So here's the deal.

First if you get tagged you need to answer the following question. If you just happened to stop bye I think it would be cool if you answered too.

If you just happened here then I guess your done but if I tagged you here then you should make your own question blog and go harass others with tags. ;0)

Actually I like this idea.

This is where the game started. So I say go here and comment on her question after you do mine and make your own crap.

http://www.thoughts.com/debbiestrange/blog/tag-blog-409495/

O.k. here is my question.

Why has society become more accepting of watching women commit sexual acts upon each other compared to men committing sexual acts upon each other?
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------

This is a good question and actually something I’ve thought about many times over (how many thoughts pass through a persons head in a day? A week? A month? Their lifetime…? So many…)

First: I’m not certain societies views on this have changed, so I’m not going to comment in terms of a change mentality.

However, society is, in my bloody opinion a heck of a lot more acceptable of girl-on-girl sex than dude-a-la-dude sex. Why? Well,

I’m a biologist, and a rationalist, at least in terms of thoughts on social functioning; hence, I’m a big believer in a pragmatic approach to cultural phenomena. So my first analysis leans towards a more….pseudo-scientific approach to why same-sex female eroticism is more socially acceptable (at least in the context of Western English speaking countries, which are whom I’m most familiar with) than same-sex male pairings.

For a frame of reference, I must mention that a while ago I came across a book, detailing the disutility of female, matriarchal societies throughout most of the world. The study found that having a society set up whereby women were the dominant decision-makers proved too great a cost, genetically, to women. Boiled down to its core;

Women have only their single body to continue their genetic line. Engaging in conflict, hunting, and social politics jeopardizes this future. Males however, have a genetic incentive to assume roles of leadership and to expand their ‘power’ within their and other communities because it provides them with greater access to young, nubile females; the better to increase their chances at genetic continuity.

Hence, men, males rather, have an incentive to rule, and become ‘famous’ because of the status, and its ability to compete with an advantage on the mating stage. Females have an incentive to lessen their exposure to situations where their only genetic box, i.e. their own bodies, is maximized in terms of safety.

So, what does this all have to do with female-female versus male-male sexual tolerance?

The male’s role is to accentuate power, prestige and status. A man who tolerates a socially unacceptable practice, i.e. male-male contact, has a great deal of genetic danger they are facing; access to females. In the eyes of other male members in society, they can be ‘hedged’ out from competition for viable mates, resources etc. Conversely, the male desire to procreate has no danger to its status in competition with females; hence female-female is less of a threat to male genetic continuity. In addition, females’ primary means of competition is with other females; hence, status lost in the eyes of other females is almost negligible if it increases their desirability in the eyes of males. Male competition is against other males. Female competition too, is directed to attract males. The risks of female-female coitus are much less than male-male.

Now from a purely … emotional (?) or rather opinion based reasoning why one is more accepted than the other? Well, one society’s viewpoints are only one society’s viewpoints. Women are universally, in sapiens, Homo, the keepers of the next generation. Thus, their phenotypes are necessarily more ‘attractive’ for people. We’ve decided to universally recognize ‘soft’ features, curves, big eyes, etc as ‘more’ stimulating. This though is a species dependant interpretation. For peacocks, the males are, to us anyways, more attractive. Most species, male/female physical appearances are near-indistinguishable. In some cultures, ‘thick’ women are more attractive than ‘skinny’ women. In others, ‘long’ necks are the height of couture.

Western societies are dominated by capitalistic ideals, and single, authoritarian organizational structures, hence the emphasis is on ‘male-ness’. Culture chooses to place females as the penultimate in terms of beauty. Personally though, the human body has its share of equal works of art, and ‘back-to-the-drawing-board’. We as societies though, worship the female form, and view maleness as intrinsically-male. We’ve separated the sexes into ‘attractive’ and ‘functional’. It’s not a question of sexual tolerance, to me; it’s a question of societal form.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question? Hmmmmm……I guess we’ll stick with gender stuff. Trans-gendered people, should they be allowed to marry same biological sexed individuals?