Bisexuality makes sense, Homosexuality doesn't.

Page 3 of 4 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,786
Location: Poland

23 Feb 2018, 3:08 am

With this logic, worker ants and bees should be impossible. Yet they do exist.

Hint: you are not the sole carrier of your DNA. You have relatives. Improving their chances of survival improves the chances of survival of your genes. And humans have evolved in tribes.


_________________
There is no such thing as normality.
However, there is such thing as mental health.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,737
Location: temperate zone

23 Feb 2018, 5:41 am

magz wrote:
With this logic, worker ants and bees should be impossible. Yet they do exist.

Hint: you are not the sole carrier of your DNA. You have relatives. Improving their chances of survival improves the chances of survival of your genes. And humans have evolved in tribes.


Thanks for proving my point. Worker ants in a colony are all the daughters of the one queen ant. The worker bees in a hive tend to be the daughters of the one queen bee. Both worker bees, and worker ants, exist precisely because of what I am talking about- they serve the queen to continue their own DNA.

Let me give YOU a hint. Sharing DNA with your relatives is the very thing I am talking about. Learn to read please.
Our Lesbian lady scientist has to do something that helps her own relatives survive, AND survive at the expense of folks who are not her relatives.


If our Lesbian lady lives in Paris France and cures cancer then she may save the lives of millions of folks on the other side of the planet in China, but she herself dies childless. So how does that help her propagate her own DNA, or the DNA of her family, or of her "tribe" of fellow Frenchmen?


The discovery may also help Frenchmen survive, but not in greater numbers that it would help all other populations on the planet. So the relative frequency of the lesbian lady's genes would not increase beyond that of everyone else's. So her discovery would not cause an increase in the next human generation of her own genes relative to that everyone else's genes in the population. Therefor no natural selection. Therefore no evolution. Therefore no gain her to own DNA. Therefore no reason to propagate lesbianism. By no reason I mean no force from nature to propagate it (not making a personal value judgement).



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,786
Location: Poland

23 Feb 2018, 5:49 am

You are perfectly right.
Only much more people are likely to help rising their nephew than to win Nobel Prize.


_________________
There is no such thing as normality.
However, there is such thing as mental health.


Goldilocks
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 7 Nov 2017
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 223
Location: The woods

23 Feb 2018, 6:11 am

I was going to reply this, then I remembered at one point people tried to use science to justify racism, slavery, colonisation and genocide.

So believe what you want but don't lie to yourself and say you believe these thing because of 'science' because despite what we believe, we can use science to approve or disprove any hypothesis.

Just be homophobic honestly instead of using pseudo scientific facts.


_________________
It has all happened before, it will probably happen again.
Nothing is new in the face of the Universe.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,914
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

23 Feb 2018, 7:46 am

Goldilocks wrote:
I was going to reply this, then I remembered at one point people tried to use science to justify racism, slavery, colonisation and genocide.

So believe what you want but don't lie to yourself and say you believe these thing because of 'science' because despite what we believe, we can use science to approve or disprove any hypothesis.

Just be homophobic honestly instead of using pseudo scientific facts.



What’s homophobic by saying that humans are perhaps born bisexual?

Defined strict sexual orientations only seem to exist in humans - even heterosexuality.

You are just seeking for a reason to get offended.



XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,084
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Feb 2018, 7:59 am

naturalplastic wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Skilpadde wrote:
In an over populated world, homosexuality makes perfect sense.


In certain animals, asexual presents itself as such that an asexual creature will devote itself to helping raise and care for its sibling's offspring, thus ensuring that their genetic line continues.

Besides, what matters is the survival of the species, not individual genetic lineages.


No. The individual linneages DO matter because THAT is how natural selection operates.

Your above example of the person who cures cancer is perfect example of how natural selection does NOT operate.
Your hypothetical person who finds a cure for cancer but who does not have kids. That person's achievement will save the lives of millions of strangers unrelated to the person who finds the cure. It will cause their unrelated DNA to survive. But will not cause that person who made the discovery's own DNA to continue. So whatever genes that contriubuted to the combination of talents that enabled them to make the discovery will not be helped to continue by that person's discovery. Therefore their discvery will do nothing to help keep the discoverer's traits in the population.


No. The survival of the species will always take precedent over individual genetic lines.

I don't expect that people who have a silly black/white version of evolution in their minds will ever be persuaded. A person who has discovered the cure for cancer will forever have contributed to the survival of the species much more than some random idiot who has a billion kids.

Most of you are still obsessed with individual genetic lines.


Obsessed because we all understand the basics that natural selection operates on hereditary linneages, and not by awarding Nobel prizes for saving the whole species.

{person who has discovered the cure for cancer will forever have contributed to the survival of the species much
more}

That may be true. But so what? It doesn't have a thing to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about evolution.

Your childless lesbian scientist maybe more worthy of esteem and honor than a trailor trash ex con who knocks up lots of girls. But we are not talking about who gets the Nobel Prize from a committee of humans who have human values. We are talking about how dumb mindless natural selection works.

Lets do a thought experiment. Your childless lesbian scientist finds a cure for cancer. This causes millions of folks of later generations to live longer. But how does that cause this lesbian scientist's own DNA to persist in the species (including presumably the genes for lesbianism)? How does her achievement cause her trait of lesbianism to persist and or spread in the species? That's what you need to explain to us.


First, I don't "need" to explain a damned thing.

Secondly, the way "natural selection" works is as follows: survivors survive. That's it.

The original question was homosexuality "makes sense" in the context of evolution. As has already been pointed out, homosexuality does not negate either the ability or the desire to have children. For those of us who do not have children, we can assist in caring for our nieces and nephews, thereby helping our genetic line. Lastly, like it or not, humans are the most socially complex primate species on the planet, which factors directly into "natural selection" and evolution. Ignore it all you like, but it doesn't make it any less relevant.

If we want to get hung-up on what "makes sense" according to "evolution," then why aren't all humans raging nymphomaniacs obsessed with pushing out as many kids as possible? People would really do well if they would be content with the fact that "evolution" isn't some guided process towards a defined end-game, but a crap-shoot where nature throws as much sh_t at the wall as possible to see what sticks.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (moderator)


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,914
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

23 Feb 2018, 8:00 am

magz wrote:
With this logic, worker ants and bees should be impossible. Yet they do exist.

Hint: you are not the sole carrier of your DNA. You have relatives. Improving their chances of survival improves the chances of survival of your genes. And humans have evolved in tribes.



Worker bees actually can breed as well; if the Queen dies; the queen secrets some kind of hormones that makes the workers sterile - so her role basically is population controller more than just a breeder.

Bee queen is actually selected, not born, bees select a healthy larvae and feeds it royal jelly; it triggers physiological transformations leading to a queen.



XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,084
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Feb 2018, 8:02 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Goldilocks wrote:
I was going to reply this, then I remembered at one point people tried to use science to justify racism, slavery, colonisation and genocide.

So believe what you want but don't lie to yourself and say you believe these thing because of 'science' because despite what we believe, we can use science to approve or disprove any hypothesis.

Just be homophobic honestly instead of using pseudo scientific facts.



What’s homophobic by saying that humans are perhaps born bisexual?

Defined strict sexual orientations only seem to exist in humans - even heterosexuality.

You are just seeking for a reason to get offended.


Some people try to use the "evolution" angle as a way to discredit homosexuality, or declare it "wrong."

Not that anyone here is doing that, but I can see where she might be getting that vibe.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (moderator)


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,914
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

23 Feb 2018, 8:07 am

naturalplastic wrote:
magz wrote:
With this logic, worker ants and bees should be impossible. Yet they do exist.

Hint: you are not the sole carrier of your DNA. You have relatives. Improving their chances of survival improves the chances of survival of your genes. And humans have evolved in tribes.


Thanks for proving my point. Worker ants in a colony are all the daughters of the one queen ant. The worker bees in a hive tend to be the daughters of the one queen bee. Both worker bees, and worker ants, exist precisely because of what I am talking about- they serve the queen to continue their own DNA.

Let me give YOU a hint. Sharing DNA with your relatives is the very thing I am talking about. Learn to read please.
Our Lesbian lady scientist has to do something that helps her own relatives survive, AND survive at the expense of folks who are not her relatives.


If our Lesbian lady lives in Paris France and cures cancer then she may save the lives of millions of folks on the other side of the planet in China, but she herself dies childless. So how does that help her propagate her own DNA, or the DNA of her family, or of her "tribe" of fellow Frenchmen?


The discovery may also help Frenchmen survive, but not in greater numbers that it would help all other populations on the planet. So the relative frequency of the lesbian lady's genes would not increase beyond that of everyone else's. So her discovery would not cause an increase in the next human generation of her own genes relative to that everyone else's genes in the population. Therefor no natural selection. Therefore no evolution. Therefore no gain her to own DNA. Therefore no reason to propagate lesbianism. By no reason I mean no force from nature to propagate it (not making a personal value judgement).



Perhaps her siblings may be as smart as her - and being the siblings of a successful scientist may increase their chances to breed or even make them richer.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,198
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

23 Feb 2018, 8:13 am

It would seem, according to evolution, that polygamy is great (give only men with resources access to build the next generation), erasing human rights and social safety nets would be great (let the healthiest survive!), and in that sense things look a lot more ideal for evolution in the shell states we'd last want to live in.

I think right or wrong have to be considered emergent values, what few values evolution seems to have revolve around nuclear family (or at least parenting) and tribe. It's essentially an amoral system though.

While I doubt I'm telling anyone here things they don't know (at most there may be some exceptions and caveats to my first point) I think it would be a bit crazy for people to look to evolution for defining their morality. There are things we can't change about how it works that we have to build rules around rather than over but at the end of the day I think we're more it's captives and we're trying to wrest a better world from it. As we contemplate these things that makes it more the juggernaut in the room than any sort of desired guide.


_________________
“Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.” - Friedrich Nietzsche


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,063
Location: Reading, England

23 Feb 2018, 8:51 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
So what makes strict homosexuality an advantageous genetic variant? Or do humans have bisexual tendency by default, like the other primates, then each leans to one direction or another?

There are a few things to consider.

Firstly, the potential advantages of having a gay uncle or aunt. You're gay, you don't have kids of your own. Your brother does have kids. The best way to help your genes survive is to help your nieces and nephews out. They effectively have a bonus parent. That gives them a better chance of surviving to adulthood and passing on your genes. Think that sounds ridiculous? It's basically how meerkat society works.

Secondly, "two dads are better than one dad and one mum". This doesn't really apply in mammals, although some men do lactate. But when species exhibit sexual dimorphism, a same-sex couple of the larger sex can control a larger territory and more resources than an opposite-sex couple and so their young have better survival rates. This is best known in black swans, where males are significantly larger than females. About 1 in 4 males are homosexual. Either they'll have a surrogate (which means one of them gets to pass their genes on) or they'll just steal a nest.

There's also a view that says that genes which promote homosexuality in one sex will promote hypersexuality or other evolutionary advantageous behaviour in the other. This means that the genes are still advantageous overall and will be passed to the next generation.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,914
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

23 Feb 2018, 9:00 am

The_Walrus wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
So what makes strict homosexuality an advantageous genetic variant? Or do humans have bisexual tendency by default, like the other primates, then each leans to one direction or another?

There are a few things to consider.

Firstly, the potential advantages of having a gay uncle or aunt. You're gay, you don't have kids of your own. Your brother does have kids. The best way to help your genes survive is to help your nieces and nephews out. They effectively have a bonus parent. That gives them a better chance of surviving to adulthood and passing on your genes. Think that sounds ridiculous? It's basically how meerkat society works.

Secondly, "two dads are better than one dad and one mum". This doesn't really apply in mammals, although some men do lactate. But when species exhibit sexual dimorphism, a same-sex couple of the larger sex can control a larger territory and more resources than an opposite-sex couple and so their young have better survival rates. This is best known in black swans, where males are significantly larger than females. About 1 in 4 males are homosexual. Either they'll have a surrogate (which means one of them gets to pass their genes on) or they'll just steal a nest.

There's also a view that says that genes which promote homosexuality in one sex will promote hypersexuality or other evolutionary advantageous behaviour in the other. This means that the genes are still advantageous overall and will be passed to the next generation.



This indeed makes sense, but can we say that each male black swan is either born strictly hetero or born strictly homo? Or do their orientations change based on circumstances?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,737
Location: temperate zone

23 Feb 2018, 1:19 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
magz wrote:
With this logic, worker ants and bees should be impossible. Yet they do exist.

Hint: you are not the sole carrier of your DNA. You have relatives. Improving their chances of survival improves the chances of survival of your genes. And humans have evolved in tribes.


Thanks for proving my point. Worker ants in a colony are all the daughters of the one queen ant. The worker bees in a hive tend to be the daughters of the one queen bee. Both worker bees, and worker ants, exist precisely because of what I am talking about- they serve the queen to continue their own DNA.

Let me give YOU a hint. Sharing DNA with your relatives is the very thing I am talking about. Learn to read please.
Our Lesbian lady scientist has to do something that helps her own relatives survive, AND survive at the expense of folks who are not her relatives.


If our Lesbian lady lives in Paris France and cures cancer then she may save the lives of millions of folks on the other side of the planet in China, but she herself dies childless. So how does that help her propagate her own DNA, or the DNA of her family, or of her "tribe" of fellow Frenchmen?


The discovery may also help Frenchmen survive, but not in greater numbers that it would help all other populations on the planet. So the relative frequency of the lesbian lady's genes would not increase beyond that of everyone else's. So her discovery would not cause an increase in the next human generation of her own genes relative to that everyone else's genes in the population. Therefor no natural selection. Therefore no evolution. Therefore no gain her to own DNA. Therefore no reason to propagate lesbianism. By no reason I mean no force from nature to propagate it (not making a personal value judgement).



Perhaps her siblings may be as smart as her - and being the siblings of a successful scientist may increase their chances to breed or even make them richer.


Okay. This is a little more on the right track. Maybe.

Even better if lesbianism were somehow genetically linked to the genes for the right smarts (in the field of biomedical research or whatever it takes to cure cancer). Kinda like the way sickle cell anemia is linked to resistence to malaria.

Local populations that lived for centuries in areas with malaria baring mosquitos have high proportions of folks with sickle cell anemia because sickle cell anemia is the bad result of getting two copies of a gene that does something good if you only get one copy- the good thing being defending your body from malaria.

My own long time speculation has been to wonder if something like that doesn't cause autism.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,375

23 Feb 2018, 5:08 pm

As far as whatever human condition exists as a label
or not per what body parts get used with others to create stuff,
including, Children; one cannot limit this discussion to the Slow Toad
of Classical Evolution on its own; for as before mentioned some primitive
tribes that focus on a 'work of the night' in missionary position leaning ways only
create a culture where small social group bonds together for a certain kind of Heterosexual
Sex as religion where there are not even any primitive words to describe either 'Homosexual'
or 'Masturbation'. Of course, considering this is culture and culture can do anything Human using
the Tool of Languages and all other Culturally Created tools; one can and will surely make the language
appropriate or inappropriate in small enough groups where otherwise than following along with the 'game plan'
results in outcast status which without the 'big safety nets' for survival, modern societies bring for greater independence
of 'strange' in more extensive interdependent ways versus best to do the 'wild thing' as prescribed by 'the book'; but anyway, science suggests that there is also a one generation
change in Hormones even at the Beginning in the Womb
that can and will provide an Epigenetic Greater Potential for
same stuff call of the wild as such; but course, when we speak of humans
in what does or does not have to make sense in any behavior humans do; there
is negative and positive cultural changes spoon fed from birth; whether or not there
are other 'different sex' opportunities as far as the environment goes to relieve the instinct
of release as such to get the job at hand done as it were and as it continues to come different
and same in missionary positions of primitive tribes too; and in the converse of that; there are
some tribes with cultures that bring the dictate that the more variety of contributing fathers of semen
with just one woman leading up to one pregnancy provides a greater benefit of wisdom and overall skills
to the child that comes next; while this doesn't physiologically happen, when everyone partakes and feels
like they are part of the child that comes, the village is more likely to raise the child than what ownership
of other humans bring. And no, one cannot leave the Inner Universe of Human Being Emotions in ways
of feelings and senses in moving connecting and co-creating as limitless ways of changing cultures out
of this either in ways of empathy and sympathy and compassion and even Maslow's and Fowler's
Transcendence of Agape Love for all as Einstein suggested was the way to go to contribute
most for a species who and that relatively as whole in DNA hasn't changed in thousands
of years; what kind of sexual behavior one ends up doing is both influenced by
nature and nurture and that should be common sense but it's not for some
folks aren't seeing a bigger picture of the Entire Human Condition;
depends on one's life experience, as even John Nash admitted
his 'Game Theory' was flawed for he admitted he
didn't have a nuanced Creative Emotional
Life that brings all the other
colors that are beyond
material reductionism
in. Anyway, we do share very similar DNA and
an only thing keeping one person as the last kid picked
on sports teams to being an Athletic Director; or a kid picked
on as the weakest one in the Middle School Aquarium; may be as close
to a 99LB weakling and a set of concrete weights with plastic from K-Mart
as it's true somehow without any anabolic steroids, i made that change from
walking tall worm to 240LB looking Linebacker, at 58 years of age leg pressing
1020 LBS, 52 reps these days; couldn't speak until age 4; couldn't write a creative
thing mostly through college and the work place too; and was made fun of in how i couldn't
even move more in balance than a dizzy fly into my 30's. I am literally considered a Dance Legend
now starting that free lance career after a shut-in period of 66 Months then with the worst pain known
to humankind with 18 other medical disorders in a synergy of life threatening health conditions back then
until i started my Free Lance Dance Career Pushing 9000 miles in public now after 54 months of doing that now;
it's true i could go on with other amazing facts that are documented with photos and videos too; but here's a thing;
if one discounts the potential of change per moving from plastic to more of
an elastic way of life as incredible all natural Human potential of change per
Epigenetic Potential and Neuroplastic Change too; in unpacking
dormant DNA in one lifetime, yes, even as late as one's 50's
or after that for a Grand Ma Moses Painter or whatever
Human Potential hasn't come out for the old
cliche of many more closets than just
sexual orientation now; it becomes
a little more apparent when one actually
does it that very likely other folks could do it too
per that very similar DNA with the proper Environmental
Challenge and dedicated effort in practice that never ends.
Sure, my AQ for Autism went from 44/45 to 11; although i am
still diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome for as I am today; and
yes, back in the Summer of my Epigenetic and Neuroplastic change
i also went from an EQ Score of the mid 50's, as also documented here
to the mid 90's now, where even noting my non-verbal language in the way
i moved; when my former Boss met me again, he remarked I was like an entirely
different moving person as no longer did i move like plastic per his words; instead,
it was more like a Lion's walk on the Savannah or an African American Dude in the Mall.
For true at core
we all indigenous
human beings of Earth
only separated from the Call
of the Wild by the domesticated
Clothes and Culture we wear. Could
Explain while i'm just about as Strong as
an Ape now and lovely young women follow
me all around town video-taping me with evidence
of that upon request too; for those who per Fowler and
his stages of Faith as Human Love and Trust rise up
to the transcendent
level of Agape Love now; they do more.
It's true some folks do more than others;
But no one can reduce a human being to just
an equation of science; for it is true the inner universe
of being is smART more like 60 percent Art when the
Call of the Wild comes out more free again; and we
get more in touch
of the move
and connect
and create of what
makes humans great;
or
not.
For true there is Relative Free
Will where some folks do more and less;
in many complex and simpler 'twitter' ways of life.
Use it or lose it applies to all stuff animal and human animal too.
For me at least, i use every last drop of my known and felt and sensed
Human Potential and more to come as it's just a myth that all folks grow
dumber and weaker with age for those who don't use it until the last blink of life.
Averages
are based
on twitter
talk
and
screen potatoes, now;
and couch potatoes too, still;
and that's just a current cultural fact;
almost everything 'we' do is due to Cultural Evolution more than
the inherited gift of potential more; Depending on circumstance
that's either positive or negative now. But no; one can reduce themselves down
to 'material
reductionism
of science';
but one
can't
control
beyond what
material reductionism
will prove in one's next door
neighbor, who is open to most all change.
I've seen many a self-fulfilling prophecy as
to what folks become or do not; by their spoon
fed cultural philosophies of life from Birth; or what
they transcend to do in actual practice making more potential real.
It's not a secret when the grades of reap come in all soWed up by Karma that's real.
Anyway; this 'Wrong Planet Bisexuality Makes Sense, Homosexuality Doesn't', is an
excellent topic to expand a few horizons of life for those who care to actually do it..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


RainbowUnion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 899

23 Feb 2018, 5:12 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I mean from evolutionary speaking perspective; strict homosexuality, if it's something entirely genetic, doesn't really make sense, it's counter-productive for procreating - even if we assume that homosexual people in the past did have children, but why would it be as an evolutionary advantageous trait that survived over eons of time if they are less likely to have children than others?

Bisexuality on the other hand, well, it may make the tribe tad happier, less conflicted perhaps, and doesn't limit procreation - and may be beneficial for offspring in times before cultural strict monogamy (as having 3 caregivers instead of 2, more expanded family units....etc).

Homosexuality does exist in primate species as "homosexual behavior" which means that it's a behavior that occasionally happens by the same individuals who would engage heterosexual behavior, yet there's no record on individuals who are strictly homosexual as like "I don't like guys at all" - or - or strictly heterosexual for that matter.

100% gay or 100% straight is something only seen in humans, so basically primates like chimps are bisexual who engage in heterosexual behavior most of the time, and homosexual behavior occasionally.

So what makes strict homosexuality an advantageous genetic variant? Or do humans have bisexual tendency by default, like the other primates, then each leans to one direction or another?


Population control. At least in some species, such as mice.


_________________
"It must be understood, that neither by word nor deed had I given Fortunato cause to doubt my good-will. I continued as was my wont, to smile in his face, and he did not perceive that my smile was at the thought of his immolation."

Edgar Allan Poe, The Cask of Amontillado