/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19031625]

Post rec's on the evolutionary basis of homosexuality. If it addresses the especial rancidness of human feces and explains how a sexuality can evolve to where it only finds an outlet in something humans usually avoid like the plague, all the better.

[Anonymous No.19031643]

>>19031625
>Post rec's on the evolutionary basis of homosexuality.
Haven't read the book but the title is quite self-explanatory

[Anonymous No.19031651]

why so fascinated, op?

[Anonymous No.19031652]

>>19031625
You mean sodomy, not homosexuality

[Anonymous No.19031664]

>>19031643
>Giorgio Celli was an Italian entomologist, ecologist, professor, writer, and politician.
Not sure this is going to be effective, bruh.

>>19031652
Sure if you're going to be pedantic about it, although the two tend to walk arm-in-arm. If gay people themselves don't make the distinction between the sexual bent and the sexual act (other than interesting fringe thinkers on 4channel) I don't find myself very compelled to.

[Anonymous No.19031735]

>>19031664
>Post rec's on the evolutionary basis of homosexuality.
>Literally a biologist and ethologist
>Not sure this is going to be effective, bruh.
What were you expecting, exactly?

[Anonymous No.19031736]

>>19031651
It seems particularly non-commensurate with post-darwinian thinking so I was wondering whether there was anything that could account for it without being ham-fisted. It seems as if people having avoiding engaging with this issue honestly because it's politically extremely divisive (not to mention gay folks don't seem to want any critical eyes cast on them). For instance, we don't even use human shit as manure for crops. This is actually because it's far more rancid than other animal's. How do people with such a proclivity survive? It seems like they'd be plague magnets - twice moreso when considering homosexual seem to be far more promiscuous. Nor can we just say that Whitman 'chose Apollo' - there's a lot more going on.

[Anonymous No.19031758]

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/?s=homosexual

[Anonymous No.19031775]

>>19031664
>If gay people themselves don't make the distinction between the sexual bent and the sexual act
It should be mentioned that 30% of homosexual men do not have anal sex at all. My estimation is that many others do not do it often either. It's a lot of work. Mutual masturbation and blowjobs are more common and incomparably easier to do.

>>19031625
>If it addresses the especial rancidness of human feces and explains how a sexuality can evolve to where it only finds an outlet in something humans usually avoid like the plague
Unless we're talking about specific fetishes, anal sex is done in a way that minimises contact with shit. Condoms, cleaning the colon beforehand, healthy eating habits - all of that is recommended all the time within the gay community.

>>19031736
>considering homosexual seem to be far more promiscuous
That is to a fair degree a cultural matter. Homosexuality didn't have the institution of marriage until very recently. Obviously homosexuals will not feel any external cultural pressure to "settle down", since they just couldn't. Now they've built their own culture around it, which is indeed promiscuous.

[Anonymous No.19031788]

>>19031775
That’s because their buttholes have been destroyed and they can’t do it anymore

[Anonymous No.19031803]

>>19031735
He studied insects (entomology, not ethnology), ecology and politics. I was hoping for a recommendation more definitive (for instance, by a specialist, not in insects.

>>19031775
I had never heard that stat before. Thanks man. However, if something can't even be used as manure, the 'it's totally clean, bro' comment guys often give doesn't seem very convincing. Also, usually I see gay men bragging about not needing to wear condoms.. although that isn't indicative of the whole gay population. I know promiscuity is partially cultural but the whole inability to conceive thing obviously plays a larger role. If anything is evolutionarily qualified, it would be sexuality (if evolutionary theory is correct); just doesn't seem to add up in any cleanly without forcing what is into conformity with theory.

P.S. FUCK THE CAPTCHA

[Anonymous No.19031834]

>>19031803
Your dick != your mouth

Getting shit on your crops is not the same as getting shit on your dick, so you can stop using the comparison as if it means anything.

[Anonymous No.19031836]

>>19031803
>He studied insects (entomology, not ethnology)
I didn't even say ethnology, you retard. Ethology is the discipline that studies the behaviour of animals
>Giorgio Ruggero Celli (Verona, 16 luglio 1935 – Bologna, 11 giugno 2011) è stato un entomologo, etologo, accademico, scrittore, sceneggiatore, politico, conduttore televisivo, poeta e drammaturgo italiano.
Moreover, see pic and read this
>Traumatic insemination, also known as hypodermic insemination, is the mating practice in some species of invertebrates in which the male pierces the female's abdomen with his aedeagus and injects his sperm through the wound into her abdominal cavity (hemocoel).[1] The sperm diffuse through the female's hemolymph, reaching the ovaries and resulting in fertilization.

Traumatic insemination is not limited to male–female couplings. Male homosexual traumatic inseminations have been observed in the flower bug Xylocoris maculipennis[9] and bed bugs of the genus Afrocimex.[1]

In the genus Afrocimex, both species have well developed ectospermalege (but only females have a mesospermalege). The male ectospermalege is slightly different from that found in females, and amazingly enough, Carayon (1966) found that male Afrocimex bugs suffer actual homosexual traumatic inseminations. He found the male ectospermalege often showed characteristic mating scars, and histological studies showed "foreign" sperm were widely dispersed in the bodies of these homosexually mated males. Sperm cells of other males were, however, never found in or near the male reproductive tract. It therefore seems unlikely that sperm from other males could be inseminated when a male that has himself suffered traumatic insemination mates with a females. The costs and benefits, if any, of homosexual traumatic insemination in Afrocimex remain unknown.[1]

Klaus Reinhardt of the University of Sheffield and colleagues observed two morphologically different kinds of spermalege in Afrocimex constrictus, a species in which both male and females are traumatically inseminated. They found females use sexual mimicry as a way to avoid traumatic insemination. In particular, they observed males, and females who had male spermalege structures, were inseminated less often than females with female spermalege structures.[31]

In Xylocoris maculipennis, after a male traumatically inseminates another male, the injected sperm migrate to the testes. (The seminal fluid and most of the sperm are digested, giving the inseminated male a nutrient-rich meal.) It has been suggested, although there is no evidence, that when the inseminated male ejaculates into a female, the female receives both males' sperm.[32][33]

[Anonymous No.19031890]

>>19031834
Listen buster, if you don't want cow shit on your dick, it stands to reason that human shit would be even worse. Are you saying that wouldn't aid in the spreading of deadly disease? As if that hasn't been one of the largest enemies of human-kind throughout our history!

>>19031836
Apologies for that one. It's more that I didn't see the importance and so figured (retardedly) you had misread his article (since you'd said you hadn't read him). That's extremely interesting. Moreso, that both the costs and benefits remain unknown. Somehow I feel like I'm back where I started - I'm not doubting that homosexuality occurs in other animals. I guess my real confusion is how evolutionary theory can even account for it.

[Anonymous No.19031904]

>>19031803
>However, if something can't even be used as manure, the 'it's totally clean, bro' comment guys often give doesn't seem very convincing.
That's a weird comparison. On one hand, you're not supposed to ingest the stuff that's inside the ass (unless you're a fetishist who should control those desires for your own good). On the other hand, we probably do eat plenty of stuff that can't be used as manure either. I sure as fuck am not going to put a big mac into my garden.
The 'it's totally clean, bro' comment might simply refer to the fact that your dick won't end up brown if literally any precautionary measures are taken. Shit isn't supposed to constantly be in your colon anyway, and definitely not when you want anal - people can go to the toilet, you know.
No, obviously it's not 100% clean (as if vaginal and oral sex were), but it clearly doesn't cause health problems by itself.

>Also, usually I see gay men bragging about not needing to wear condoms.
Why do they say they don't need to wear them? Because they don't worry about STDs, or they don't mind the bits of shit, or their partners wash their own asses properly? You have to give some context here.

>>19031890
>it stands to reason that human shit would be even worse
Do you think that miniscule traces of shit on a dick make it melt away or something?

[Anonymous No.19031957]

>>19031904
I'm talking about the higher level of bacteria in human feces. The penis can get infected rather easily - you don't want foreign bacteria entering into any hole in the body, the one you pee out of included. They are using 'dick not brown' as proof of 'clean' which I think is a poor way to determine cleanliness. I haven't inquired with these gay men, but I'd assume it's said because condoms are usually seen as a level of removal from ones partner and therefore a hassle to avoid if possible. They're saying 'look, since I don't have to worry about getting pregnant, I don't have to worry about it'. I'm not saying that this is a concern for contemporary man, but when you consider that humans have had to exist throughout time (most of which humans had to fight like hell through to survive) it makes me wonder how or why that trait would, or even could have persisted.

[Anonymous No.19031982]

>>19031736
I like pussy, but I don't like fucking smegma and gunk that builds up inside of it. Plenty of gay people, most in fact, would find shit disgusting.

[Anonymous No.19031999]

>>19031957
Maybe the fact that it has persisted pokes a lot of holes in the story you're trying to tell?

[Anonymous No.19032145]

>>19031999
I'm not trying to tell a story. I'm wondering whether the current story told to account for it may be unable to account for these factors. I'm looking for recommendations in hopes of rectifying my ignorance on the topic and providing a foil in terms of counter-argument by calling current ideas into question. Contemporary man is sitting so comfy in his decadent position that he has failed to realize that there would have been far greater risk in ancient or prehistorical homosexuality. I'm not sure if you are trying to say all of these factors are somehow commensurate but they certainly don't seem to be.

[Anonymous No.19032151]

>>19031625
How a group of people that actively fuck poop holes became normalized, I will never understand nor will I desire to. We live in some weird fucking times.

[Anonymous No.19032188]

>>19031625
Well first off you can cast aside the notion of evolution that demands any trait be adaptive. It's true that mutations are random, and the best mutations modify a trait so that it confers some evolutionary advantage. However, for a trait to persist what is most important is that it does not put the organism at a disadvantage. Ever since humans figured out agriculture, whatever random mutations accrued in regards to humans' sexual attraction architecture probably became much selective for heterosexuality. Furthermore exaptations can arise when a complex trait takes on some new dimension without the qualifications of immediately providing some increase in the fitness of an organism. Why do some people get off by watching fat people step on food? Probably because humans are doing TOO well. Check out this recent landmark study of the genetic basis for homosexuality. Turns out gay genes are also more highly associated with mental illness genes (lol)

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aat7693

[Anonymous No.19032210]

>>19032188

Homosexuality is just one route of the expression of accumulating genetic entropy so that's so surprise. Probably why normies and social media are becoming so insufferable, even more over time. Amerikkka is a massive dysgenics project

[Anonymous No.19032215]

>>19032151
According to >>19031775 this doesn't actually seem to be perfectly cut-and-dry either, anon. That fact is that the sexual orientation exists. ... Perhaps its only been normalized now that its far less of a health risk and society can withstand this normalization.

>>19032188
Thanks a ton, anon! I'll be checking that out! I was under the misassumption that they did have to be beneficial (although, I was dimly aware mine was moreso a brainlets conception).

[Anonymous No.19032259]

If I fuck my fellow man we will kill other men better and rape their women and enslave their children. This is how homosexuality was reproductively selected as an aristocratic trait. You breed women. You love men.