How correct is he

>If you removed the social stigma, people in their teens and twenties would be fucking like chimpanzees until the novelty wore off and they settled into a bimonthly schedule with a single partner out of laziness (in fact they kinda already do).

Fixed

You're kidding right? Have you ever heard of oxytocin? It's pretty important for pair bonding.

nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6993/full/nature02539.html

Homosexuality has to be bisexuality to be genetic, right? And the rest is just nurture that makes you like dicks more

Think about the idea of female purity. Men, traditionally wanted to mate with a woman who was a virgin to ensure that any child conceived was their own. This means that protecting a woman's virginity was an important part of society, especially for higher status women.

But guys were still horny assholes. So, if you have to Protect female virginity, and can't sleep openly with marries women, all that really leaves are whores and ritualized homosex.

>homosexuality is an evolutionary trait
How retarded are you?

This sort of thinking is only true in post-agricultural society. Where there is no notion of property and heirs to pass property down to, where family sizes are small, etc, no one gives a shit. Children in post-agricultural societies are also economic generators of income once they reach a certain age. Having private rights to the labor of your children is important in post-agricultural societies and patrimony was the mechanism by which one could be said to "own" one's child.

There was a tribe in the amazon or new guinea or some shit that didn't even know men were necessary for the production of children. That's how liberally people fuck outside of agricultural society.

Probably correct that the theory exists. Definitely correct that humans evolve on multiple levels.

>There was a tribe in the amazon or new guinea or some shit that didn't even know men were necessary for the production of children.

I would probation argue that is likely false or an translation error (the anthropologist not understanding the subject, etc).

At some level every animal understands that sex produces children. Gorillas have harems, chimps have tribe hierarchies (like wolves), up and down the animal kingdom everything understands how procreation works, and builds mating strategies around it.

Pure speculation

Animals build strategies around achieving an orgasm in a warm wet hole, not having children.

we build strategies because we get some enjoyment out of it, and those strategies tend to accumulate resources and women.

men who enjoyed strategizing and doing smart work accumulated more resources and women.

If you feel like you're "doing work" just so that women will like you, you are likely less evolved.

I can't find anything good defintively saying yes or no, but the claim seems to have been made of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trobriand_Islands

At the very least there is universal agreement that these islanders have very liberal sexual practices, which was my main point. Hunter gatherer societies do not give a shit about purity.

They do give a shit about monogamy, but that's only while the relationship lasts, which may only be for a short time. Or at least short compared to post-agricultural marriages.

Not correct. For one, many non-human animal species practice homosexuality, including chameleons, which are the exact opposite of pack animals.

Taken at face value it's retarded, but consider the imaginary scenario where families which produce 50% homosexual and 50% heterosexual children, where homosexuals exhibit traits like an extreme need to defend the in-group, would then survive twice as long on average. Thus, progenitors with the right genes would live longer, as they would be defended by their homosexual offsprings, but their genes would still propagate, since they wouldn't merely create homosexuals.

Except 1-2% of all born being homosexual is leaning towards a reoccurring genetic malfunction like down syndrome rather than a positive trait.

Did you miss the word 'imaginary' next to 'scenario' or are you just that full of genetic malfunctions like down syndrome?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

>/his instead of Veeky Forums
>phoneposter
>screenshot of post instead of link to post
how can you fuck up so much in one post

>biological purpose

evolution has no tautology

Bullshit. You won't see me start fucking guys no matter how horny I get because I'm simply not attracted to men and I could always just masturbate. On the other hand, ancient Greeks were all about fucking that boipussy because their society conditioned them to think it was normal, just like we've been conditioned to think only heterosex is normal.

It's a social construct and if you think otherwise you're spooked big time.

teleology*

If your only actions are anything but trying to impregnate as much women as you can, you are a cuck and deserve to die like one.

Working so chad can pump that kids and chill on Ibiza, ffs fucking losers...