Homosexuality: It's about survival - not sex

[Ibex]

If being gay was wrong, nature would've gotten rid of all gays long ago. Gays have been around for millenniums.
“If this were a genetic error, natural selection should have long ago culled this from the gene pool,”

[Doc]

If I were to take a guess I'd say that Daddy has a little sugar in his tank.

[Camfer]

If I were to take a guess I'd say that Daddy has a little sugar in his tank.

[larafan25]

I'm 2 lazy to watch the whole thing because I am TRASH.

But like... I honestly don't think heterosexuality is the default sexuality in any case. Whether heterosexuality and homosexuality are explicitly separate, exclusive, non-changeable conditions or not.

I find it plausible that heterosexuality is for the purpose of making babies, and homosexuality is there with an equally valuable purpose. Totally separate.

However, I tend to think that sexuality in general is either not related to sex, or that it is there for the sake of getting us to have sex, but our sexualities are endlessly varied, and it's only our desire to categorize and label in a social context which has formed the limited labels we have today.

Let's face it, we can all, for the most part, have sex. Whether we enjoy it "sexually" or not. There are surely plenty of us who have had unenjoyable experiences with sex. Yet got the job done. But why would we be able to sexualize so diversely if sexuality was for the sole purpose of having sex? Sex is quick and easy.

I guess the purpose of being able to sexualize different things relates to our evolution as beings. Following and interacting with what we want in order to create more of what we want, for growth and expansion of that thing we want. I mean wanting is positive and forward-related. But then why would the mechanics of sex be so... basic. Hmmmph.

Well if we're going to acknowledge evolution then we might as well acknowledge that we're a work in progress. Maybe there is more gay-sex-related abilities coming????

I h0nyr now. <3

[LJay]

I like TED. It is a great way to get ideas out there.

Whether this guy's point is reasonable or not, it is encouraging to think that he and his wife were that supportive twelve years ago. That is a long time in today's world.

[Confuzzled4]

Tell me you watched this video after seeing Mark Miller's vlog. Anyway, I asked my friend about this because she studies this subject, not homosexuality in particular but genetics and evolution. She said that some of it is sound, particularly the part about epigenetics and altruism.

[Doc]

I dont know it sounds like a bunch of hokum to me. Anyway do gay men need to have their existence justified by some grand plan. I dont think homosexuality serves any higher purpose than left-handedness, some things just are without needing a reason.

[Ibex]

Tell me you watched this video after seeing Mark Miller's vlog. Anyway, I asked my friend about this because she studies this subject, not homosexuality in particular but genetics and evolution. She said that some of it is sound, particularly the part about epigenetics and altruism.

Yup

[MikeW]

If I were to take a guess I'd say that Daddy has a little sugar in his tank.

Yeah, and I think all daddies do.

For SURE "gay" is a rather recent sociological invention. Equally for sure, same-sex erotic activity has always been apart of the human experience. Whether it was separated out as a "different" form of sexuality, that's a whole other question. I suspect that what Gunnora Hallakarva had to say about Viking attitudes toward such matters has been fairly universal across cultures: "One's sexual partners mattered little so long as one married, had children, and conformed at least on the surface to societal norms so as not to disturb the community." But, least you think this reflects some relatively 'enlightened' attitude toward sexuality manifest in Viking culture, she goes on to point out:

"Being used homosexually by another man was equated with cowardice because of the custom of sexual aggression against vanquished foes. This practice is documented in Sturlunga saga, most notably in Guðmundar saga dýra where Guðmundr takes captive a man and his wife, and plans for both the woman and the man to be raped as a means of sexual humiliation (Ok var þat við orð at leggja Þórunni í rekkju hjá einhverjum gárungi, en gera þat vi Björn prest, at þat þaelig;tti eigi minni svívirðing.) In addition to rape, defeated enemies were frequently castrated, again testified to in several places by Sturlunga saga. Grágás records that a klámhogg or "shame-stroke" on the buttocks was, along with castration, a "major wound" (hin meiri sár), ranked with wounds that penetrated the brain, abdomen, or marrow: the klámhogg was thus equated with castration as "unmanning" the victim, and classed with wounds that cause major penetrations of the body, strongly suggesting that the term refers to rape or forced anal sex such as was inflicted on a defeated combatant. It is not known how widespread the practice of raping defeated foes actually was, or if it existed before the advent of Christianity, but in other cultures which have had as strong an ethic of masculine aggression as existed among the Vikings, the rape of defeated foemen was obligatory. The attitude that homosexual usage of an enemy was a means of humiliation, in turn would have weighed heavily against men in homosexual relationships: if it was a shameful humiliation of an enemy, performing intercourse with a beloved friend would have been regarded as the worst sort of betrayal or lack of loyalty."

My guess, and that's all it is, is that human erotic experience has been as culturally unique throughout history as it is individually unique now. In fact, I'm of the opinion that we don't even have the correct language with which to discuss what we're trying to understand. Indeed, what IS the relationship between the ecstasy of erotic pleasure and orgasm and SEX... let alone the relationship between all that and the gender of any specific object of desire? In other words, I'm choosing to make a distinction between "erotic pleasure" on one hand and "sex" (limited to mean male/female coitus specifically) on the other. See what happens? If you divide it out that way, even anal intercourse IS NOT "SEX," much less any of the rest of it.

[Doc]

The Viking sound like they were class A dicks.