You know, because all gay people are men.

/sigh

i) nice speculation. (Do dolphins, bonobo chimps or garter snakes have locker rooms? What a confused grab-bag Cloud elected to mention.) BUT…Unless someone I trust can confirm this (eg Emily K) — unless girls also walk out of showers and grab and waggle their airbags with a “Wo-Hoo!”… I’d rather think of this as an immature-maturing boy thing. As in, “Look at mine, worship it!” Yeah, yawn, we all got one. Maybe not as magnificent, but similar.

ii) nice speculation. BUT… Then again, that’s exactly why I jump on him and squash him flat on the futon — to deny him any heterosexual expression. He claims the same, so I guess we’re even. This seems to be working well as a strategy, as neither of us has expressed ourselves heterosexually with the one of us jumping on the other every so often. Of course, it offers little explanation for the way we don’t behave when apart for a week or two due to work…

iii) nice speculation. BUT… And you know, I’m always confusing Men from Women. Just the other day I referred to a 6′2″ guy with a beard and back hair as “Madam”… and boy o boy was he annoyed. I got out of hospital 3 days later. Bikers, got ta luv em.

iv) nice speculation. BUT… It’s good to know my 16 year relationship is merely a dry-run (snigger) for the Real Thing. When the velvet arrives, I’ll be ready. Not willing, mind, but ready. Not sure why or how this explains Alan Chambers and his ‘9 months’ delay… but… we’ll just have to put that down to an idle outlier.

v) nice speculation. BUT… You wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve tried to get a woman pregnant by forcing sex on HER husband. That, and sneaking an ‘enhanced’ Whopper his way when we all end up at (*Wellknown Burger Chain*) late of a night after being on the turps. No, really — there is a reason I take the order into the ‘rest’room when it arrives…

When someone declares “Evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality should have disappeared long ago” I know damn well… they don’t want to understand diddly squat about evolution. Did they even take biology?

The fact that ‘no-one’ has offered an adequate evolutionary explanation for homosexuality misses the point — it exists, and does so in spite. Plainly, more is at work. Classic “God of the gaps” nonsense.

Ask not HOW, John Cloud, but WHY NOT.

Nature hates Conformity. That much is obvious. Start with that premise.

(ps: good to see you, Timothy, and Jim and et al etc are all still alive. Been awhile. Best wishes as always!)

On the origin of homosexuality: assuming that primitive humans had social organization similar to super-advanced apes, the young males would be chased off by the alpha male when they matured. Homosexually docile male youths might not be chased off, and would continue to enjoy the protection of the tribe. Modern example: parents or stepparents who continue a consenual (or simply dependant) sexual and living relationship with one of the kids, into adulthood.

The young male exiles would form suburban gangs which would occasionally test the alpha’s strength, eventually replacing him in battle, or at least stealing some of his mates. Sex among the exiled youths could strengthen their own survival groups.

Homosexual bonds begun in youth could continue throughout adulthood and help clan or tribal groups to expand, where before there would be only an alpha male, mates and children with exiled beta males running amok in the woods around them. Modern example: “fishing buddies” and “hunting buddies” *wink* who raise their respective families together or nearby.

Having extra (”unmarried”) parents and teachers around to watch the kids, and take them hunting would probably increase their odds of survival, especially when birth parents are busy with a large family or warfare.

Lastly, established homosexual adults within an extended family or tribal group might adopt mature youths (and orphans) rather than exile them. Bonding behaviour between youth and adult would never actually turn the youth into a homosexual, and the arrangement would provide him with a legitemate place in the society until he was old enough to provide for his own family. Modern example: homeless kids and runaways who find an adult to take care of them, often while initially making a living through prostitution or being promiscuous.

It goes without saying, that my “modern examples” are generally illegal or considered uncivilized/immoral today. Indeed, it’s not the best way to grow up, but i’ve seen at least one example of each of these things which seemed to work for the participants.

To whatever extent homosexuality may be genetically determined, is it possible that the number of homosexuals born would decline just as we are gaining increasing acceptance and equality?

We all know that many (or most?) people with homosexual inclinations have sought social acceptance by faking heterosexual relationships and producing children. But those social pressures are decreasing. Assuming that gay partnerships would always produce fewer children, is it possible that fewer homosexuals will be produced in the future?

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the anti-gay crowd, who want us to go away, discovered they could begin to achieve that by supporting full acceptance and equality?