Res Ipsa wrote:
Well, you've got me thoroughly confused at this point. I don't see any need for a topological model. I think it's a fairly straightforward problem in combinations. I'm not sure of the exact formula that applies, but could probably figure it out by googling for a bit. Here's what I mean:
Assume to populations, P1 and P2. Both populations total 100 persons, half male and half female.
P1 is composed entirely of people who will only couple with a person of the opposite sex. Now, pick a person in P1 and call him Res Ipsa. Res Ipsa has 50 different people that he can couple with. If I knew the right formula, I could calculate the total number of possible combinations in the set. But I don't think I have to do that calculation.
P2, on the other hand, has two types of folks. T1 will only couple with someone of the opposite sex, just as in P1. T2 will only couple with someone of the same sex. 90% of folks are T1 and 10% are T2. If Res Ipsa is T1, he will have only 40 different people he can couple with. If Res Ipsa is T2, he will have only 9 other people he can couple with. In either case, Res Ipsa in P2 will have fewer available combination for coupling than Res Ipsa in P1. That being the case, I can't see how it could be mathematically possible for the total combinations available in P2 to be greater than in P1. Therefore, the mere existence of homosexuality does not, in and of itself, does not increase the possible number of couplings.
What you seem to be comparing are worlds in which homosexuality is not socially accepted with those in which it is socially accepted. But in both of your worlds, homosexual persons exist. Therefore, you are not testing the effect of the existence of homosexuality.
Can you show me where I'm off track?
Consider two populations, both include the norm, heterosexuals, and both include non-straight folks. Yet only the latter population includes homosexuals. Homosexuality is distinguished because it is less compatible with the hetero norm than bisexuality or any other orientation that allows the attractability of different-sex partners.
Heterosexuality is the norm in both populations, and there is a prohibitive social cost to go against that norm. In the first population, there are no homosexuals, there is no one whose only attractive option is prohibited. In the latter population, the homosexuals are pressured to suppress their sexuality, but because same-sex pairings are their only attractive option, some choose it despite the prohibitive social cost.
The act of choosing the only attractive pairing option, contributes to the social normalization of same-sex pairings, making their social cost less prohibitive. Thus the social cost of same-sex pairings is reduced for everyone else in the latter population. But not in the first.
It is is the existence of such an exclusive sexual orientation that drives the ability of more members of a population to have more pairing options.
I think your problems focus more on amounts than on the path that is made clear by the existence of homosexuals. The function of that "path" is where topology comes in.