I’ll never understand why people care about what other people do with their genitals.
If you wanna stick your dick in a cactus or shove one up your puss idgaf. It’s not my fuckin problem.
While it is not aplicable to all bigots, a non-negligible amount of them are far enough from the straight wedge of the sexual orientation sppectrum that they can’t help but double down and project their self-hate and insecurities onto others. Just look at all the ever-growing lists of anti-trans and anti-queer politicians that are caught being hypocrites.
Homosexuality is a disease
Welp, guess I don’t have to work today, I’m calling in gay
You must be Swedish
Is the purpose of human intimacy procreation?
If no, then why can’t we have intimacy without the unnecessary outcome of the propagation of our species?
If yes, should we require that every relationship between man and woman result in offspring? But we don’t, do we?
So, if we have the personal freedom to choose whether our relationships result in progeny and if there is more to intimacy than procreation, why are you so afraid of non-heterosexual relationships?
The assholes don’t want us to have personal freedom, though.
If yes, should we require every relationship between man and woman to result in offspring?
The people that care about this will answer yes.
Two people that have a fully transmissable genetic conditon (which has caused them immense suffering) choose to share sexual intimacy without procreating (so as to not propogate that suffering). Should they be deprived of that intimacy (which acts as a reprieve from their suffering) simply because they choose not to create a new person who will also inevitably have to suffer?
Those people are unfit for life, so whatever. Just kill them at birth or if it’s too late for that, ASAP.
– those ppl, probably
The people that care about this will get divorced if one of them is infertile.
not before bankrupting the other with unnecessary and unwanted medical procedures
Historically, you’d just add another wife and keep chugging along.
If a random ass crow can have a gay life partner and other crows see no problem with it. Then what’s humanities excuse?
ARE THE CROWS JUST BETTER THEN US? I mean probably but THEY SHOULDN’T BE. We should be AT LEAST on par with crows!
Crows are genuinely fucking awesome though.
ARE THE CROWS JUST BETTER THEN US?
Actually, yes
I will fight you over the superiority of crows. I might be a species traitor but crows are incredible creatures and I’ll tolerate no slander, or there might be a murder.
This does make me wonder why we aren’t uni sex, from an evolutionary point of view. Wouldn’t it be easier to reproduce?
This is an unresolved problem in biology. In general, evolution never makes sense. There is no inherent goal or optimization. If the individual is fit and adapted, it produces offspring. If not, it does not hand down its genes. There is no deeper process involved.
I mean, you could say there’s no inherent goal on anything, goals are always subjective/constructed, so from that perspective nothing ever makes sense.
But I think the question was how is it possible that sex differentiation could have contributed to make us fit and adapted even though in the surface it might seem to be more like an obstacle to reproduction (and thus, survival).
My guess is that specialization allows for higher level social structures that can more easily organize to survive. You have extreme cases with the bees, ants, etc. whose individuals can even have different sets of chromosomes and are very specialized for specific roles, making them so successful that you have them all over the planet for far longer than humans, millions and millions of years with hardly any changes.
But on the other hand, it is weird how sexual reproduction was selected for many times and rarely reverts back.
Like there are a lot of different modes of it in nature, species with more than 2 sexes, species that have 2 sex organs etc. but it does seem that somehow it gets selected for over alternatives.
Two parent reproduction leads to better adaptability. Asexual reproduction leads to the offspring being genetic copies of the parents, which is great if the parent fits well to the environment it is in, but any change to that environment could be catastrophic and lead to the species dying out. With two genetic sources, it allows for greater deviation in the species. So if there is a change in the environment, some will die, but there is a higher likelihood of some individuals being able to adapt better and survive in the changing environment.
I feel the question wasn’t so much about the sexual process (fusion of genetic information of two individuals) but about sexual differentiation (separation of this information into two parts) . At least, to me “uni sex” is not the same as “no sex”. These are different things, in biology you can find creatures that reproduce sexually but do not have sexual differentiation.
Yeah that’s one theory and it makes intuitive sense but if you read the link the person I responded to posted that doesn’t fully explain it and doesn’t necessarily have statistical backing.
Yes… the thing is that with asexual reproduction you can reproduce way more and much faster… so even though each individual division might have less variability, you have many more generations of splits and a bigger population that ends up being forced to spread around more to different conditions and eventually leading to mutations faster than they would have otherwise.
Also, the ease of reproduction makes each individual more disposable, and at that point it doesn’t make as much sense to have more mechanisms to protect your genetic material from mutagens, you can just let the mutants die when they are not fit and produce new ones until ultimately you hit the jackpot and achieve a new resistance. This is what makes bacteria so adaptable, with new strains appearing every day.
Strength in numbers?
While it’s not the reason we have 2 sexes, there is an evolutionary reason for 2 partners to make an offspring, which is likely a big contributing factor
While asexual reproduction is easier, the downside is that the child is almost an exact genetic match of the parent. There’s a lot of reasons why this is not ideal (I don’t remember them lol, its complicated), so having 2 organisms mix their genes to create a genetically unique offspring is extremely advantageous. Having 2 sexes is likely easier than doing this with a unisex species, but as another commenter pointed out: evolution doesn’t make sense, it just does what works.
Sexual reproduction is more advantageous than asexual reproduction because it makes genes more varied and prone to mutations and changes. If, for some reason, all beings of your species without characteristic “X” die because, for example, they do not have enough resistance to cold, in the end someone with resistance to cold survives because, through the mixing of genes and other factors, this advantageous characteristic has emerged and prevails.
Whereas in asexual species, everyone is born with almost the same genes as their parents, so if it starts to get very cold, eventually everyone dies because no one has developed resistance to cold, as it is rarer for this to happen.
PS: I am not an expert and I try my best to explain what I remember.
It seems to be the demands of large terrestrial mammals. Land is a harsher environment where more genetic diversity from sexual reproduction is more advantageous. Being larger and having longer lifespans makes asexual reproduction rarely advantageous. One parent needing to gestate the offspring would exacerbate the pressures for sexual dimorphism. Almost no mammals asexually reproduce, in fact it might actually be none, but I’m not sure.
because evolution doesn’t target some optimal thing
I mean, it does, but the thing is successful reproduction of fertile offspring and the aiming process is randomly throwing while blindfolded and someone attacks your arm.
Nature has Sequential Hermaphroditism as a thing.
Or just Hermaphroditism.
what like via budding?
Via fucking just anybody, I suppose. Like those species which are hermaphroditic
There probably was a version of us that evolved to reproduce that way but the homophobes killed them off.
Ya exactly, I don’t really get why we evolved sexes. Im sure it’s just a Google search away later tonight when I have time.
evolution doesn’t have a whole lot of “why”, just “oh look that happened”
I mean, when you think about it, if “default sexuality” exist, wouldn’t it make more sense for bisexuality (or any similar sexuality) be considered default rather than heterosexuality considering how humans are highly social animals. I personally don’t believe in such things as default sexuality, just pointing out something to argue about.
Yeah I’d argue everyone is at least a lil bi. You’ll see it even in the most ridiculously heteronormative homophobic douchenozzles the second they see someone they both respect and admire who also is attractive.
See Henry Cavill
Ryan Reynolds
Not me, can’t even begin to feel how people find men attractive. But I’m glad they do for my own sake.
Not even femboys?
Not even femboys. Too much boy, not enough fem. I guess it does start getting fuzzy in the same places gender does, you could get me in a “checkmate, libs” gotcha by asking if I’m attracted to a trans man whose egg only cracked an hour ago.
If you’re genuinely looking for an answer, it depends on the person. Some people like feminine men, some like ultra masculine men, etc.
See Ronald McDonald
Asexuality is the default
Starting from nothing and adding things makes more sense than starting from everything and removing things
Aye, we’re probably closer to bonobo’s than we think. It has just been suppressed by religion and other prudish norms throughout the times.
I’m pretty sure Billie Joe Armstrong (Green Day) said that once. He identifies as bi, wrote a song that mentions seeing both men and women, got asked about it, and basically said everyone’s a little bi. It was probably more nuanced than that but you get the idea.
Anal is anal, regardless of gender, it’s just that some come with a safety rail to hold onto.
Strapons are strapons, regardless of gender, it’s just that some come with funbags to hold onto.
Sometimes that’s a hat on a hat situation, unless they put it on backwards and do a peeled banana.
Even if everyone was bi we’d still have just as many people as today. Because of breeder religion/nationalism.
I’d be willing to guess that there are a lot more bi people out there then you’ll ever find numbers for regardless of party. I’d also guess there are a ton on the right who will never admit it because the rest of the right would ostracize them.
Say what you will about braindead asssholes with absolutely shit takes that are demonstrably false, but… no, actually that’s all I had to say.
deleted by creator
Nooooo, it should’ve been mmeeee!😫
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
