context for semen transfer.
The human race in general which reproduces sexually. All animals (including humans) who reproduce sexually will tend to prefer to have sex with members of the opposite sex. There are individual members of those speices who have problems with their sex hormones who will prefer homosexual sex but the vast majority will prefer hetrosexual sex. Homosexual sex is a waste from an evolutionary standpoint as you can't have babies that way.
At the risk of starting an off-topic flame war, but, as with all things related to evolution, it's more complicated than that. For example, some studies have shown that female relatives of homosexual men tend to be more fertile than those of heterosexual men. So long as the gain in the fertility of the women offsets the loss of fertility of the men, then (male) homosexuality still makes sense from an evolutionary POV (there hasn't been anything like as much work done with lesbians, IIRC).
Since a man can impregnate more than one woman and a woman can only get pregnant once every 9 months or so and still have a living child I doubt its enough. Also the a homosexual will effectively be entirely infertile while the sister becomes somewhat more fertile. His sister having 7 kids instead of 6 won't make up for the fact that he has none.
Fact: Reproduction doesn't occur without sex.
Any "homosexual" state will still have plenty of male on female action. However, it won't stop women from being objectified.
Any "homosexual" state will still have plenty of male on female action. However, it won't stop women from being objectified.
Well, no. Not if, for example, you have a society where everyone shares the same gender identity. Not every girl is what we currently assign female at birth, and gender identity, like sexual orientation, is susceptible to gestational hormonal influences. Estrogen can increase gynephilia (attraction to women) as well as the likelihood of female identification.
Which makes it biological in origin, which is what I have said. Homosexuality is the result of screwed up hormones (From an evolutionary standpoint). How they get screwed up doesn't matter, whether it is genetic or gestational hormonal influences it still results in no babies. The great majority of the time things do go right and you wind up with either bisexual or hetrosexual behavior.
In other words, I'm not part of "the human race in general." And you're saying I'm only lesbian because of "problems with [my] sex hormones"?
And if it were a waste, it wouldn't be so common. Bonobos, some of our closest relatives, have lots of same-sex sex. And we humans have technologies such as bowls, fingers, and turkey basters, such that there's no need for penis-in-vagina to reproduce... *facepalm*
Of course you are part of the human race but you are only one small part of it. The human race itself as a whole has to be hetrosexually (Or at least bisexually) oriented to survive. So I think you have problems with your sex hormones? It isn't a personal insult. I am not saying you are inferior, or a moral degenerate, or should be killed merely that your sexual hormone balance is abnormal. I am epileptic which means I have different problems with other chemical receptors. I wouldn't take as a personal insult if you said my neurology is screwed up because IT IS screwed up. Bonobos may have a lot of homosexual sex but it is still is considerably less than hetrosexual sex. Aftificial insemination is much more difficult with primitive technology than it is today. Besides that doesn't change the species sexual orientation as a whole which is part of it. Most people prefer having hetrosexual sex becase that is how we evolved and technology short of DNA tampering isn't going to change that.
I distinctly recall reading an article that suggests that homosexuality is quite a sensible evolutionary adaptation if you're focusing on "survival of the fittest _population_" and not just individual survival;maybe it was the same article RPW@Cy read. The reason suggested was that even though the homosexual individuals might not reproduce, they contribute to more relatives of theirs(who would of course be in the same gene pool) surviving since they're more hands to help with the young who aren't adding any young themselves. In fact, it's quite possible that the ideal situation evolutionarily for keeping a population going may be for some percentage of the population to be homosexual
On-topic idea: would something vaguely like what happened in Italy in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance happen, with it being acceptable and maybe normal for young men to have standing same-sex relationships but with the presumption that eventually they'd marry women and have kids once they got closer to middle-age? Maybe we could have something about how the different sorts of relationships cultivate the different sorts of obligations appropriate to different phrases of life.
On-topic idea: would something vaguely like what happened in Italy in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance happen, with it being acceptable and maybe normal for young men to have standing same-sex relationships but with the presumption that eventually they'd marry women and have kids once they got closer to middle-age? Maybe we could have something about how the different sorts of relationships cultivate the different sorts of obligations appropriate to different phrases of life.
