. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Someone emailed a question as to what I felt about pornography on the WWW. The man was worried about his son being exposed to the filth that seems to prevail up here. Basically, here was my response:

In addition, I told this man that, his grandparents had sex to produce his parents. That, his parents had sex to produce him. That, he had sex to produce his son - and in all likelihood, his son will have sex to produce his own children.

In addition this man that, his son was merely doing what every young person of every generation did since before humans walked upright. You can't stop it. It is the way God makes us multiply. God made sex pleasurable - not painful. We seek pleasure and avoid mpain. That is basic chemical biology.

When we are young, we gather as much information as possible before we jump to the next stage. And that stage is the finding of a mate and the passing of our genes. Since the information provided is driven primarily by our culture, then the information that our young adults will seek and gather will be from that culture. In our American culture we seem to be at ease in seeking information from our friends in our school systems. This path is usually taken because due to cultural limitations, very little frank, explicit, and open information of mating is available in our school systems, social, or religious organizations.

You will never stop the search for reproductive information by our youth. Pornography exists because it fills a vacuum that moral society fails to provide. If you want pornogrophy to go away, then replace it with material that fills the vacuum, but also equates the positive results of mating -- love; the family; strong moral communities, and country.

You will never stop the search for reproductive information. All that is needed for pornography to go away is to present the truth about sex. You must present this information in a positive, moral manner and to make it available openly and freely.

Simple - yet at he same time - difficult

Dec. 5th, 1996...notebook notes

Some of my email queries requested that I try and give my explanation for the origin of homosexuality in males. Below, I have listed a brief numbered sequence of events that I feel fit the evolutionary sequence from our primate past to our human present. The theory is highly speculative and must endure the test of time and debate.

1) Assume that our human ancestry has evolved from our chimpanzee cousins, which then evolved into the woodland ape, which then evolved into our human ancestors.

2). The male chimpanzee, the male gorilla, and the human male populations sort themselves out by ranking one another, usually, with the high-ranking males in dominate control. The gorillas rank is determined by strength and stamina. The chimpanzees rank is determined by cunning and alliances with other males. The evolution of high-ranking human males continues with status conveyed through wealth inheritance; clan and race affiliations; higher education networks, and protective alliances with lower-ranking males.

3). The higher the ranking of the male, the more resources this male most likely will have.

4). The more resources the male has, the higher the ranking of the female he can attract and thus improve survival chances of his children. In our American culture, that usually means a female of youthful mate age, (22-28), and high standards of cultural beauty, (i.e. Claudia Schiffer on the cover of George magazine, Jan. 97 issue). In a male patriarchal society, such a female adds to the status of the male in the eyes of lower-ranking males.

5). As a result of obtaining high rank and the accumulation of resources and the rewards that they bring, the high-ranking male is constantly challenged for these resources by lower-ranking males. The female is not considered a threat.

6). Since keeping the resources have obvious advantages, the high-ranking male encircles himself with other males of lower rank by forming alliances against males of even lower rank. The evolved biological and cultural thought is that males of low rank would be detrimental to the survival of the species and should be shunned. It is these innate eugenic mechanisms, added cultural beliefs, and transfer of resources that cement the bond between the high-ranking male and the males that protect him.

7). The high-ranking male gives away just enough resources to keep the protective lower-ranking males satisfied, keeping the majority of resources for himself. The human high-ranking male has convinced the protective circle of males that behaving in a particular manner -- in this case, being culturally moral, and being non-effeminate in physical bearing -- is most beneficial. The implication is that this morality and preferred masculine behavior will ultimately produce high-ranking status for themselves and for their children.

8). The losers of these alliances are the low-ranking males who are blocked from obtaining resources, and thus are shunned by females seeking high- ranking males. The low-ranking males our ancestors discriminated against were most likely of lesser strength and stamina. Today, they include those of little assets, limited education opportunities, certain racial or ethic groups, and physical features considered by our culture to be a detriment to the advancement of the species, (i.e. short and stout, wheelchair bound, ugly, etc.). If physically strong, they usually are of shunned minority groups or considered low in intelligence. Then, as now, losers do not fit the eugenic cultural norms of the high-ranking male and the protective lower-ranking males whom protect them.

9). Our male ancestors that were unfortunate to be gentle in nature and of less physical stature found their access to the best females blocked by these alliances. The most likely scenario is that they formed bachelor bands for safety and to search for food. Since, still being active and viable males, they had normal DNA internal instructional sex drives.

10). Young, healthy, active males are notoriously sexually aggressive. (Whatís that stuff the military puts in their mashed potatoes?). It has been suggested that males are twice as sexually aggressive then females and it raises the possibility that males in homosexual groupings are four times as likely to be sexually aggressive. With the lack of female access, in combination with male sexual aggression, and the addition of a flexible conceptual mind, the possibilities of homosexual acts between members of our ancestral bachelor bands was not only possible, but most likely probable with no cultural restraints to stop the behavioral mechanism. With the mechanism in place, the co-evolution between genes and culture was possible -- hence, the genetic basis for homosexuality today. I am not suggesting that whole scale orgies took place, but rather random and isolated acts neccessited by the sexual libido of the youthful males. But, I am speculating that the acts occurred more frequently then we wish to admit. It is estimated that the homosexual population today ranges from three to 10% of the male population. In our culture today, the repression of homosexual mechanisms is taught as the highway to high-ranking. As a result, the young male bachelor groupings of today focus on the availability of the female in their mating age category and the networks necessary to achieve high status. While at the same time, the male bachelor groups avoid any admittance of male sexual stimulation through fear of being forced from the socially accepted norm.

11). As for the passing of homosexual genes through natural selection, the most likely scenario is our female ancestor sneaking off into the bushes for a tryst with one of the bachelor males whom she finds attractive. Another mating mechanism observed, is that two able apes could be fighting for dominance or female access, and while this battle was occurring, the female and low-ranking male get together. The least likely, yet still possible mating mechanism, is that occasionally the male circle alliance would change, giving the opportunity for a lower-ranking male to enter into the inner circle and thus gain access to the females there.

12). Hence, the theory allows for genetic predisposition of homosexuality while also supporting the idea that behavior mechanisms are in place to make homosexuals feel very uncomfortable and unwanted. Homophobia forces homosexuals into groups for protection and support. These volunteer groupings of homosexuals give the appearance that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. It is no more free choice than being a Jew under Nazi German, or a black in Alabama in 1924.

I intend to expand these notes at a later date. Take note that this theory presentation is from notes, and has not been edited. Please excuse grammatical errors at this time.