| NOTE: Some postings may have been deleted at the discretion of Ben
Boxer. Erotic pictures posted on the regular version of the list are automatically
deleted from the digest and are archived separately. Viewing them requires
a password available only to members. Profiles posted to the list are
also moved into a separate viewing area, but do not require a password.
Click here to browse through
them.
In this issue:
-In Search of the 'Gay Gene' Ben Boxer notes: The article below is definitely worth reading in its entirety.
Headline:
Text: A small but growing group of researchers, however, says evidence from both human and animal societies suggests that same-sex attraction does, in fact, have an important evolutionary function. "The recognition of how widespread same-sex courtship is, and that it has an adaptive significance, is a growing trend," said Joan Roughgarden, a biologist at Stanford University. The primary function that same-sex attraction provides, scientists like Roughgarden argue, is that it promotes the formation of alliances that help the parties involved outlive, outperform and even outreproduce competitors. "We're using some newer concepts about sexual behavior," said Frank Muscarella of Barry University in Florida, who offered support for this theory in the fall issue of the Journal of Homosexuality. Mainstream scientists remain skeptical. The new theories rely on studies suggesting that same-sex relationships are, or have been, far more common than traditionally believed, a conclusion that skeptics question. "My feeling is that evolutionary theory mainly helps us understand why most people are heterosexual, and why homosexuality is rare -- it's not reproductively productive," said Lee Ellis, a sociologist at Minot State University in North Dakota. "Evolution isn't very good at explaining oddities," he added. "It mainly explains where most people are." But proponents counter that most human and animal societies have been teeming with same-sex attraction -- the real fluke is Western culture's recently developed aversion to it. For another thing, they say bisexuals far outnumber homosexuals. This idea allows them to raise the possibility that an animal could use benefits gained from a homosexual liaison, such as higher status, to reproduce more or care for offspring better. "Most individuals who engage in homosexual behavior are, in practice, bisexual," wrote R.C. Kirkpatrick, a biodiversity specialist with the Nature Conservancy, an environmental group, who authored another paper on the subject in the June issue of Current Anthropology. Both researchers advocate dropping the distinction between "gay" and "straight" individuals. Nature makes no such distinction, and neither did most humans throughout history, they say. Research should focus on a more neutral, simple concept of homosexual or homoerotic behavior, according to the researchers. The two researchers cite an array of examples that they say show how such activity could boost one's chances of survival and reproductive success. Kirkpatrick's paper cited studies on animals and on various stages of Greek, Chinese, Japanese and U.S. culture. Among the Sambia of New Guinea, homosexual interactions among warriors may solidify ties vital for mutual defense, Kirkpatrick argues. In some Melanesian societies, 17th-century Japan and ancient Athens, men were actually expected to be attracted to other men. The ancient Greeks' propensity for homoerotic bonds usually involved an older, higher-status male and a younger "client," who gained prestige and status through the liaison, the researchers say. In each case, homosexual bonds helped bring success and status, the authors argue. For males of most species, higher status means more access to mates. This sets up a classic evolutionary argument: Organisms displaying homosexual activity would produce more offspring, passing their traits to successive generations. The examples the two researchers cite aren't limited to humans, or to males. Among bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, young females typically emigrate to a new group, where they promptly initiate sexual contact with dominant females. "They form 'friendships' and alliances with established females that allow them to become integrated into the group, and more importantly, allow them access to food resources," Muscarella wrote. He acknowledged that the theory has yet to pass crucial tests, such as a study of whether homosexually leaning animals indeed have more offspring. The new research draws in part from a 1999 book by biologist Bruce Bagemihl, who also wrote that homosexual activity serves underappreciated social and family roles. The book, "Biological Exuberance," offers evidence from the animal world that homosexuality is common: lesbian pairs in several gull, goose and tern species raising young without male help; male black swan pairs raising cygnets on their own, using the female as little more than a temporary device for procreation. In a book scheduled for publication next year, "Evolution's Rainbow," Roughgarden speculates that same-sex relations may have evolved as a glue for coalition-building among animals, including humans. This hypothesis "also explains homophobia," she said. "Same-sex coalition building is usually a threat to a hierarchy. That sets up a tension, and the alpha male is going to try to break up the coalition." No one has documented such events among animals, she acknowledged, but then again, "no one has looked." Attempts to explain homosexuality in evolutionary terms aren't new. In past decades, some scientists speculated that evolution retained a "homosexuality gene" only because it occurred with some other, beneficial gene. Advocates of the newer research criticize such views as based on outdated assumptions, such as that homosexual behavior is a fluke, with no possible benefit to those who practice it. But it may be a while, if ever, before mainstream science accepts the newer batch of proposals. There is also dissension among those who generally back the new research. Some of them believe there is a "gay gene"; others don't. Some contend homosexual behavior had adaptive roles from its outset; others say it started out with no function, as a byproduct of sexual evolution, although it could have picked up adaptive uses. Another who disagrees is Dean Hamer, a geneticist with the National Institutes of Health, who has been a key player in the scientific search for a "gay gene." He advocates a theory called "sexual antagonism." This proposes the existence of a gene that causes homosexuality when it occurs in one sex, but tremendous sexual productivity when it appears in the other. Evolution retains the gene because half of its carriers transmit it to their abundant offspring.
"I think what's happened is that there's a new
generation of academics, some of whom are gay,
and some of whom are more open to the idea of
being gay," Muscarella said. "We said these
[previous] arguments don't make sense. These
arguments are based on stereotypes, and we're
going to put forward some new ideas." Pardon my ignorance, but can anybody define a twink to me? I gather that they're all young and not terrible well developed muscularly.
Duffy "A Twinkie is soft and sweet and full of cream....but not always much else." BB was using the diminutive, "Twink" Nils.
My definition is an 18-25yo with too much between their legs and too little between their ears :-) Can often be found twittering to each other in bars or in the gym. Muscle Marys can also qualify as Twinkies.
Pewit
Although I found Nils' definition of Twinx -- "A
Twinkie is soft and sweet and full of cream....but
not always much else." -- to be as classically
definitive of the genre as the Gutenberg edition
is of the Bible, I must admit that Pewit has Twinx
by the balls (however that may disgust him). His
theory of Twinkdom is borne out in the American
version of "Queer As Folk" currently running
(mincing? flexing?) on Showtime. The bizarre
"Suds and Studs Night" segment, set in the
show's Babylon Club where hundreds of young
semi-nude sculptured male bodies glistening with
soap suds slither and slide together through
flashing light as they dance to the shockwaves of
heavy metal music (wank wank wank wank!),
ought to be required viewing for Twinkies 101,
with a choice of oral exams (or anals) scheduled
in the black-lighted room behind the Babylon's
bar (wank wank wank wank!) immediately
thereafter, especially for those of us who
consistently miss the point of Wet T-Shirt
Competitions for Playgirl of the Year. I don't know about you all, but I always thought the British Version of QAF was a hell of a lot better than the American version... Even though both versions depict gay young men as being carefree, bedhoppers, pillpopping studs, I thought the British one had better actors and was more entertaining. The American one looks too "clean", and they only show "quickies" when two guys are getting it on, kinda like an MTV video.
David I have not seen the British version but have read reviews of same and also several comparisons between the two so I cannot speak at first hand, but I am therefore aware of the mishmash some think has been made of the series in the USA, and have thought that it is being judged by very different standards. I have seen every episode of the American version, and my partner, who is 32, and I, at 66, have enjoyed every minute of it. We both disagree with your estimation of the quality of the acting and the quality of the storyline and look forward to viewing it every Sunday night. I have found comparisons between the two versions to reflect much of the difference between British and American experiences of gay life and life in general. The same sort of comparisons were made between the American series "All In The Family" and the British original on which it was based, and the American version was found wanting, but "All In The Family" has withstood the test of time in endless reruns, and I suspect "Queer As Folk" will, too. The simple fact was that "All in the Family" was American, and its British counterpart was British. Never the twain shall meet. This country produced Cole Porter. Britain produced Noel Coward. Each was gay. Each wrote songs. There the comparison ends. One was as valid in and to his culture as was the other in and to his. They were not in competition though they wrote on many of the same themes. We are different cultures, for all our sameness, which move at different tempos in many respects and have quite different values in many areas. I have always found it best to enjoy the things which were British for their being British and the things which were American for being American. In North America, the same principle obtains between the Canadian and United Statesian cultures, with the added difference in Canada of the Quebecois culture on the one side and the British-based culture on the other. I have spent a lot of my life in British cultures, colonial and otherwise, as I have in various facets of American cultures and long since got over the compulsion to compare the merits of any one of those over the others. I have known the real-life counterparts of most of the characters in the American "Queer As Folk" and have at times lived the same kind of life style as they. I don't find them ringing hollow at all, but then I do not watch them with a jaundiced eye that demands they be what I think they ought to be. I recommend "Queer As Folk" to anyone. It does not pretend to be anything other than the episodic portrayal of a segment of the American gay population while at the same time dealing with some very real and quite serious issues. My judgment is that I like it. My partner likes it. I think it's terrific stuff, and I'm glad it's on the air for us to watch. I would rather watch gay men fall in and out of bed together than babes and jocks any day of the week.
Ben Boxer
Dear Ben Boxer,
George of Boston.
From: Jim Gay young men are no different, except for the object of their quest -- not all, of course, but then not all straights are the same, either. "Queer As Folk" depicts a normality within the range of the characters involved. I am not ashamed of them. I am proud that they dare to proceed with their lives according to their lights. They use condoms. They enjoy sex. They do the same things on their side of the fence that are glorified on the heterosexual side by countless films, songs and hetero-celebrity examples in the market today. Why are they wrong? I leave such moralizing to the hypocritical Religious Right. I consider the show a tremendous breakthrough on the American TV scene. I have no doubt that it is prelude to more in-depth dramatic coverage of OTHER gay lifestyles, but it does what it does very well. "Queer As Folk" offers some examples of other than hedonistic lifestyles as well: the gay couple who have been together for 50 years (of whom the chiropractor says to Michael, "I want that to be us."); the mature, previously heterosexually-married chiropractor whose male lover of several years standing died and who is now seeking a permanent relationship with the Michael character who is too infantile to appreciate the offer; the lesbian couple who have taken on the responsibility of a baby and who fulfill their marital and parental responsibilities with devotion; the 17-year-old Justin who has an infinitely more mature attitude toward an ongoing relationship with Brian, who is twelve years older, but is far more an idiotic brat than the teenager who loves him so devotedly and would be eternally faithful, one suspects, if Brian would allow it; the loving support offered by a mother for her two gay sons, one of them HIV+; the traumatic relationship between a father who blindly hates his son's being gay despite the mother's efforts to understand; the rallying of these "bad stereotypes" to the side of a friend drugged and left for dead by a trick, and their midnight race to New York to find and soothe and bring home a desperate runaway friend.
These are only some examples of the interwoven
themes and relationships converging in the show.
You can watch it and see only the "bad
stereotype image" and the "whoring around" if
you like, but I will guarantee that if you come to
the Castro District in San Francisco and walk the
streets on a warm Saturday night or Sunday
afternoon or, God help us, on Halloween, you
will rush home to view the proceedings on
"Queer As Folk" for their sanity and decorum!
An old man is walking through the grocery store and notices
a teenager with red, yellow, green, and blue spiked hair in
the dairy section. As he is staring at the boy, the
teenager looks over at him and says, "What are you looking
at, old man? Didn't you ever do anything outrageous when you
were my age?" The old man ponders for a second, looks at
the kid and replies, "Yes, I did. When I was your age, I
had sex with a parrot. I was just wondering if you were my
son."
End of silverfoxesclub-digest V1 #147
|