Post a response:
|
The issue being that the does not lead to resources being acquired themselves. Unlike in females, where sex with males is itself beneficial in fitness as it leads to reproduction, attractiveness in boys to other males has no such benefit. If a boy is raped because of his sexual appeal, and is simply left after this rape, the appeal would be harmful to fitness, not beneficial. You are conflating two different things in your later example. Sexuality as a method of diffusing social tension, which is a valid approach, and is where the social bonding model of homosexuality comes from; and sexuality as somehow conferring some advantage itself. Also, if resources are what is desired, it makes far more sense to manifest in "cute" traits, larger eyes, smaller faces, which are already wired into human minds to create affective responses. It's the same mechanism that makes people dole out hundreds on treats and chew toys for their kittens. Cats have adapted to be more impactful affectively towards humans, their meows are rarely, if ever, used towards other cats when they reach adulthood. They keep meowing to us because it gets them food, resources, safety, the same way that a child might cry to get your resources, not unzip your flyer. Re: a "pederasty gene", it is as silly because sexuality is itself not reduceable to biology, regardless of type. The "born this way" narrative, whilst rhetorically useful for legal progression, what is acceptable socially has an impact on how sexual orientation forms. This is why there has been, in recent times, the false image of a clean divide between pederasty and homosexuality, as you yourself see to be suggesting with "fundamentals". Prior to the invention of the Urning label, and later themes of sexual inversion, there was no historical distinction between the two. Hence, Polari terms like "chicken" and "feele omi", describing boys/young men as sexual targets in a "gay" lexicon. Also, words like "catamite" and "Ganymede", both of which imply sexual passivity (being a 'bottom' in gay terms) *and* youth, either a boy or a young man. This may be why bottoms in most gay spaces are expected to be slim, young, sometimes effeminate, echoing pederastic aesthetics, because the division is itself artificial. You also, as Edmund so falsely did, equate my views with politics, re: "politically correct". It is not about how "politically correct" it is, just the reality. You had said, and I quote: "I think the nature of the male sex instinct makes this activity a possibility" If male and female sex instincts are not radically different, if females are also able to sexually experiment with each other, and masturbation is also seen in female primates, it eliminates it as a supposed explanation of pederasty. Because similar behaviours do not systematically happen, even in reduced patterns for females, it removes a male "deliberately excessive" sex drive as an explanation. Are there sex differences? Almost certainly, the vast majority of sex offenders are male, but such differences are likely more rooted in male aggression and egocentrism, personality differences rather than being some magical change in the libido itself. |