why heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality a deviance

[Thought Art]

@Princess Arabia oh girl,

I like you, I do,

wanna be your friend 

go shopping’ in a benz 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Thought Art

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You are missing the point. OP doesn't care about what is natural, he is stuck in bigotry. It's as simple as that.

The whole natural argument is just so he can justify his views, if he was a proponent of natural living he wouldn't be on this forum.

 

I am pretty sure animals avoid incest if they have the opportunity to, the same as human beings. But none of that is relevant, because this is all a basic naturalistic fallacy. This isn't even worth discussion, this is like basic shit you should have learn in your high school philosophy class. This should, in fact, be self evident.

   The point I'm missing is OP asking why heterosexuality is natural, and homosexuality a deviancy? Is it bigotry to inquire about why one thing is natural and another thing a deviancy?

   But homo sapiens are also an animal too, similar to birds being animals. Why would incest be irrelevant due to naturalistic fallacy instead of species difference? Why draw that line at naturalistic fallacy instead of species? This is very similar to Big Foot reports, of psychological distancing, claiming they saw a bear or some other monkey, but not a primate superior to humans in more wilder terrain?

Edited December 9, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Princess Arabia]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I am pretty sure animals avoid incest if they have the opportunity to

 Do you really think animals say, that's my brother/sister/aunt/mother, whatever, I can't do that. My cats mate each other. Mother and son and son and sister and auntie and uncle. Animals don't discriminate. 

 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Princess Arabia

2 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

 Do you really think animals say, that's my brother/sister/aunt/mother, whatever, I can't do that. My cats mate each other. Mother and son and son and sister and auntie and uncle. Animals don't discriminate. 

 

 

   I partly agree, and think it's more natural and less deviancy that animals don't discriminate on similar levels to humans, just as how Tasmanian Devils and desert chameleons don't discriminate if their mating ritual is gentle or rough, or from a human perspective, rape. 

[Princess Arabia]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Princess Arabia

   I partly agree, and think it's more natural and less deviancy that animals don't discriminate on similar levels to humans, just as how Tasmanian Devils and desert chameleons don't discriminate if their mating ritual is gentle or rough, or from a human perspective, rape. 

Once my adult male cat tried to hump on the female kitten. Big cat small kitten. It was its nephew, lol What's that, pedophilia.  Had to shush him off. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar Now you're being baited into it 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

I am pretty sure animals avoid incest if they have the opportunity to

 

Quote

Incest isn’t a taboo in the animal kingdom – new study

Reviewing studies of 88 species, researchers found little evidence that animals avoid inbreeding.

The article is published on May 18 and is written by Regina Vega Trejo, researcher at the Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, and Raïssa de Boer, researcher and computer scientist at Lund University.

They write:
“We humans tend to regard incest as deeply disturbing. It’s a strong social taboo, and it’s underpinned by sound biological reasoning. Mixing genes with a non-relative is beneficial because it increases genetic diversity, while genetic defects often occur in the offspring of related parents.

We’d expect to see the same attitude extend to animals, who may lack a social distaste for incest but are, in the end, subject to the same biological pressures to produce the fittest offspring – which we assume means breeding with an unrelated mate.

But our recent study has called this assumption into question. We reviewed 40 years of scholarship on animal mate selection, and found that animals don’t tend to differentiate between relatives and non-relatives when choosing a mate.”

https://www.su.se/english/research/the-conversation-news/incest-isn-t-a-taboo-in-the-animal-kingdom-new-study-1.571568

You can read the study here: "Meta-analytic evidence that animals rarely avoid inbreeding" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01453-9

 

So why only in humans? I'm speculating, but maybe it's because humans are the only animals with the sufficient level of meta-awareness (self-reflective capacity) and cognitive control (executive functioning, planning, general problem-solving) to see the cumulative negative side effects of inbreeding and be able to consciously decide to not engage in that behavior (and subsequently constructing cultural taboos around it). Cultural taboos are essentially just particularly intense collective normative "do not" statements, and other animals are unlikely to have that.

And it does make sense that the taboo is merely a cultural phenomena not grounded in instinctive biological drives, because incest sex isn't actually less pleasurable than non-incest sex, and incest sex does happen (and people like it). I remember talking to a friend (female btw... I don't know why that is important) who said (paraphrasing): "you can't sincerely claim that fucking your cousin wouldn't be just as fun as fucking anybody else". And I agree  (but I don't think it's necessarily ethical to do so ).

Edited December 9, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

32 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Scholar

   The point I'm missing is OP asking why heterosexuality is natural, and homosexuality a deviancy? Is it bigotry to inquire about why one thing is natural and another thing a deviancy?

   But homo sapiens are also an animal too, similar to birds being animals. Why would incest be irrelevant due to naturalistic fallacy instead of species difference? Why draw that line at naturalistic fallacy instead of species? This is very similar to Big Foot reports, of psychological distancing, claiming they saw a bear or some other monkey, but not a primate superior to humans in more wilder terrain?

He is implying that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural or conducive to evolutionary function. This is a stupid argument, end of story. There shouldn't be a need for discussion here.

 

I don't even understand what you are asking in the second paragraph.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

https://www.su.se/english/research/the-conversation-news/incest-isn-t-a-taboo-in-the-animal-kingdom-new-study-1.571568

You can read the study here: "Meta-analytic evidence that animals rarely avoid inbreeding" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01453-9

I don't have time to read the study, but my assumption would be that only animals who form strong bonds and community like structures will develop and aversion to incest by means of recognizing kin that they grew up along.

And by aversion I mean that they would probably prefer to have sex with animals that they did not grow up with.

 

Animals who don't have such social structures probably don't need to develop such aversions or preferences, and I suspect with humans there could be further mechanisms due to our higher social bonding. Maybe due to our more sophisticated psychological nature and mating rituals, we would more easily get attracted to our close relatives if we did not have such aversions.

I don't know how many animals that have higher social complexity are likely to engage in for example in parent-child incest, or that they are as likely to engage in that as they are in sexual activities with other animals.

So, it's a tricky question because they might just reduce everything to either being inbreeding or not, rather than having a more indepth analysis on whether or not some animals avoid it while others do not, and if certain types of relational inbreeding are avoided. With most animals I assume this isn't even relevant because they are unlikely to ever mate with offspring for multiple generations, which is what would be needed to cause any significant harm to the genetic line.

 

But humans are also special. Who knows how we would behave if we didn't have anti-incest instincts, lol. Either way, none of that is even related to whether or not incest is wrong. But thanks for the article, I adjusted my assumptions.

 

 

[Princess Arabia]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't know how many animals that have higher social complexity are likely to engage in for example in parent-child incest,

I've seen this first hand. Cats

[Thought Art]

@Princess Arabia No more joking around with the stuff okay? 
 

To all you guys as well. It was a funny joke but it’s over now. The forum is not a place for that kinda thing. It’s my sacred spaaaaace.

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Thought Art

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I've seen this first hand. Cats

Cats who live in the wild with normal social hierarchies?

But I don't know if cats are particularly social, do cats live in packs?

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Scholar said:

Cats who live in the wild with normal social hierarchies?

But I don't know if cats are particularly social, do cats live in packs?

Ok, so you're saying it depends on the animal and how they live. 

[Scholar]

11 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ok, so you're saying it depends on the animal and how they live. 

Yes that's what I wrote in the response to Carl. Cats aren't that social it seems. You have to keep in mind, you probably want an instinct that is socially contextual, so that the animal doesn't avoid the kin even if breeding with them might be benefitial due to a lack of other options. But evolution is complicated and there are lots of negatives and benefits to everything. You also have to consider if an animal tends to be monogamous, how much time and energy it invests in offspring, how much offspring it has over it's life time and so forth.

Sometimes higher complexity doesn't benefit a species, so it might be better to not have the ability to discern kin from non-kin in that way because it could influence other behaviors in negative ways. Who knows.

[Carl-Richard]

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't have time to read the study, but my assumption would be that only animals who form strong bonds and community like structures will develop and aversion to incest by means of recognizing kin that they grew up along.

They said they didn't have adequate empirical data to say anything about kin recognition.

 

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

And by aversion I mean that they would probably prefer to have sex with animals that they did not grow up with.

Do you mean that they're simply not attracted to them and won't initiate mating? Or do you mean that the physical of experience of sex is significantly different? Maybe subtle distinctions, but I argue against the latter in the edit of my previous post. As for the former, there is something called the Westermarck effect which could support your hypothesis, but the empirical evidence seems to be mixed.

 

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Animals who don't have such social structures probably don't need to develop such aversions or preferences, and I suspect with humans there could be further mechanisms due to our higher social bonding. Maybe due to our more sophisticated psychological nature and mating rituals, we would more easily get attracted to our close relatives if we did not have such aversions.

I think it maybe has to do with human cognition, not necessarily social bonding. I refer you to the edited post again.

 

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't know how many animals that have higher social complexity are likely to engage in for example in parent-child incest, or that they are as likely to engage in that as they are in sexual activities with other animals.

Parent-child incest (specifically the pedophilic kind) is generally explained as a psychological power thing on the part of the perpetrator, and it's generally psychopaths/sociopaths that engage in it, not people who are attracted to children, which again supports the idea that it (incest avoidance) is a human psychological thing rather than an animalistic biological thing.

 

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

So, it's a tricky question because they might just reduce everything to either being inbreeding or not, rather than having a more indepth analysis on whether or not some animals avoid it while others do not, and if certain types of relational inbreeding are avoided.

Trust me, a scientist whose life depends on publishing positive results will milk whatever they can out of their results.

 

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

With most animals I assume this isn't even relevant because they are unlikely to ever mate with offspring for multiple generations, which is what would be needed to cause any significant harm to the genetic line.

Depends what you mean with "significant harm". I've heard that many types of non-parent-child incest do increase the likelihood of diseases pretty significantly in humans at least.

 

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But humans are also special. Who knows how we would behave if we didn't have anti-incest instincts, lol.

I wouldn't call them instincts but cultural taboos (or that is my running theory).

 

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Either way, none of that is even related to whether or not incest is wrong. But thanks for the article, I adjusted my assumptions.

It's related to why we think it's wrong, which is a tangent, but so was your idea of bringing up incest in the first place 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Princess Arabia No more joking around with the stuff okay? 
 

To all you guys as well. It was a funny joke but it’s over now. The forum is not a place for that kinda thing. It’s my sacred spaaaaace.

I won't turn down a free incest discussion that easily >:/

Honestly though, I think we're doing fine so far.

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard oh not that nvm

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Do you mean that they're simply not attracted to them and won't initiate mating? Or do you mean that the physical of experience of sex is significantly different? Maybe subtle distinctions, but I argue against the latter in the edit of my previous post. As for the former, there is something called the Westermarck effect which could support your hypothesis, but the empirical evidence seems to be mixed.

I would assume that there are probably a vatiety of strategies in this regard, and how the psychology functions. It could be that the psychology of animals adapts to certain contexts. This is why holding animals in captivity and doing tests on them might not be the best idea, because who knows, maybe if an animals gets the stimuli that it is restricted to one habitat and cannot expand, it will switch on some gene to cease distinguishing between kin and non kin. It's just very speculative a that point.

 

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think it maybe has to do with human cognition, not necessarily social bonding. I refer you to the edited post again.

I do think it is related to cognition, our higher complexity requires the inherent aversion. And I do suspect it is inherent, because I don't remember ever being told that I ought not to be attracted to my sibling or cousins. I do not even have a taboo around incest, I could not care less, yet, I feel zero attraction to any of my family members who I have grown up with. It's complete asexuality in that regard, or rather a sexual aversion. Now, I am sure the taboo plays some role, but I doubt it is sufficient to cause something like this, because usually you can break down social constructs and your psychology might adapt, I don't see this being the case here.

 

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Depends what you mean with "significant harm".

I don't think there is that much harm genetically speaking of an animal procreates with a sibling, or probably even parent, every other generation or so.

 

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I wouldn't call them instincts but cultural taboos (or that is my running theory).

I do think they are instincts, but with humans it's complicated. We are so adaptive, I think even if there is an instinct, you could raise someone to get attracted to their family members, all of them, if you just raise them that way. So there might be a tendency, but it's obviously not a static thing.

 

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's related to why we think it's wrong, which is a tangent, but so was your idea of bringing up incest in the first place 

Sure, but the question is whether it is wrong or not, not why we think it is wrong.

[Merkabah Star]

@Danioover9000

we could all be a bit more deviant. 😎

you are adorable too. 

[Merkabah Star]

5 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

 Do you really think animals say, that's my brother/sister/aunt/mother, whatever, I can't do that. My cats mate each other. Mother and son and son and sister and auntie and uncle. Animals don't discriminate. 

 

 

You must have a lot of cats, so do i. And yes, they all get it on with family members. 🤡

Edited December 9, 2023 by Merkabah Star

[An young being]

There's a reason why lust is placed at lower levels of spiritual development, close to survival. It is purely based on pleasure and instant gratification, and it's primary purpose is multiplication. Lust is a necessary part of survival, but it can also lead to and strengthen higher forms of love, such as romantic love. Romantic love is still placed at lower levels in spiritual development, compared to unconditional love. While homosexuality is no different from other kinds of romantic love, incest arising out of lust and sometimes romantic love, reduces the effects of love closer to unconditional love, created by parent,child or siblings or other close relationships, which are generally free of lust. Hence, incest is something that is naturally resisted by our soul, knowing that unconditional love is the only place where the soul can find complete peace and retain its blissful nature. Romantic love also can lead to unconditional love, but it is weaker than those created by the love for close relations.