Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes
From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: re: gay response response... - (nf)
Message-ID: <15@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Sep-83 15:28:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.15
Posted: Mon Sep  5 15:28:55 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Sep-83 04:54:46 EDT
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 48

#R:tekecs:-197100:ucbesvax:8500003:000:2352
ucbesvax!turner    Sep  4 06:30:00 1983

I'm not sure I buy all this about homosexuality as a source of cultural
fertility (as opposed to the more biological kind, perhaps).  That kind
of thinking probably comes out of--and circularly leads back into--the
stereotype of gays as more intelligent, "artistic", witty, etc.  Gimme
a break.

Most gays I've met (but never got to know, of course) were pretty much
your basic taciturn male.  Stud==Dud.  Thank God for the ones who aren't--
I'd have been long sick of them by now, otherwise.

My sociobiology on this matter: note the slight majority of female humans,
and the more spontaneous sex-drive of males, AND the higher rate of male
homosexuality over female homosexuality.  These are all related, I think.

The (proverbially ravening) male sex-drive stands a better chance of being
satisfied if women are in greater supply.  Well, women ARE in *slightly*
greater supply, but not enough for some turkeys.  So, by defining cultural
partitions (masculine/feminine), and exercising by dint of superior male
agression a separation so great that any men crossing the boundary into
the feminine are forced further along (and away from women), the remaining
males have a better pick.

Pretty grim, huh?  Of course, this is such a mechanistic view that one
is tempted to look at other mammals for evidence against it.  But don't:
other mammals don't have culture, to speak of.

People always want to look at things in terms of survival value, when
they think of evolution.  It's not always like that!  Some patterns
are just THERE.  Flowers are all different colors--but few animals
other than humans have color vision, so what's going on?  (Maybe the
Crown of Creation myth comes out of our belief that it's all been put
here by the gods for our appreciation.)

As a man who has just discovered flowers (despite my slight male tendency
to red-green color-blindness--I was up in the Sierras last month and
just went totally nuts over them for the first time in my life) I fail
to see what the hell that has to do with survival, or masculinity, or
femininity, or Darwin, or what.  Stuff it, people.

I think flowers are pretty.  I think supermasculinity and superfemininity
are insidiously ugly.  I accept these as patterns.  However, I am not
loathe to try to civilize some of the ugly ones out, if possible.

	Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)