Gay Sex in Humpback Whales?

[MontyPython]

Male humpback whales have a 10 foot penis.

Yet female humpbacks still complain about them taking the garbage out.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Homosexual promiscuity (men who have sex with men) do have increased risks of STDs. That’s not merely an equal consequence of promiscuity in general.

STD's are a function of promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Simply put, the more partners you have, your risk of contracting a STD increases.

If you have two virgin homosexuals mating for life, no STD problem.

If you do want to simply blame STDs and violence on promiscuity you also have to accept that promiscuity is higher within this population.

Within male homosexuality, of course it is. It's called biology. The male sex drive is undefeated.

You seem to be ignoring rates throughout all of your arguments here, across the board. Sure, some heterosexual couples struggle to reproduce. But that’s a different thing and less likely.

Context is key here; especially when you are trying to optimize for society.

Roughly a quarter of children in the US are raised by a single parent. That stat is rising every year. The statistics of children raised by single parents are quite grim. Melissia Kearney's book The Two-Parent Privilege does a fantastic job outlining this from a economic statistical perspective.

Now, consider that infertility is growing and ~20% of heterosexual couples are infertile. The actual rate of infertility is presumably higher (to an unknown degree) because the ~20% comes merely from heterosexual couples actively trying to have a baby over a year where the female has never given birth previously. Heterosexual couples that aren't trying to have kids or who are unsuccessfully trying to have additional kids aren't included in that stat.

Overcoming infertility via IVF or other fertility options is quite expensive. This becomes a wonderful self-selecting mechanism for society with respect to potential parents as those couples have to have a deep desire to have children, be in a stable household, and have the means to raise a child properly. This obviously applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who want and have the means to overcome infertility.

Thus, it is ironic that you find homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who struggle with infertility as sub-optimal. In reality, they have a self-selecting mechanism which is quite optimal for society.

 

[Vol8188]

STD's are a function of promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Simply put, the more partners you have, your risk of contracting a STD increases.

If you have two virgin homosexuals mating for life, no STD problem.



Within male homosexuality, of course it is. It's called biology. The male sex drive is undefeated.



Context is key here; especially when you are trying to optimize for society.

Roughly a quarter of children in the US are raised by a single parent. That stat is rising every year. The statistics of children raised by single parents are quite grim. Melissia Kearney's book The Two-Parent Privilege does a fantastic job outlining this from a economic statistical perspective.

Now, consider that infertility is growing and ~20% of heterosexual couples are infertile. The actual rate of infertility is presumably higher (to an unknown degree) because the ~20% comes merely from heterosexual couples actively trying to have a baby over a year where the female has never given birth previously. Heterosexual couples that aren't trying to have kids or who are unsuccessfully trying to have additional kids aren't included in that stat.

Overcoming infertility via IVF or other fertility options is quite expensive. This becomes a wonderful self-selecting mechanism for society with respect to potential parents as those couples have to have a deep desire to have children, be in a stable household, and have the means to raise a child properly. This obviously applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who want and have the means to overcome infertility.

Thus, it is ironic that you find homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who struggle with infertility as sub-optimal. In reality, they have a self-selecting mechanism which is quite optimal for society.

You’re still ignoring the fact that the two acts are not equally likely to result in STDs. Men who have sex with men are far more likely to contract HIV even if they have sex with the same number of people or even the same people.

if they didn’t consider it suboptimal themselves, they wouldn’t “struggle” with infertility. Obviously they also consider it suboptimal, ironic.

As far as all the single parent stats, that’s just more reason to support a return to more traditional values. Not less.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

How do we "return to more traditional values," 8188? I'm just curious how one would engineer such an idyllic vanilla utopia like that.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You’re still ignoring the fact that the two acts are not equally likely to result in STDs. Men who have sex with men are far more likely to contract HIV even if they have sex with the same number of people or even the same people.

It's called anal sex. Applies the same to heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex as well.

Promiscuity > Male Sex Drive > Anal Sex. Male homosexuality hits all three while heterosexuality is at least limited by the female sex drive / gatekeeper of sexual partners (as they bare the brunt of unwanted consequences of sex).

Homosexuals who don't engage in promiscuity have the same rates of STD's as heterosexuals who don't engage in promiscuity. Promiscuity is king in the land of STD's.

if they didn’t consider it suboptimal themselves, they wouldn’t “struggle” with infertility. Obviously they also consider it suboptimal, ironic.

Individual vs societal. Suboptimal for an individuals =/= suboptimal for society. Hell, that's a pillar of Christianity.

As far as all the single parent stats, that’s just more reason to support a return to more traditional values. Not less.

Easier said than done.

Divorce rates are out of control. Online dating/social media has wrecked the dating market. Our trust in institutions is failing whether it be government or religious. Shame/tabooness is no longer an acceptable social buttressing tool. The public education system is turning out more retards everyday. On top of that, a mix of economic and political mismanagement has made the financial stress of raising kids unthinkable for many responsible adults.

 

[Vol8188]

It's called anal sex. Applies the same to heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex as well.

Promiscuity > Male Sex Drive > Anal Sex. Male homosexuality hits all three while heterosexuality is at least limited by the female sex drive / gatekeeper of sexual partners (as they bare the brunt of unwanted consequences of sex).

Homosexuals who don't engage in promiscuity have the same rates of STD's as heterosexuals who don't engage in promiscuity. Promiscuity is king in the land of STD's.



Individual vs societal. Suboptimal for an individuals =/= suboptimal for society. Hell, that's a pillar of Christianity.



Easier said than done.

Divorce rates are out of control. Online dating/social media has wrecked the dating market. Our trust in institutions is failing whether it be government or religious. Shame/tabooness is no longer an acceptable social buttressing tool. The public education system is turning out more retards everyday. On top of that, a mix of economic and political mismanagement has made the financial stress of raising kids unthinkable for many responsible adults.

So we agree it’s suboptimal for the individual. The impact on the individual is more so my argument. Granted lack of procreation is starting to become a problem across many societies today.

I’ll add that even if monogamous you have increased risk of other issues. UTIs for example are uncommon in straight males, but very common in homosexuals due to the nature of anal sex (same reason you teach girls to wipe front to back, so you don’t introduce E. coli to the uthera)

I agree that I don’t have a great answer to how we return society to a point were promiscuity, divorce, etc are considered a bigger deal than they are today. But I also don’t see that a reason why we should continue moving further from those. And yes, dating apps and social media are terrible for relationships and are here to stay.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So we agree it’s suboptimal for the individual. The impact on the individual is more so my argument. Granted lack of procreation is starting to become a problem across many societies today.

I’ll add that even if monogamous you have increased risk of other issues. UTIs for example are uncommon in straight males, but very common in homosexuals due to the nature of anal sex (same reason you teach girls to wipe front to back, so you don’t introduce E. coli to the uthera)

This brings us back to the original question:

What exactly is sub-optimal of innate homosexuals acting on their sexuality?

If homosexuality is innate and heterosexual infertility isn't within ones power to control, if STD's is chiefly a function of promiscuity rather than homosexuality, what exactly is optimal of innate homosexuals refraining from acting on their sexuality like innate heterosexuals?

I agree that I don’t have a great answer to how we return society to a point were promiscuity, divorce, etc are considered a bigger deal than they are today. But I also don’t see that a reason why we should continue moving further from those. And yes, dating apps and social media are terrible for relationships and are here to stay.

I don't have an answer either which doesn't compromise freedom.

I will say, as I get older, I do believe humans scale divergently. The thought experiments, values, and morals which can work for an individual are not sufficient for a society to function. I'm not sure how we solve this conundrum now that organized religion is out of the bag.

 

[Vol8188]

This brings us back to the original question:



If homosexuality is innate and heterosexual infertility isn't within ones power to control, if STD's is chiefly a function of promiscuity rather than homosexuality, what exactly is optimal of innate homosexuals refraining from acting on their sexuality like innate heterosexuals?



I don't have an answer either which doesn't compromise freedom.

I will say, as I get older, I do believe humans scale divergently. The thought experiments, values, and morals which can work for an individual are not sufficient for a society to function. I'm not sure how we solve this conundrum now that organized religion is out of the bag.

Because a small segment of heterosexuals are infertile, isn’t a valid argument for why you should choose infertility (homosexuality). For me that’s like saying because some people are handicapped that’s it not suboptimal to decide you want to be crippled. Obviously not being able bodied is by definition less than optimal


You also ignored the increased rates of violence and infidelity. Which all can’t be waved off as men being men. Rather some of these are inherent problems with homosexual relationships, such as a more even physical power dynamic making domestic violence more socially acceptable.

You’re also brushing the std difference off as “some straight couples engage in anal sex”. Sure, agreed. But obviously at a lower rate. Which increases the likelihood of various complications (UTIs, prostatitis, HIV) all of which can’t be simply blamed on male promiscuity.

The last paragraph I think you’re touching on the scalability of personal morality outside of religion. I would argue that it’s been replaced in many aspects by political ideologies (more so on the left because they’re less likely to be religious, but to a level on the right with “Trumpism”). Which I see as a serious problem. Because it promotes a selfishness that is harming our society. The idea that your personal feelings or sexual desires are the most important aspect in life because you believe in nothing greater than yourself.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Because a small segment of heterosexuals are infertile, isn’t a valid argument for why you should choose infertility (homosexuality). For me that’s like saying because some people are handicapped that’s it not suboptimal to decide you want to be crippled. Obviously not being able bodied is by definition less than optimal


You also ignored the increased rates of violence and infidelity. Which all can’t be waved off as men being men. Rather some of these are inherent problems with homosexual relationships, such as a more even physical power dynamic making domestic violence more socially acceptable.

You’re also brushing the std difference off as “some straight couples engage in anal sex”. Sure, agreed. But obviously at a lower rate. Which increases the likelihood of various complications (UTIs, prostatitis, HIV) all of which can’t be simply blamed on male promiscuity.

At best, putting your argument in the most charitable light, you would be arguing for heterosexuality over homosexuality. I wouldn't dispute that.

The problem is the question at hand is of acting verse not acting on innate homosexuality. Putting aside the benefits of having a loving, fulfilling, life-long relationship by acting on one's innate homosexuality, your outlined negative tradeoffs are a function of human sexuality; not merely homosexuality. With respect to infertility, ignoring the fact that infertility effects 20+% of heterosexuals couples, it effects 100% of innate homosexuals whether they act on their homosexuality rendering the "acting" vs "not acting" a moot point.

The last paragraph I think you’re touching on the scalability of personal morality outside of religion. I would argue that it’s been replaced in many aspects by political ideologies (more so on the left because they’re less likely to be religious, but to a level on the right with “Trumpism”). Which I see as a serious problem. Because it promotes a selfishness that is harming our society. The idea that your personal feelings or sexual desires are the most important aspect in life because you believe in nothing greater than yourself.

The political ideology phenomenon is smaller, cultish, and effects a socioeconomic demographic that isn't the main problem.

The problem is our bottom quintile of society. Think 80/20 rule. Our way of life, our political policies, and our advancement of civilization is held hostage by the bottom quintile of society. In the past, organized religion did a great job at providing a natural societal buttress for the bottom quintile without resorting to government force. Looking back, it seems there was a sweet spot equilibrium where upper society could wink and nod at the ridiculous parts of organized religion while also maintaining the benefits of the bottom quintile's belief. Now, without organized religion and nothing of equal societal/moral cachet to replace it, the building blocks of our society are unravelling.

 

[Vol8188]

At best, putting your argument in the most charitable light, you would be arguing for heterosexuality over homosexuality. I wouldn't dispute that.

The problem is the question at hand is of acting verse not acting on innate homosexuality. Putting aside the benefits of having a loving, fulfilling, life-long relationship by acting on one's innate homosexuality, your outlined negative tradeoffs are a function of human sexuality; not merely homosexuality. With respect to infertility, ignoring the fact that infertility effects 20+% of heterosexuals couples, it effects 100% of innate homosexuals whether they act on their homosexuality rendering the "acting" vs "not acting" a moot point.



The political ideology phenomenon is smaller, cultish, and effects a socioeconomic demographic that isn't the main problem.

The problem is our bottom quintile of society. Think 80/20 rule. Our way of life, our political policies, and our advancement of civilization is held hostage by the bottom quintile of society. In the past, organized religion did a great job at providing a natural societal buttress for the bottom quintile without resorting to government force. Looking back, it seems there was a sweet spot equilibrium where upper society could wink and nod at the ridiculous parts of organized religion while also maintaining the benefits of the bottom quintile's belief. Now, without organized religion and nothing of equal societal/moral cachet to replace it, the building blocks of our society are unravelling.

You keep coming back to this idea that these are problems of “sexuality” in general and seem to be completely ignoring the disproportionality.

It would be like saying don’t wash your hands because hand washers get sick too. Sure they do, but the disproportionately matters.

Infertility isn’t a moot point because they do not have to choose infertility. They could choose to pursue opposite sex partners.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Male humpback whales have a 10 foot penis.

Yet female humpbacks still complain about them taking the garbage out.

View attachment 631444

Boom!
Thread should die now!
Good work ole chap.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You keep coming back to this idea that these are problems of “sexuality” in general and seem to be completely ignoring the disproportionality.

It would be like saying don’t wash your hands because hand washers get sick too. Sure they do, but the disproportionately matters.

The disproportionality is found in the sexuality (which effects both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike) and gender differences; not sexual attraction.

Promiscuity is king. It effects both homosexuals and heterosexuals. A promiscuous heterosexual will have higher STD risk than a married homosexual.

The main disproportionality centers around sexual encounters where both are male. Males, whether homosexual or heterosexual, tend to more promiscuous due to sex drive and a lack of unwanted consequences of sex (relative to females). In heterosexual encounters and female homosexual encounters, there is at least one female to, at least in theory, limit the amount of sex and number of partners. In male homosexual encounters, especially when they are young, there is no such natural limit. Again, that is due to gender (and age) differences manifesting into a different sexuality (increased promiscuity and increased amount of sex); not gender sexual attraction.

Infertility isn’t a moot point because they do not have to choose infertility. They could choose to pursue opposite sex partners.

They can pursue the oppose sex and fertility as easily as you or I can pursue male partners.

 

[creekdipper]

But who will play the Heath Ledger role in the docudrama?

 

[Gandalf]

But who will play the Heath Ledger role in the docudrama?

I hear they had a casting call in the US Senate chambers. Gay whale humping seems to be a thing there.

 

[Weezer]

Is this proof of homosexuality in the animal kingdom or is this just a couple of confused whales?

Humpback sex photographed for first time – and both whales were male | Whales | The Guardian

Scientists confirm sighting of two same-sex marine giants copulating in amorous encounter off Hawaii coast

amp.theguardian.com

The gay community would like us to believe the former. I wasn't aware that whales had recreational sex to begin with

Humpback whales photographed having sex — and gay sex — for the first time

The sexual encounter, which occurred in waters west of the Hawaiian island of Maui in January 2022, was detailed in a new report.

www.nbcnews.com

And just like that, @McDad became an avid whale watcher.