Which Is Worse

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Phil,

To further this hijack a little bit, can you think of any traits that are comparable to homosexuality that you believe also are examples of this "frayed wiring" explanation that are as widespread (both horizontally and vertically) as homosexuality? You mentioned kinks and fetishes, and I think that is a good point. Anything else that you think firmly rejects "fit" explanations?

[/ QUOTE ]
Would peackocks tails be fetishistic, what about large breasts?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can simply assert that those are the same thing. For instance, where is the runaway explosion in any particular fetish or even general fetishistic behavior that you would expect with sexual selection. a la the peacock tail?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't asserting anything. I'm just wondering what the point about fetishes is and whether the ability to fetish is evolutionarily useful. Isn't the peacock's tail an example of a runaway fetish?

Would natural selection work well (or at all) without the ability to sexually fixate on the irrelevent and the bizarre?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the tail isn't a fetish, or at least it isn't a kink, and not a fetish in the common sense of the word. Its ubiquitous. And thats exactly my point. The examples of sexually selected "bizarre and irrelevant" traits are things just like the peacock tail, things that are propped up by their own weight and positively feedback in a runaway fashion until they reach some limit. Human sexual kinks and fetishes don't seem to fit that mold. They aren't very prevalent, they don't APPEAR to impact fitness, they aren't selected for. It just seems like two very different things. The only thing they have in common is that they seem superficially "bizarre and irrelevant." The details are entirely different.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Phil,

To further this hijack a little bit, can you think of any traits that are comparable to homosexuality that you believe also are examples of this "frayed wiring" explanation that are as widespread (both horizontally and vertically) as homosexuality? You mentioned kinks and fetishes, and I think that is a good point. Anything else that you think firmly rejects "fit" explanations?

[/ QUOTE ]
Would peackocks tails be fetishistic, what about large breasts?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can simply assert that those are the same thing. For instance, where is the runaway explosion in any particular fetish or even general fetishistic behavior that you would expect with sexual selection. a la the peacock tail?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't asserting anything. I'm just wondering what the point about fetishes is and whether the ability to fetish is evolutionarily useful. Isn't the peacock's tail an example of a runaway fetish?

Would natural selection work well (or at all) without the ability to sexually fixate on the irrelevent and the bizarre?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the tail isn't a fetish, or at least it isn't a kink, and not a fetish in the common sense of the word. Its ubiquitous. And thats exactly my point. The examples of sexually selected "bizarre and irrelevant" traits are things just like the peacock tail, things that are propped up by their own weight and positively feedback in a runaway fashion until they reach some limit. Human sexual kinks and fetishes don't seem to fit that mold. They aren't very prevalent, they don't APPEAR to impact fitness, they aren't selected for. It just seems like two very different things. The only thing they have in common is that they seem superficially "bizarre and irrelevant." The details are entirely different.

[/ QUOTE ]
but it wasn't ubiquitous at the beginning, initialy it may have been a fetish that has runaway and become ubiquitious.

You seem to want an example of a runaway fetish that hasn't runaway? That's asking a bit much

chez

[Silent A]

On the fetishes front, is there any evidence that fetishes are hereditary? And if not, is it only because no one is doing the required research?

It also depends on what you mean, exactly, by a "fetish". Certainly breast fetishes can't be easily distinguished from natural selection but not, say, sucking on toes in front of a video camera.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for the O.P. obviously the gay sex is worse. How is this even a question? Dog fights are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

And earlier someone took the other side and also said "how is this even a question". That's when I know I am doing my job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your initial question "Which is worse?" implies that both things are bad. What tells you that this is the case? By asking this way you trapped people and started a "dogfight" of your own.

How about "Which is worse: Auschwitz or Hiroshima?"...

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The animals don't consent because they are not capable of consenting.

[/ QUOTE ]

What an ignorant statement. I can open my back door to see if my dog wants to go out, if she voluntarily goes out, then she consented to going out. If I have to beat her to make her go out, then she didn't consent. Your statement shows that you are the one incapable of rational thought. Animals very definitely can "consent" to their activity or be forced to do something. Life/brains are not binary, where humans have everything "ON" and every other being has everything "OFF".