I was there for the first one, and I’m delighted that I’m here for this one! Well done!
I got a good laugh from that – at the same time I went “ewww”.
Too bad the WW II kiss didn’t take place on VE day, because this is very much a Victory for Equality. And long overdue. Now the scars from those wounds which have been inflicted for so long on the LGBT community can, hopefully, begin to heal.
Legislation can’t stop disgust.
Sick. Not even funny
Shouldn’t the V-J be changed to something else?This was not a Victory in Japan.
You’ve got the balls to replace Edith the nurse.
Luckovich does understand what the term “V-J” means, doesn’t he?
I could be wrong, but I suspect OldCoal was talking about behavioral dominance rather than genetic dominance. Certainly agree that it is polygenic at the very least, even leaving out the issues of variations in expressivity and gene penetrance. I saw one article that suggested it was epigenetic, but this is not my field. I can talk to the range of psychological expression — a spectrum, not a switch — but not the genes!
No, I wish I knew more. That sounds very interesting.
I don’t know the biology or the psychology, but historically there seems to be variation in how much same-sex activity is allowed/tolerated/ecouraged etc. Famously, there was a lot of bisexuality in ancient Greece, though not much exclusive homosexuality. The best evidence comes from classical Athens, where there was a lot of bisexuality among at least the upper classes, perhaps less in the middle classes. In Athens and in some other places we know of (Crete, for instance) it was fairly common for an older man (the “erastes”) to take a younger lover (the “eromenos”). The classic text is Plato’s “Symposium”, but there’s lots of other evidence. There’s an interesting court case about such a relationship, either Lysias I or Lysias 3, I can’t remember just now which. My own hunch is that quite a lot of people are at least a little bisexual, and whether or not it gets expressed depends partly on social circumstances.
Totally agree. And things that are technically the same behavior can be used for different purposes as well, including more negative or more positive. As I recall, dolphins are pretty playful sexually, including same-sex. Wolves less so, and there are more dominance hierarchies involved.
I said: “Rather I believe it is a normal reaction to an unfortunate – and abnormal – condition.”
Hiram Bingham said, “Not a condition, a ‘conditioning.’”
Are you saying that sexuality is due, all or in part, to our conditioning? (I partially agree, and only up to a point). But what about all the discourse here regarding genetically-based behavior? The contributors seem to be well-versed in their knowledge. Can their opinions be dismissed?
That’s technical for sure, but what I can follow is very interesting. It seems that genetics is a tad more complicated than wrinkled or smooth pea pods.
I wonder if different levels of explanation are appropriate for different purposes. I’m pretty much a materialist, but I’m not opposed to explanations of behavior at the psychological level, the historical level, the social or cultural level, etc. If I’m trying to explain some aspect of Greek or Roman behavior (such as Why did the Romans of the Imperial period accept the cult of the Emperors? or Why did the Roman magistrates prosecute Christians who didn’t acknowledge the cult of the Emperors?) I don’t go to physical explanation, I go to historical and social explanation.
May 31, 2017