Procreational Abberations

[HydrogenBond]

I would like to define a new term called procreational abberations. The purpose of procreation is to make babies and perpetuate the species. The natural method to procreate is sex between male and females so the male sperm can fertalize the female egg. Procreational abberations are procreating expressions which do not lead to optimal procreation.

 

The four procreational abberations that come to mind are homosexuality, beastiality, pediphilia, and incest. These are all very similar in that the general arguments of genetics, environment, or psychology can be used fto explain any of these four.

 

They can all be genetic. None of these have been conclusively proven to be genetic in origin, nor have they been disproven to be genetic. The proof would require the isolations of gene(s) and experiments that could tweak these genes to turn the abberation on or off. This has not been done, so the genetic angle is unproven; only a guess.

 

The psychological angle of a child showing propensity for one of these abberations with or without formal training can also be applied to all four. Some boys play with dolls and like to play dress-up instead of undress. This can be spontaneous or culturally exampled. (gay) Some children's best friends are their pets (beastiality). Some children like the company of older people (pediphilia). While some children prefer the company siblings and parents (incest).

 

Although the gays are given most social freedom to express this procreational abberation, the other three are treated differently by culture. This appears to reduce the numbers, with cultural influence having an impact on the genetic/psychological factors to lower their numbers.

 

Celebacy is a little different but is a form of procreational abberation. This may also be genetic or can be attributed to psycholgical causes. There are many children who like to be alone in their imaginaitons. In this case the procreational abberation is connected to self love. But nobody is a true hermephrodite, making procreation impossible. This is an acceptable procreational abberation even though it can not lead to a baby.

 

Another possibility is sex with inanimate objects. This might include blowup dolls, vibrators, etc., This may be genetic since it can not be disproven or proven conclusively with experiments that can turn the abberation off-on with genes. It could be psycholgical since many children love machines and technology.

 

Can anyone think of any others?

[Bobo]

Just about any fetish could qualify at the extremes. These would become the focus and reason and not procreation. Oral sex as well as sodomy are "abberrant" in terms of potentiality for procreation.

[CraigD]

Procreational abberations are procreating expressions which do not lead to optimal procreation.

A difficulty in this definition is its use of the term “optimal”. While it’s relatively easy to point out sexual behaviors that produce maximal pregnancy of live birth rates, these maxima are not necessarily synonymous with “optimal procreation”. For example, a country with a high birth rate may become less wealthy and powerful than one with a lower birth rate, with the consequence that its net birth rate over several generations is lower than its less fecund competition.

 

Cultures with high incidences of non-procreative sexual behaviors such as the ones HBond lists do not necessarily have lower birth rates or less diverse genetic mixing. In some scenarios, behaviors such as exclusive homosexuality, while causing individuals to fail to procreate, can improve the procreative goodness of the whole society. There’s evidence of a correlation between number of siblings and incidence of homosexuality, both in humans and other animals, suggesting that homosexuality may be a evolutionary strategy for increasing genetic diversity by limiting the number of genetically close individuals who procreate.

 

Can anyone think of any others?

As defined above, the practice of all forms of birth control could be considered “procreative aberrations”.

[HydrogenBond]

Maybe the distinction that needs to be make is that the behavior can be postuated as being due to genetics or psychology and show up early in the life of the individual. Oral sex may be connected to a strong affinity for eating and food.

 

Birth control may be one of them. There as children that attempt to remain younger than their chronological age. They wish to stay a child and may use techniques later in life to avoid becoming a parent.

 

Sodomy is dependant whether one is the packer or packee. The packer may be looking for tight and may have a connection to pediphila. The packee is a different abberation that may be connected to hypochondria. It is an extension of an affinity for sickness and medical treatment.

 

What is sort of interesting is that many people in modern culture practice a wide range of procreational abberations, all at the same time. This would suggest that genetics may not be as important as psychology in such cases. It would be very unlikely to find say a male child, that had an affinity to dress up a hi tech, hypo-allergeic centaur dolls, that looks like one of their siblings when they were young, that also has eatable clothes, while admiring themselves in the mirror. That would be quite the genetic salad.