Gay Cavemen and homosexuality in the past?

[West Coast Dude]

I think there was homosexuality present in the past...many animals have been shown to be homosexual from mammals to birds even some reptiles, and its more than just sex. Many mammals and birds find permanent companionship with males of the same species which includes sex. Male penguins, swans and ducks have been shown to even try to raise chicks from infertile eggs when they are in relationships. I doubt this decided to appear when humans decided to create a "society" we are all animals after all.

 

Thanks for talking about animals in this post, was enlightening.

[John Galaor]

I think there was homosexuality present in the past...many animals have been shown to be homosexual from mammals to birds even some reptiles, and its more than just sex. Many mammals and birds find permanent companionship with males of the same species which includes sex. Male penguins, swans and ducks have been shown to even try to raise chicks from infertile eggs when they are in relationships. I doubt this decided to appear when humans decided to create a "society" we are all animals after all.

 

I have this book of Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance. Very good. The case is that humans are more lustful as average than any other animals, but bonobos. But not all humans are equally lustful, I suppose.

It can be considered some spread of lust feelings. Testosterone as a main driver of lust. Except in cases of extreme consumption of this hormone, like in the the case of sports, more or less intense. In this case, the intense playing of a sport consumes most of this hormone moderating the lust to some degree.

The most lustful males are those with a athletic body that do not perform any sport or little. Then, testosterone itself enhances the production of muscular mass even in the absence of physical training.

 

In other cases, some people can have some levels of testosterone, had a great body frame, but some receptor in their brain does no function, or is defective. This has the effect that he do not feel like a male full of testosterone, but feel attracted to other males. This would explain the frequent cases of those queens with a huge body full of muscles.

In general, the testosterone levels in the blood of males are widely spread between 250 to 1250 ng/dl (nanograms per deciliter) A deciliter is 100 c.c.

So, you can see this is a great spread between 250 and 1250 theres is a ration of 1 to 5 in testosterone.

Then, in the same way that some physical culturists are eager to inject themselves with testosterone, I can imagine that some males "feel the need" of having some testosterone injected from stronger males.

Testosterone is a hormone that makes you feel sure of yourself, in a way you can feel more optimistic, and more stronger, more ready for a challenge.

This is a theory of mine. Nobody is going to tell this.

[West Coast Dude]

I have this book of Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance. Very good. The case is that humans are more lustful as average than any other animals, but bonobos. But not all humans are equally lustful, I suppose.

It can be considered some spread of lust feelings. Testosterone as a main driver of lust. Except in cases of extreme consumption of this hormone, like in the the case of sports, more or less intense. In this case, the intense playing of a sport consumes most of this hormone moderating the lust to some degree.

The most lustful males are those with a athletic body that do not perform any sport or little. Then, testosterone itself enhances the production of muscular mass even in the absence of physical training.

 

In other cases, some people can have some levels of testosterone, had a great body frame, but some receptor in their brain does no function, or is defective. This has the effect that he do not feel like a male full of testosterone, but feel attracted to other males. This would explain the frequent cases of those queens with a huge body full of muscles.

In general, the testosterone levels in the blood of males are widely spread between 250 to 1250 ng/dl (nanograms per deciliter) A deciliter is 100 c.c.

So, you can see this is a great spread between 250 and 1250 theres is a ration of 1 to 5 in testosterone.

Then, in the same way that some physical culturists are eager to inject themselves with testosterone, I can imagine that some males "feel the need" of having some testosterone injected from stronger males.

Testosterone is a hormone that makes you feel sure of yourself, in a way you can feel more optimistic, and more stronger, more ready for a challenge.

This is a theory of mine. Nobody is going to tell this.

 

Thanks for the book recco, will check it out when I have time.

[Raijen]

Seems like everyone has put in a lot of excellent two cent bits. Many went deeper than I can with their theorizing, but I would like to add some personal observations to the discussion.

 

Although I use the label "gay" to denote that I am primarily attracted to males and masculinity, I am also aware that there is the possibility that I may be attracted to a female. When we stop to think about it, the human body is wired to simply feel pleasure. We don't discriminate "feminine" pleasure from "masculine" pleasure: to feel good is to feel good (perhaps someone with a more analytical mind than mine could extrapolate from here?).

 

Another thing... The curious phenomenon of a person "falling in love" with a cartoon character or fictional story character... Does this not indicate that physicality is only one part of the reason we experience attractions?

 

Indeed... It seems to me that we "make up" our attractions and sexuality, though I don't understand enough to explain more clearly. Any thoughts?

[West Coast Dude]

Seems like everyone has put in a lot of excellent two cent bits. Many went deeper than I can with their theorizing, but I would like to add some personal observations to the discussion.

 

Although I use the label "gay" to denote that I am primarily attracted to males and masculinity, I am also aware that there is the possibility that I may be attracted to a female. When we stop to think about it, the human body is wired to simply feel pleasure. We don't discriminate "feminine" pleasure from "masculine" pleasure: to feel good is to feel good (perhaps someone with a more analytical mind than mine could extrapolate from here?).

 

Another thing... The curious phenomenon of a person "falling in love" with a cartoon character or fictional story character... Does this not indicate that physicality is only one part of the reason we experience attractions?

 

Indeed... It seems to me that we "make up" our attractions and sexuality, though I don't understand enough to explain more clearly. Any thoughts?

 

I think it's interesting I recently met a guy who's totally not my type, but his personality is amazing. When I am around him I feel inner peace, I mean I don't know about the sexual sparks but I mean once you start kissing..things get hot right?

[pabz]

This looks to be a very interesting thread...shall make a note to read it when I have sussed out my way around this fantastic site

 

Pabx

[West Coast Dude]

This looks to be a very interesting thread...shall make a note to read it when I have sussed out my way around this fantastic site

 

Pabx

 

Yeah I am still finding great advice and threads in the forums and I've been here for months!

[W_L]

I am really glad that this thread opened so many thought provoking conversations on sexuality and attraction.

 

If you really love someone, sexual orientation or no sexual orientation, you will love that person despite what physical limitations both of you might hold. Although, I do subscribe to the idea of something innate that drives attraction and motivates attraction toward one sex over another; I also feel that love has no boundaries.

[West Coast Dude]

If you really love someone, sexual orientation or no sexual orientation, you will love that person despite what physical limitations both of you might hold. Although, I do subscribe to the idea of something innate that drives attraction and motivates attraction toward one sex over another; I also feel that love has no boundaries.

 

Well said W_L/

[John Galaor]

WOW! What an interesting discussion, so many points of view.

 

You know, I was going to question John's (apparent) assertion that "homosexuality" is a socially acquired "behavior", but in the final analysis I think the more important point is the issue of 'classification'.

 

As the 'thinking' animal, we use symbols to think and communicate. We classify things, labeling them, in order to make them easier to deal with when we think, and to give them intangible form, so we can communicate about these things with others. We dissect complex phenomena into smaller and smaller quanta, labeling each piece in the process, and pretend that each piece of a phenomenon stands alone; is a single thing.

 

A simple example is this: John uses the 'label' "Bisexual" in the description of his sexuality on his profile. I seriously doubt however, that what I think that means is the same as what John thinks. In my case the 'label' on my profile says "Gay" but, in truth, someone would have to have a fairly lengthy discussion with me to discover what I mean by that. Undoubtedly, my definition would not be the same as anyone else.

 

For instance, does "Gay" mean I have never had, or will never have sex with a woman? The first assertion is definitely false, the second-- well anything is possible under the right circumstances, though not likely. Yet, how I see myself IS "Gay", as I have a strong preference for men over women. I look at men, not women, when I 'people watch', and yet the beauty of the occasional female will also catch my eye.

 

All of this is to illustrate the folly, and danger of substituting the symbols we use for the actual phenomena we are thinking about. And the simple fact that human sexuality is such an EXTREMELY complex phenomena as to defy any labeling we may try to apply.

 

In the end, "Gay", "Bi", "Straight", or any other label we care to think up only applies at the grossest level of understanding of what we are talking about.

 

A 'Gay Caveman'? Hilariously funny, but what do we REALLY mean by that? Given historical context, the label has no meaning at all...

 

if a gay has a few times in his life intercourse with a female, he does not looses his gayness.

OK. If this is true, the opposite can be also true.

If a straight man has had some episodes of sexuality with other males, he does not loose his condition of being straight.

 

Perhaps, there is some opportunistic behavior in some straight people, in the sense that is not any easy to get a sexual relief. It takes a lot of effort for a young man to bed a young girl.

Then, if he is not infected by the hatemongery against gays, when he feels sure nobody is around looking, he would not mind to use a gay as a woman surrogate. He would be glad to use him in the customary manner of homosexual uses.

I can even consider that some straight man can be performing not only the role of a male, but if he is a little forced, he could reciprocate also with his gay partner. even if he does not like much to perform this service.

 

If a person imbued by a true hate for gays he would avoid at all cost any such abominations. He would called that.

 

Even then, some on the outside can behave as gay haters, but are not true haters either, and could take advantage of any opportunity, if he feels sure nobody could witness such activities.

 

Then, what means this label of being bisexual?

 

Sexuality can be define in a mathematical way. "How many times a person has done what and with whom as function of time".

That looks like a math algorithm to measure the sexuality of a person. It would be like being gay in the scale of Richter.

Then, someone can be this or that (put a number) that defines how much gay he is in this scale.

 

Alfred Kinsey, I suppose you all know who was him, made such an scale of sexuality.

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Kinsey_Reports

 

He devised the idea that being gay was something relative. It depended on how often a person thought of another member of his same sex in sexual way as compared with having sexual interest with persons of the opposite gender.

 

Then, he established a scale of six steps. In step 6 the person was totally gay, with not any interest in the opposite sex. While in the step 5, they had mostly sexual interest in persons of his own sex and occasional sexual interest in persons of the opposite sex. As you followed the other steps of the scale the person had more occasions to feel interest on people of the opposite sex. In the other extreme of the scale, ladder 0, the person was exclusively heterosexual. And never had even fantasies with persons of his same sex.

 

Kinsey devised also a point 7 of the scale for those called "asexuals". There exist people that declare not to feel any lust either for males or for females. This concept is even relative, in my opinion. For many people that consider themselves of normal sexuality had so little lust, and had so little need to gratify his lust, that are more or less asexuals. It would be needed some scale to measure asexuality. It would come of absolute asexuality, with zero experiences and needs of sexual gratification to several degrees of asexuality, from zero to the average frequency of sexuality.

This scale would be independent of the question of being gay or not.

 

Then even lust can have some rank, and can be defined by an algorithm.

 

Another question not related, is the probability that a person taken at random would be in which step of the ladder. If theoretically most people is straight, then most of them would be in this step. Then the frequency of people being in a site or another depends on what happens really.

There is not any reason a priori for being gay or not gay would be case of being either white or black. A person can be a little gay, nobody knows that, or it can be a little more. If we could be check mathematically the life of anyone, we would be able to determine how much gay is someone compared to another. For it has to be defined by the number of homosexual sexual acts he had performed as a function of time. This is only an idea of a simplified algorithm.

Then, a bisexual is someone that feels attracted either by their own gender of his opposite. This feelings or cravings define a sort of virtual behavior. In in question of acts, the acts performed define if one is bisexual or not. One hypothetical person could had passed a time, when he was young having sex with persons of his same gender. Later, after some years he could had been married and had not any gay relation. And 30 or 40 years later, he would had resumed his younger gay activities. And some years later, as he gets older he has not any more physical relations, but looks at gay videos or read gay stories.

 

This could be an example of bisexual.

[hh5]

So whats the proof the caveman is gAY?

Did Jane out him?

 

I found a really funny example on skeleton remains but thought best not to post it here

 

Can we really expect the way one is buried to be considered gay?

I rather not think that cavemen would be as traditional as the Egyptians.

To me its the wild ... you is lucky to get a burial

Perhaps maybe he's the only man with female bunch?

and gotten buried their way?

 

There needs to be more studies ... too much of a headline grabber

[West Coast Dude]

I found this article thought it might pertain to this thread so I am posting it!

 

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-17-2004-56743.asp