[Helm]

The more interesting thing about all this for me is this: If homosexuality and bisexuality is something natural in the sense that it's not some sort of isolated error but instead a formal percent of some species gets born bi or homosexual, then what purpose can same-sex mating serve in a natural environment? The purpose of sexual intercourse in nature is to procreate the species, not to have fun fucking. Doesn't an animal that cannot spawn progeny (lol) become useless instinctively. The second strongest instinct is that of creating life.

I see two answers to all this. Either a few natural abberation cases somehow survived natural clensing (and we human observers might have been more than a little involved in that) and spread their defective genes, or a large fraction of our academic knowledge on instinctual urges is flawed in some ways. The incidents seem far too widespread for the first answer to be completely valid... And even if it was, and sex was still defined narrowly as means of procreation in the animal kingdom, then why give pleasure recievers to animals at all? There are quite a few documented cases of species mating and having offspring where the sexual process is either completely uneventful in terms of sensory payoff, or even painful and still those species are instinctively driven to mate nonetheless. They don't need to have fun doing it. So why orgasms?

For humans, the pleasure derived from sex serves as additional urging towards mating, but given that we have a degree of free will (don't debate this, we've had threads upon threads. I'm presupposing and so fuck you) the orgasm factor would be a pretty big drive for people if we could theoretically remove the instinctual hardwiring (rip out the ippocambus from the brain? Fun!). So for people, it sort of makes sense for nature to provide additional means of persuasion to procreate. But most animals are anything but self-aware. Instinctual automations that would and indeed can procreate based on sort-of scripted behaviour. So why on earth would they fuck for fun and not for children?

Monkeys I can understand, since they're closer in terms of awareness to a human than to an amoeba. Same for dolphins, and a few other species. But... gulls?


I think we have defined some aspects of animal and human genetic behaviour too narrowly.