selderane wrote:
Intense? Sure. Beautiful? Not so much.
Are you talking about sex in general, or just between gays?
Though I'm sure pedophiles make similar arguments to defend their particular proclivities. I mean, let's be honest here, pedophilia is far more defensible from an evolutionary biology position than homosexuality. In fact, by definition, homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.
Except, it's not, especially for homosexual men. There are many theories, including one that, for lack of a better word and because I can't remember the actual name, I'll call the "Gay uncle" theory. Child-bearing females are more important for the survival of a population than men. That is, you can have as many hot-blooded young guys as you want, but inevitably the growth and survival of your species is limited to how many fertile females you have in regards to 1) genetic diversity and 2) how many children can be produced, especially because childbirth (especially in humans, with our narrow pelvises) can be dangerous to the female. In theory, 10 males could impregnate 100 females. Anyway, a more "feminine" male could stay behind, so to speak, to take care of the females and use his greater strength to both protect and assist the females while the other, more "masculine" males went out and got food for the group. ALSO, interestingly enough, this is the actual basis of a "third gender" in, among others, the Zuni Pueblo native American tribe. If you're curious for more information, look up "two-spirit identity theory," which discusses the large number of tribes that didn't adhere to binary gender systems--but I digress. The main point is that a couple men uninterested in women (out of a larger group of primarily heterosexual women) don't hurt the long-term survival of the group.
ANYWAY.
As for pedophiles, that too is different. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's not really helpful for a species for males to desire females that aren't even of childbearing age.
Boys and girls are biologically capable of reproduction in the early teens, if not pre-teens in some cases (for example, girls raised by a step-father develop sexually a year or so earlier than girls raised by their biological father). So, nature seems to think it's fine.
What's your objection to sex with biologically capable minors?
A psychological unreadiness in most teens for the long-term emotional implications of sex. As I said before, sex is an intense act of connection between two individuals. Then again, everyone's different--I remember not even kissing until I was sure my relationship with my first girlfriend had a future, and now we're engaged. My sister, on the other hand, didn't really feel it was as special. That's not to say that she was whoring herself out, but the specific "first kiss" act was, to her, an arbitrary social construct with no more significance than one assigned to it. As such, she didn't care. She didn't sleep around, but she had a few boyfriends through high school.
For older teens/early adults who are mentally and emotionally capable of handling the significance of sexual acts, wherein there would not be psychological consequences (long-term guilt, regret, etc.), I don't really care if people have sex. That's their own business between themselves and God. Of course, there's always the potential for conceiving a child (no matter how many precautions one may take), so they should recognize that fact as well.
In fact, the whole concept of one's virginity in particular being precious and dear is, to my knowledge, a fairly recent phenomenon in historical terms. I remember reading
this article that found, through record-searching, that while parents outwardly may not have voiced approval, young people often slept in the same bed. While clothed, imagine the temptation there--it was pretty much ensuring that they made it known that, at least superficially, they were trying to keep them from having sex. Some of the young people hadn't even known each other for that long, apparently. Additionally, anywhere from 30-40% of marriages in New England in the late 1700's involved a woman who was pregnant at the time of marriage. Looks like they also largely followed my thought that one should stick around and take care of the child you helped create, not leave the mother with it alone.
EDIT:
This just occurs to me: It's an incredibly self-serving, yet savvy, position for a straight man to take in defending homosexuality. Again, from a evolutionary biology position, you're promoting the removal of potential sexual rivals from the gene pool. In fact, the more homosexual men there are the more your chances of passing your genes on increase.
I wonder if this has been studied to any serious degree.
This is an excellent question! I'm not actually sure how to answer this. There's the positive effects I mentioned earlier, but as for your own
particular genes getting ensured survival (vs. the population as a whole being better off), I could see that. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, though, I'm a physiologist and student physical therapist XD
I mean, even if you don't believe in macroevolution, per se, this could be a real sociological/psychological phenomenon.
I'll get around to Arctic's post once I get to an outlet--my tablet's about to die