Homosexuality in the Forgotten Realms

[Dannyalcatraz]

The likely results of a race with a 2000 year lifespan with, say, 1800 of those years being fertile and an 18 month gestation period is ecological armageddon.

...If an elf has her first child at 200, and has a child a year for the next 200 years, there will be 201 elves.

133, actually, if gestation is 18 months as I posited, resulting in 1197 daughters & sons in 1800 years. (Quick question- does anyone know if WotC actually presented any numbers on elf fertility? Period of fertility? Gestation period? Mortality rates? Number of children per pregnancy?)

If a human has her first child at 20 (and her children at 20, etc.) and each woman has four children, after 200 year, there will be on the order of 2^10, or 1000 female humans.

Numbers that also assume a zero mortality rates & a lot of daughters...

I think most fantasy RPGs have it exactly right; short-lived orcs can rebuild their population quickly, like rabbits, but one good attack on elves can leave them trying to rebuild their population for centuries.

I think you misunderstood my message... I never said that they didn't. Clearly, races that reproduce rapidly have a competitive advantage for acquiring resources and recovery from near-ELEs.

What I was implying was that an intelligent, tool using, environment altering species with a long lifespan and with a high percentage of its lifespan being fertile is a recipe for disaster if they haven't considered the ramifications of unfettered reproduction.

After all, it has been the case in the RW- we fit that description to a "T", after all. We are among the longest-lived critters on the planet. Our gestation & rearing period is relatively long, and our offspring/pregnancy ratio is rather low for mammals. We aren't the only animals that use tools, but no animal uses more.

As surely as we've left our mark, so would longer-lived fecund elves...were there not some force at work (besides wars with other races) acting on their population.

 

[prosfilaes]

Numbers that also assume a zero mortality rates & a lot of daughters...

Not a lot of daughters; four children with half of them being daughters. Furthermore, four children is quite small for pre-modern times; if you'd rather, call it 8 children with a 50% mortality rate or 12 with a 66% mortality rate.

As surely as we've left our mark, so would longer-lived fecund elves...were there not some force at work (besides wars with other races) acting on their population.

For one thing, they're elves; they've got the whole in-tune-with-nature thing going. For another, I see no reason why wars with other races couldn't keep the population down. It really doesn't take that much to keep the elven population in check, and the orcs could afford to smash a whole generation of young men against elven defenses to get a few elves and the associated glory.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

the uterine environment is a major biological determinent interacting with or independant of genetics.

Totally. Two clones will occupy distinct environmental niches both in and out of the uterus. Even with identical genotypes (issuing ostensibly identical sets of genetic instructions), the slightest disparities in environmental input will give rise to different responses since it is impossible for two individuals to occupy the same time and space, the same environmental niche. That's why identical twins aren't perfectly identical.

Absolutely, which is why I reacted as I did to the suggestion that when I said biological, I implied genetics. Huge, huge difference as you say.

Ahh ... so you were referring to biological responses to environment that are not influenced by the body's regulatory pathways ... I see. "Biological hardware," as it were, responding independently of genetic influence. It is good to know your full meaning. Thank you for clearing that up, Shemeska.

I do hope that we can all agree about one thing. A biological component to homosexual behavior, if it can ever be successfully and completely characterized, must be a remarkably complex one. A reasonable guess would be that genetics and environment (including niche) both hold some purchase over sexual preference ... but it is a really, really complicated mess to sort out.

I've never felt the slightest inclination in my life towards sex with a female- I must say, I don't see how there can't be a genetic (or at least, "biological hardware") component to homosexuality.

There very likely is some kind of biological influence or component. I'm sure a lot of people have strong feelings or hunches about this, but we must rely on science (and his dashing older brother, the scientific technique) until something better comes along. Of course, we may never know the complete picture ... or even arrive at a reasonable model.

I know it's a spectrum; I've met plenty of bisexuals both male and female ... I know I'm an extreme. But we do exist, and as a member of the homosexual extreme I must ask- how do you explain me, if not with something inborn? Purely genetic would likely be absurd, yes, but "software" this ain't. This is wiring. This is hardware.

No one expects THE HOMOSEXUAL EXTREME!!! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
Tee-hee-hee. Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.
Anyway, um ... I wouldn't dream of trying to contradict or invalidate your subjective experience. Since you asked, I'll tell you what I think. Just so you know beforehand, please understand that I respect you personally and your lifestyle in the utmost possible sense and do not wish to offend. I myself have done more than my fair share of experimenting. Yay for gay! Gay is okay.

So here's what I think. Even if it feels like wiring, and you are convinced that it is instinct and instinct alone driving your gay sex, we cannot be certain of anything at this time. The hypothesis you offer cannot logically lead to any certain conclusion about your actual genetic makeup.

Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that you should have some heterosexual impulse encoded in your genes--although these could be recessive genes that weren't expressed in you ... half of our genes never are. The evidence is that you actually were born of woman in the first place, and that you exist. This means that all of your ancestors (each of whom contributed to your genetic code), every link in the genetic chain that extends back through time to the first mammal, engaged in heterosexual fornication at least once. Maybe they were all curious and just very, very potent. This is my suspicion. Fortunately, you don't need to convince me or anyone else. Only yourself. Until science proves otherwise, yours is a perfectly valid opinion.

At first blush, it is actually kind of challenging to rationalize homosex from an evolutionary perspective. That is, this behavior doesn't seem adaptively advantageous. Other than providing emotional fulfillment and a sense of well being, it does not strictly enhance survivability since this behavior doesn't give rise to the siring of more offspring. In fact, with regard to the "extreme gay" example, such as yourself, it is evolutionarily counter-productive since these souls will never pass on their genetic code. Of course all this can change given the advent of in vitro fertilization ... but I'm referring the eons of evolution that has shaped the landscape of our genes up to this decade.

The very fact that you exist, as an "extreme gay," may actually argue against a powerful genetic basis ... for extreme gaiety anyway. Since exclusively gay folks have always been around and most likely always will be, this presents a conundrum of sorts.

How do they come to be in the first place, if they weren't passing on their genes? Each individual's genes eventually reached a dead end, as it were, since they weren't breeding. In spite of this, every new generation gives rise to a new crop of "extremely gay" gays. Vexing, no?

Since the majority of "extreme gays" aren't born of sea foam and don't come riding down from the heavens on clam shells, I surmise that we humans all must have at least a little gay in us. Heck, I've got a little gay in me right now.
<Franz, get out of here! I can't concentrate when you're doing that!!!> Hee-hee. j/k
Any-way, I believe the gay impulse to be persistently present in all of our genomes, to some extent, spread out over the human population. I can't demonstrate this scientifically, but it does make a kind of sense. Let's just call it "a hunch," for good or ill.

If it ever is irrefutably demonstrated through the mighty, soul-crushing power of science, I'm not sure what kind of effect that would have politically. Eventually, this would probably be a good thing. Greater knowledge is usually a good thing. In the short term, though, with the cloning of humans uncomfortably closer than the horizon, ideas like made-to-order babies with hand-picked genetic traits kind of scare me. It exudes the potent whiff of eugenics. It's more of a stench, really ... and as a relative to many a German Jew who died in concentration camps ... me no likey the smell. Especially when one considers how susceptible the average plebe is to trends, marketing, and repetition. Scary stuff, indeed. But now we're really getting into the realm of "What Ifs" though, and as fun a land as it is, it is really difficult to be certain of much around here.

My 2 cents.

 

[Faraer]

"Consort" is not necessarily a sexual/martial term. In fact, outside the realm of English Monarchy, it usually means just means, in relation to a ruler, an assistant.

The ambiguity may be why the word was chosen for Forgotten Realms Adventures. But its usage within Realmslore tends to imply (but not require) a sexual relationship. Ed Greenwood:

In the Realms, we usually use "consort" in two ways: official consorts and unofficial consorts.
Unofficial means a sexual or at least "constant companion, dwelling together" relationship that is publicly known about, but is NOT a formal union.
Official means a formal union (marriage in faith or under civil law) of a noble, person of rank, or royalty that specifically does not imply that the "consort" can inherit the status of the person they are attached to (and in some cases, their heirs can't, either).
To cite a relevant real-world example, the British crown has long had the concept of morganatic marriages (offspring cannot ascend to the throne), and the current Prince Philip is a prince in his own right (of the royal family of Greece), but cannot claim the throne should his wife (the Queen, who IS Queen in her own right) predecease him. So he is "Prince Consort," in the same way that Albert, Queen Victoria's husband, was styled Prince Consort rather than "king." Vaerana stands in the same relationship to Yanseldara: they are married (and, yes, lovers), but Yanseldara is the rightful ruler and Vaerana has no claim to her position, should Yanseldara perish.

 

[paradox42]

I do hope that we can all agree about one thing. A biological component to homosexual behavior, if it can ever be successfully and completely characterized, must be a remarkably complex one.

Of course, I agree with this.

No one expects THE HOMOSEXUAL EXTREME!!! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
Tee-hee-hee. Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.

Where's my smiley when I need him?

At first blush, it is actually kind of challenging to rationalize homosex from an evolutionary perspective. That is, this behavior doesn't seem adaptively advantageous. Other than providing emotional fulfillment and a sense of well being, it does not strictly enhance survivability since this behavior doesn't give rise to the siring of more offspring. In fact, with regard to the "extreme gay" example, such as yourself, it is evolutionarily counter-productive since these souls will never pass on their genetic code. Of course all this can change given the advent of in vitro fertilization ... but I'm referring the eons of evolution that has shaped the landscape of our genes up to this decade.

This is where I think most explanations of the trait in evolutionary terms fail- people stop at the "well, it leads to not making offspring, so the gene can't get passed on and will die out. QED." The problem is this: from the perspective of evolution, the individual is irrelevant. What we must concern ourselves with is the survival of the gene (or whatever causes it- kahunaburger and Shemeska are of course correct pointing out that mere genes don't actually have much direct influence over complex traits like this), and that is typically carried by more than one individual.

In other words, the survival of an individual does not matter in the long term, from an evolutionary perspective, as long as relatives of that individual- carrying many of the same genes- survive. Individual survival and replication doesn't matter so much as survival and prosperity of the family or clan, to put in in human terms. Thus, the question to ask is not whether a "gene" leads to homosexuality and thus its own eventual self-destruction, but rather- how such a "gene" enhances the survival of the homosexual's clan or family. Even if the homo never has children of his own- and note that, due to social pressures, many actually do even today- most of his biological traits will be shared by members of his family or clan, and so if he enhances their survival he thus enhances the survival of his genetic line without direct propagation.

My own idea on this topic is that the studies that hint at homosexuality (in males at least) being related to an overabundance of testosterone in the womb, or even the homo's own body, are leading us towards the survivability enhancer. To wit, the prime characteristics of testosterone psychologically are that it increases sexual desire and aggressiveness. Add to this, the demonstrable fact that humans fight far more fiercely when defending things they love, and especially people they love.

Now, most studies I've read of mankind's primitive beginnings suggest that our ancestors were loosely organized in tribal bands, with males typically providing hunting and front-line fighting, and females providing gathered food and defense. There's no particular reason to suspect that either males or females were more inclined toward crafting of tools or leadership, aside from the tendency of most male primates to try to force themselves into leadership positions and bully everybody else into going along with them. Child-rearing would be done mostly by the females and any adolescent or elderly males too young or too old and infirm to hunt reasonably well.

If we accept that scenario of the dawn of human society, what use then would a homosexual male be? If he occurs as a result of more testosterone than his hetero clanmates, it would mean he's more aggressive than they are. This, in turn, would mean that when moved to fight, he would fight more fiercely. More interestingly, since a man would not typically hunt by himself, but rather with companions from the tribe, this primitive homosexual would spend much of his time near the healthiest, most virile and strong members of his clan- and would be placing himself in danger with them regularly. It is quite likely that he'd fall in love with one or more of them, at least on some level. This, in turn, means that he would fight more fiercely to defend them without even having other members of the tribe around. He would, in fact, fight more fiercely than a hetero man placed in the same situation. And in a life-or-death struggle, fierce fighting can often make the difference between life and death, as our friendly neighborhood D&D Barbarian teaches us. Finally, since combat is by nature dangerous and sometimes leads to deaths of clan members, we must look at the fact that if a straight man with one or more children was out hunting and got killed, this meant that the children would be down one parent and thus harmed by it. But if they lost their homosexual uncle, who had no children of his own, it would surely have a less traumatic effect in a social perspective.

So to state my idea, finally and clearly, I believe that homosexual males were "designed by evolution" (if you will pardon the obviously-unscientific phrase) to be a clan's supply of expendable, front-line combat troops. We were Nature's own military for the human species. If this explanation is correct, it makes the anti-gay stance of several modern military organizations around the world more than a little ironic! If nothing else, this idea has some potential for coming up with fantasy civilizations and scenarios.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Oh, sorry Umbran. I happen to live in a gay neighborhood (Hillcrest in San Diego)...

I did not realize Hillcrest is a gay neighborhood.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This is where I think most explanations of the trait in evolutionary terms fail- people stop at the "well, it leads to not making offspring, so the gene can't get passed on and will die out. QED." The problem is this: from the perspective of evolution, the individual is irrelevant. What we must concern ourselves with is the survival of the gene (or whatever causes it- kahunaburger and Shemeska are of course correct pointing out that mere genes don't actually have much direct influence over complex traits like this), and that is typically carried by more than one individual.

IIRC, the term for a non reproductive strategy of gene continuation is "kin selection". Or, as I like to call it "the good uncle strategy". Even if you personally never breed, if you are such a good uncle that your nieces and nephews have a significantly better survival rate than they would without you, you have effectively propogated your genes, just as effectively as through direct reproduction. (to take it one step past Dawkins' "Selfish gene" to a "cynical gene", for a male, investing resources in the survival of his sister's offspring might be more effective in terms of knowing for sure that they are geneticly related to him than working to raise the offspring of his mate who might or might not have concieved by him.*) The "soldier" kin selection varient is not one I had heard floated for genetic homosexuality, but it's interesting.

The most extreme form of kin selection is found in the insect world with hundreds of infertile workers working to pass their genes on through their future siblings and later nieces and nephews born of the queen.

edit : *great, now I'm considering an alternate social structure for an intelligent race that reproduces in litters, where the litter group is the base family structure, and your uncles play the family role of father....

 

[apoptosis]

This is where I think most explanations of the trait in evolutionary terms fail- people stop at the "well, it leads to not making offspring, so the gene can't get passed on and will die out. QED." The problem is this: from the perspective of evolution, the individual is irrelevant. What we must concern ourselves with is the survival of the gene (or whatever causes it- kahunaburger and Shemeska are of course correct pointing out that mere genes don't actually have much direct influence over complex traits like this), and that is typically carried by more than one individual.

This is not necessarily true. Single genes can have incredibly significant effects even in complex phenotypes but they may only occur as relatively rare alleles in a population which may make it more difficult to find.

A good example would be depression or cancer both of which are complex diseases that involve both genetics and environment where single genes can really have a strong control on the development of the illness (which is not to be miscontrued in any way as to say homosexuality is an illness, these are just examples).

Weight is another example though off the top of my head I can not think of any gene outside of the leptins and the leptin receptors that have a significant effect on weight.

For homosexuality in humans we have never found a reliable candiate gene that is associated with homosexuality, which does not mean there is not one, just that there are not enough people who might have the gene that it would show in any genetic profiling (SNPs, chromosomal linkage maps etc.). In drosophilia though there have been some gene knockouts that are associated with male-to-male sexual behavior.

 

[Snapdragyn]

In addition to kin selection, we should remember the complexity of competing selective pressures.

As an example (unfortunately another 'disease' one, but an easy one to grasp), the gene for sickle cell anemia, when present in an individual as only a single copy, provides greater resistance to malaria without producing the full effects of the syndrome. When two copies are present, however, the negative effects of the syndrome outweigh this benefit. For civilizations without modern medicine, the benefit of having more heterozygous offspring survive malaria outweighed the loss of homozygous 'sickle cell positive' offspring to sickle cell anemia. This illustrates another model by which a trait that inhibits reproduction (in this case, by frequently causing death before reproductive age was reached) could be retained in the population.

Another thing which always interests (& amuses) me in these conversations, however, is the focus on 'what causes homosexuality' (& sometimes bisexuality). Wouldn't the more scientificly objective question be 'what causes sexuality'? For example, the ease with which genetic factors are dismissed as causes of homosexuality seems curious when one considers the high evolutionary likelihood that heterosexuality must have some genetic components -- a likelihood that seems to be missed by the way in which the question is framed.

 

[LordVyreth]

For the record ....

Two hot chicks getting it on is not an example of open mindedness and tolerance within the FRCS. It's gamer pr0n. Two hot chicks getting it on do not count. No. They. Don't.



And I don't mean to single out Erik here (though I just did when I used his name in this sentence). It applies to Star Trek, the new Batgirl, and all forms of geek culture. When Drizzt and Artemis start playing hide-the-sausage, give me a call. But two hot chicks don't count.

I'm going to disagree with this point. While I agree that gay rights is often only an excuse to justify hot lesbians, keep in mind that in most aspects of geek culture (video games, anime, scifi/fantasy, RPGs, etc.) practically everybody is already hot. Granted, this is more often true of women than men in general, but it's pretty common either way. As a result, a gay woman who was unattractive might arguably stand out more and lead to assumptions in the other direction (for example, the stereotype that lesbians all match the traditional "butch" appearance.)

I'd say that the degree of tolerance versus simply exploitation is situational. Are the only gay or bi characters in a cast of 50 female? Even among the rest of the cast, are said gay women especially attractive or, more tellingly, underdressed? And perhaps most importantly, do the characters have other interests, personality traits, and goals beyond those defined by their sexuality? The former two suggest exploitation, as does a lack of the third. I mean, there are plenty of attractive gay women among fandom that are at least generally respected as being complex characters and steps towards tolerance; Willow (at least for the first two seasons) is the first that came to mind for me.