homosexuality

Off topic, a bit, I know, but I wanted to chime in with a bit of correction here.

quote:

---

And hundreds of millions of bees never mate. They are incapable of it, actually. I think the pure raw mate-and-make-babies argument can only apply to non-social animals and really, there aren't very many of them. Once a social structure gets in the game, the rules change. Things that may not be beneficial for loners may suddenly become helpful.

---

Most eusocial critters, at least Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, ants and their ilk), are highly caste stratified into reproductives (a queen, and some male drones) and a huge majority of non-reproductives. A good case has been made (starting with Wilson, for instance), that the entire social structure of eusocial insects is "built" around insuring the survival and reproduction of the colony. In fact, in a lot of the species' males have a realllllyyyy short lifespan geared specifically and ONLY toward mating. So saying that "once a social structure gets in the game the rules change" seems to me to be inaccurate. I'm not disagreeing with your overall premise (see below), just that using eusociality is a bad example.

quote:

---

I personally think that sexuality in humans serves to maintain social bonds, which we depend upon a great deal.

---

Couldn't agree more - that's actually the evolutionary explanation for why sex is so enjoyable . We can observe the use of sex - both literal and figurative, and both homo- and heterosexuality - in our nearest cousins where it very much serves to maintain, strengthen, or occasionally determine, social bonds.Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Hi John,Sorry I wasn't more clear. Looking back over the post, it does read somewhat "Brad-like".I was arguing with your use of bees as an example in your statement: "the pure raw mate-and-make-babies argument can only apply to non-social animals and really, there aren't very many of them. Once a social structure gets in the game, the rules change." The eusocial Hymneoptera don't support your statement. Eusociality in the groups that display it is purely based on genetics - and is about as hard-wired an example of the "mate and make babies" as you're likely to find in nature. Your point, which I think is a valid one, simply doesn't apply to bees. See, for example, E.O. Wilson, "Sociobiology", and Wilson EO, (1985) "The sociogenesis of insect colonies", Science 228: 1489-1495.Basically, the rules change only when a species has a certain type of social structure - not "sociality" in general. It was just a quibble, no need to get your knickers in a knot...

Yep, Hymenoptera (or at least the social genera) have the most rigidly structured social systems on the planet. However, I thought your point was that the evolution of sociality changes the rules and removes the direct, genetically determined "make babies" impulse. IOW, sex has a strong social bonding component. I merely wanted to point out that it isn't "sociality" per se that does this - as the social insects show - but the type of social system. If you'd used dogs, primates, or any other organism that has a developed pack set-up as an example, I'd have agreed with you to the point that you'd never have heard from me on this thread. Bees don't use sex as a social instrument. Nor, for that matter, do any of the herd animals that have been studied. It's only when you deal with complex social setups that you see sex, pseudosex, affiliation, etc and other behaviors that have a social bonding component - rather than being purely procreative.