Gay Cavemen and homosexuality in the past?

[W_L]

http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=T2

 

It's kind of funny and interesting to think about homosexuality and the "third sex" phenomenon in culture from prehistory.

 

Some have argued that homosexuality did not come about until the beginnings of organized civilization, but third sex relationships were around far earlier.

 

Here's a weird dilemma, how can you on one hand deny the existence of homosexuality in mankind's distant past, while accepting that there were third gender roles? Are we implying that these people never had sex in a type of male/female capacity with the same sex counterparts.

 

I can see where it could come in, if we interpret homosexuality in terms of bonding on the level of heterosexual relationships, then structurally, we have not had homosexual relationships before even the 19th century. However, what about the structured relationship? Whether it is by age, class, or social construction, there were sexual interaction between same sex pairings.

 

I also wonder about the third sex relationships and acceptance from before the age of civilizations, who were they and what role did they play in the society of that era?How did their same sex counterparts live with them? Were they involved sexually with one another?

[Y_B]

The concept of homosexuality in it's modern implications are strictly modern. That doesn't mean men have not been sexually or romantically with other men in the past but two cavemen is not the same as two gay guys together today. There's not even a word in antiquity that has the same meaning as "gay" does today. I think back to the ancient Greeks and Romans when relationships between grown men and boys were of the norm but the norm is comtemporary to it's respective time period. Sexuality or sexual behavior was not used to identify a person in the past as it does today and sexual relations between men and boys then was meant to be educational and if I'm correct, a way for boys to become better men. Sure there were probably men who preferred men to women beyond the cultural norm, but I believe the thought process is very different.

 

Anyways, I didn't read the article but just wanted to anwer the question with what I thought.

[Cyhort]

I heard about this on the Alan Cox Show the other day and it's pretty disappointing. All the "proof" they have is that he was buried like they'd bury a girl caveman. I was hoping for something like a fossil of two cavemen with ones face buried in the others crotch or something. But to answer your question I'm pretty sure homosexuality has been around in some form since humans have existed. If people really are born that way then they can't really be a product of their times or culture or society or whatever. I'd like to know when "mating" became more than just finding someone to breed with though. Once people started to feel love for their mate you could argue that a same sex couple could have been around at the same time, at least as couples were viewed back then.

 

The idea of a flamboyantly gay caveman is still freaking hilarious though

[Rilbur]

Here's a weird dilemma, how can you on one hand deny the existence of homosexuality in mankind's distant past, while accepting that there were third gender roles? Are we implying that these people never had sex in a type of male/female capacity with the same sex counterparts.

 

From what I read in the article, they were saying there was insufficient evidence to prove the skeleton was gay. (Actually skeleton's can't be gay, that takes a living being ) All it was proof of was a 'transgendered' individual, which might simply mean someone who had a more feminine aspect than was normal.

 

If A, then B -- C and onward is not necessarily proven.

[Tipdin]

It drives me nuts that so often situations are over-simplified to the point of ridiculousness. -And then exploited to the N-th degree.

 

Various forms of media often erode their own credibility.

 

 

How could anyone seriously answer 'no' to the poll in this thread? Seriously?

Edited April 11, 2011 by Tipdin

[JamesSavik]

Scientists speak out to discredit 'gay caveman' media reports

 

 

If you don't think that there are gay cavemen, wait till you get a load of me.

[rustle]

The conclusion reached was sensational, but not good science, IMO. There's no proof of homosexuality in the remains' burial. It might have been evidence of great honor, or great disrespect. There's no context to know what it really means.

 

But back to the question. With mounting evidence (pardon the pun) of same-sex activity in the animal kingdom, and human beings at the core being biological organisms, how can we doubt?

[PrivateTim]

The concept of gay sex before manscaping is too horrifying to deal with.

[wildone]

Hopefully I won't make this into a topic that it has to moved to the soapbox......

 

I wonder if you believe in creationism or evolution has a detirmination on when homosexual behaviour began.

 

If you believe in creationism, then it might be fair to say that religion or god banned homosexuality from the beginning. Therefore it might have been only known since biblical times (for Christianity).

 

Now if you believe in evolution, and man evolving from apes, where their is homosexual behavior in the wild, who could not conclude that perhistoric man didn't participate in gay sex?

 

Also, if man wasn't as 'developed' back then, and reacted to more instinct than reason or thought, wouldn't he be willing to get himself off however he felt like at the moment?

 

Just some things to consider

[rustle]

The concept of gay sex before manscaping is too horrifying to deal with.

 

 

Don't like flossing?

[Graeme]

There are records of homosexual individuals in many different societies around the world. I don't have any references handy, but I'm sure that there were such people amongst the American Indians, and these people often became shamans. As such, they were in positions of respect in their communities and I would expect that they had relationships.

 

Jean Auel, in her 'Clan of the Cave Bear' series included homosexual characters and homosexual relationships. She's done an incredible amount of research on her novels, so I'm going to take from that that there is evidence for the possibility of homosexual relations in pre-historic times. I don't see her including that sort of detail for the sake of the story, especially as they don't appear to have added anything significant to the stories - just local 'colouring'.

[Mark Arbour]

Hopefully I won't make this into a topic that it has to moved to the soapbox......

 

I wonder if you believe in creationism or evolution has a detirmination on when homosexual behaviour began.

 

If you believe in creationism, then it might be fair to say that religion or god banned homosexuality from the beginning. Therefore it might have been only known since biblical times (for Christianity).

 

Now if you believe in evolution, and man evolving from apes, where their is homosexual behavior in the wild, who could not conclude that perhistoric man didn't participate in gay sex?

 

Also, if man wasn't as 'developed' back then, and reacted to more instinct than reason or thought, wouldn't he be willing to get himself off however he felt like at the moment?

 

Just some things to consider

 

 

Actually, I'm wondering if it wouldn't work the other way. One could argue that with evolution, men evolved to appreciate both sexes as part of their discovery that sex was as much for pleasure as for procreation. If you are a creationist, then the mere existence of homosexuality would tend to discount the biblical arguments against it, unless you view it as some tasty sin God placed in front of man.

 

 

[BeysJoshersLepton V2]

Its a stereotype but come on people someone had to design those fur boots, fur chest peices with the leather pelt loin cloth from some big cat. Considering what we had to work with back then we made it work.

[Tipdin]

There are records of homosexual individuals in many different societies around the world. I don't have any references handy, but I'm sure that there were such people amongst the American Indians, and these people often became shamans. As such, they were in positions of respect in their communities and I would expect that they had relationships.

You're correct. Native Americans believed that the souls of both a man and woman existed simultaneously within a gay man, (I've never read or been told anything about lesbians). It was thought that a gay man had lived previous lifetimes and so would naturally be wiser and more learned that a straight man. Gay men were exalted and given special treatment - BETTER treatment. There are even records of punishments doled out to men that hurt, or tried to hurt a gay tribesman. (Usually, a death sentence at a prescribe speed.)

 

We also must remember that the IDEA of homosexuality is relatively new. Sex used to be sexual acts, the definition wasn't confined to CERTAIN sexual acts or acts with a specific someone. Perhaps, folks way back then were more enlightened than we are today. They knew that sexual orientation was a sliding scale, not a side.

[Matthew k]

You're correct. Native Americans believed that the souls of both a man and woman existed simultaneously within a gay man, (I've never read or been told anything about lesbians). It was thought that a gay man had lived previous lifetimes and so would naturally be wiser and more learned that a straight man. Gay men were exalted and given special treatment - BETTER treatment. There are even records of punishments doled out to men that hurt, or tried to hurt a gay tribesman. (Usually, a death sentence at a prescribe speed.)

 

We also must remember that the IDEA of homosexuality is relatively new. Sex used to be sexual acts, the definition wasn't confined to CERTAIN sexual acts or acts with a specific someone. Perhaps, folks way back then were more enlightened than we are today. They knew that sexual orientation was a sliding scale, not a side.

 

There were lots of different Native American groups with different beliefs. What I gathered from my quick research was that it is way more complicated than simply gay or straight as we define the terms.

 

This was really interesting although I am just at the beginning of it.

 

In Search of the "Berdache"

 

This was fascinating too.

 

Third-Gender Roles in Indiana-Area Native Americans

[W_L]

There were lots of different Native American groups with different beliefs. What I gathered from my quick research was that it is way more complicated than simply gay or straight as we define the terms.

 

This was really interesting although I am just at the beginning of it.

 

In Search of the "Berdache"

 

This was fascinating too.

 

Third-Gender Roles in Indiana-Area Native Americans

 

I read that stuff too, while thinking about the potential for homosexuality in the past.

 

I kind of agree that the idea of third sex is very different from homosexuality as we have it today. Based on native American folk-lore and traditions, It sounds more like a three person relationship in some respects, you might have two biological males and a female or two biological females and a male in some kind of family unit.

 

Wouldn't that open the idea that universally we should all have the potential for non-exclusive bisexuality or multiple partner groupings, but we've only developed heterosexuality and homosexuality later on as a fact of identity with concepts.

 

Also, the caveman was found near two other traditional burial sites, which makes me wonder if joint burial might have been a possible idea.

 

Same sex relationships I don't think should be doubted, but homosexuality is an interesting issue.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that the same logic one would discount homosexuality in the past can apply to heterosexuality as well. Even though opposite relationships are the majority in most animal groups and human beings, the concept of "heterosexuality" is also quite modern. Wouldn't it be theoretically possible that heterosexuality was invented only as a means of reproductive efficiency, while realistically people have variation for their sexual desires.

[Tipdin]

There were lots of different Native American groups with different beliefs. What I gathered from my quick research was that it is way more complicated than simply gay or straight as we define the terms.

 

This was really interesting although I am just at the beginning of it.

 

In Search of the "Berdache"

 

This was fascinating too.

 

Third-Gender Roles in Indiana-Area Native Americans

 

Interesting articles and very informative.

 

I am part Algonquin and worked at a Native American casino in Minnesota. On many, MANY occasions, I argued with Native America co-workers who thought homosexuality, (thus I) was wrong. I reminded them of their own culture's belief regarding the issue but they were very dismissive. They viewed my being gay as evidence of why I was a lesser human being.

[W_L]

Interesting articles and very informative.

 

I am part Algonquin and worked at a Native American casino in Minnesota. On many, MANY occasions, I argued with Native America co-workers who thought homosexuality, (thus I) was wrong. I reminded them of their own culture's belief regarding the issue but they were very dismissive. They viewed my being gay as evidence of why I was a lesser human being.

 

I thought native belief systems usually were more egalitarian, which would not posit superiority or inferiority on individuals, unless your co-workers were part of the Christianize groups.

 

One of the things I learned while doing some background study for my western story was the role of Christian missionaries on native tribes. For example, Mormons and native tribes were at times enemies, but they were also allies at certain points due to shared territorial defense. Many native tribes had encountered the older Catholic missionaries of the Spanish, Portuguese, and French, but the new protestant missionaries were different.

 

I know we're going off topic, but I think there's a tie in on the case of religion and culture as well. If we consider religious beliefs to be the normative setting in many cultures, then would it be reasonable that religion probably help form the modern concept of homosexuality as well? Even in polar opposition, as certain Judeo-Christian sects operate, the polarization has shaped the concept of sexual orientation and identity.

[Tipdin]

I thought native belief systems usually were more egalitarian, which would not posit superiority or inferiority on individuals, unless your co-workers were part of the Christianize groups.

 

One of the things I learned while doing some background study for my western story was the role of Christian missionaries on native tribes. For example, Mormons and native tribes were at times enemies, but they were also allies at certain points due to shared territorial defense. Many native tribes had encountered the older Catholic missionaries of the Spanish, Portuguese, and French, but the new protestant missionaries were different.

 

I know we're going off topic, but I think there's a tie in on the case of religion and culture as well. If we consider religious beliefs to be the normative setting in many cultures, then would it be reasonable that religion probably help form the modern concept of homosexuality as well? Even in polar opposition, as certain Judeo-Christian sects operate, the polarization has shaped the concept of sexual orientation and identity.

You're noticing what I noticed about my co-workers. Lakota and Dakota tribes here, in Minnesota, TODAY, are an interesting study in dichotomous personalities. When convenient, the Native Americans that I know will slip from their Native trainings and teachings, to their thoroughly American trainings and teachings. Many of them told me that fags should die because it went against Mother Earth....!??? When I reminded them of their own tribe's ancient ways of honoring the 'Winkte' (two-spirit) among them, their response was that - I - was not one OF them. I was Algonquin, an enemy, so gay or straight, - didn't matter....

 

When someone's logic is that twisted, trying to straighten them out is pointless.

[Krista]

Eh, I say there were gay cavemen running around.. Homosexuality isn't a cultural thing, but a naturally occurring one.

[John Galaor]

The concept of homosexuality in it's modern implications are strictly modern. That doesn't mean men have not been sexually or romantically with other men in the past but two cavemen is not the same as two gay guys together today. There's not even a word in antiquity that has the same meaning as "gay" does today. I think back to the ancient Greeks and Romans when relationships between grown men and boys were of the norm but the norm is contemporary to it's respective time period. Sexuality or sexual behavior was not used to identify a person in the past as it does today and sexual relations between men and boys then was meant to be educational and if I'm correct, a way for boys to become better men. Sure there were probably men who preferred men to women beyond the cultural norm, but I believe the thought process is very different.

 

Anyways, I didn't read the article but just wanted to answer the question with what I thought.

 

There existed also the concept of lovers among adults. Specially in ancient warrior societies.

 

Just imagine a band of those warriors that went pillaging villages and trying to conquer a land to live and establish themselves.

All along their warrior path they were probably making couples of lovers.

In general the concept were lovers of distinct age. One being older than the other by four or five years. They were couples of warriors, sort of like the knight and squire of medieval ages. For I suppose those warriors could not go on carrying women with them on their path of war, for many times had to flee very fast persecuted by an aggressive army of the local warriors. It is my idea that those bands of warriors and marauders could not be accompanied by females.

 

Then, later on, when they conquer a land and establish in it, the marry with the local women, and the forget their former experience as gay lovers. But there is a moment in static societies that they are overpopulated.   Then they try to solve the problem limiting the rights to breed to those that inherit a piece of land.  And it is mostly the older son of the family that who inherit the land. Another way to stop the excessive breeding is to separate the children by sexes. Not only the children, they separate the young males and females that have a most potential to breed. Most commentators nowadays tend to forget these natural strictures about breeding. And use to think that in former times most people was breeding freely like today in Cameroon or Latin American countries. Well, they were not. A control was established not permitting the females to breed unless they were married. Then, the average rate of growth of the population for the planet between AD 1 and AD 1800 was simply 0.08% a year. This cannot be explained by children mortality, that was important, but mostly for a social limitation to the right of breeding.

You can compared this small growth with those of most poor countries of today that are on the range of 2.5% a year for the past several decades.

All this rant seems to bear not any relationship with being or not being homosexual.

Then coming back to the social strictures that separated males from females, gave us a probably key to understand how had developed the case for being gay.

There is an age window in which we could easily discover the pleasures of sex. But at this moment, the sexes are mostly segregated by a strong psychological barrier. Nobody can deny this reality. Then, the barrier is not only imposed on females, males are also affected by this barrier. Then, those young people cannot play in a natural way to discover the pleasures of sex. This is not the case of hunter gatherer societies. This societies had not this strictures separating the sexes. They do not need, not because of high mortality, but because hunger is rather common, and the female reproductive system does not work until she had accumulated 30% of fat as body weight. This can be achieved when females are about 20 to 24 years old.

Then, after the first child and with breast feeding, the females get thin again, and do not get pregnant until five or six years later.

So in these societies there is not any need to separate the sexes.

Then, in agricultural societies, the plague is overpopulation soon appeared. And sexes are segregated.

So, when the young people has the age to discover the pleasures of sex they are playing, more or less naked, with another member of the same sex. They do not need you had performed anything openly sexual.

 

Even if you had done nothing sexual with your friend you had discovered the pleasure of playing naked with another human of the same gender. You have discovered the pleasure of feeling another's male skin if you are male, or pleasure of watching naked bodies of other males. The same occurs with females. There should be natural to feel pleasure in watching a naked body. But if the naked body you watch is of the same sex as yours, some wiring is occurring in your brain. And this wiring can be in the process of making you gay.

 

Our brain is getting wired with the behavior we are doing.

Then, there is also the problem that we are social animals. This means that some members can be genetically predisposed at being dominant while others in the opposite extreme can be submissive. People in between is middle of the road. It can be postulated that submissive males can easily comply to orders given from dominant males. Not only can they complied when are ordered, they can comply mentally in their inner thinking, even if not given any order yet. But they could feel some form of pleasure by thinking they are doing any form of service to a dominant male he had seen, or he knows more or less. In this case, dominant males is a relative concept. It only needs that this males has some traits of being dominant. Not need to be a extreme case of dominance.

Some persons can be genetically wired in their brain into being submissive. This would not be far off from becoming a bottom gay.

 

Then as social constrictions made more difficult to have a heterosexual experience, the path to think in sexual terms playing with another member of the same gender is easier. The mere thinking of doing this is wiring your brain to become gay. You can imagine yourself serving a dominant male you know, as I had read in many gay stories in nifty.

 

It is not a case so different to playing tennis.

To play tennis someone has to push you gently into playing tennis. Not only once, but many times in a row. You have to be driven into playing softly and easily. If someone do this rightly, after some time of training you are becoming a tennis player of some quality.

But you do not become a tennis player because one day you had a racket in you hand and hit a few times a ball.

This is not enough exercise to wire your brain into becoming a player. But by playing tennis many times, during many hours and many days, many years, you become a player. This was possible because your brain was being wired to do that.

Even thinking about playing tennis is reinforcing the wiring in your neurons.

But it can be said, as someone told me one day, you have chose to become a tennis player. This is not a choice at all. It is a process of doing something. But you should not any of this unless you get the pleasant consequences of what are you doing. Then, only after having some training, enough training, you can go gladly to play tennis.

The same can be said of a pianist. You cannot choose one day and tell yourself "I'm gonna be a pianist". There is not any way that could be happen. For becoming a pianist is a long and laborious endeavor. You are not going to play the damned piano unless a special teacher convinces you that you are very good hitting the keys of the piano with your fingers. So, in this case there is an agent controlling your behavior as a piano student. The more work you do playing the piano the best pianist you would be. This is possible, because all the wiring was done on your brain while your were playing.

The case of being gay is little more complex.

The number of experiences are not as numerous in the case of being gay when compared to playing the piano or playing tennis. But the pleasures involved in sex, either real or imagined, are much greater.

I mean the pleasure of playing the piano, or playing tennis exists, but are weaker.

Then, while you do not become a pianist by thinking you are playing the piano, being a gay different in the sense that you have a great deal pleasure by simply imagining you are doing something, without having any real experience of sex with a member of your same gender.

Just by merely thinking of playing intimately with a member of your same gender is already producing some wiring your mind. So strong can the feelings involved in these sexual fantasies.

 

Then, why having those fantasies with persons of the same sex and not of the opposite sex? This is difficult to explain. The most probably explanation could be it there is a much greater probability of body playing with a member of your same gender, like feeling or wrestling or something, playing one over the other in intimate contact, even if not sexual touching is involved. Then this happened because the segregation of sexes done by the norms of society.

Other explanation can be we are social animals. As social animals of the same gender living together we could feel some degree of empathy for others members of the same sex. This had been observed in armies, monasteries, boarding schools, and other places where members of the same gender live in close proximity. Then as males being together you could be more attached to person as his friends than to the rest of males. This is part of being social and making limited alliances. This can be observed among primates. It has been observed many other mammals as well. There is another point, most mammal males do not breed at all their life. For reproduction is an exclusive for the dominant males.

But humans are the most lustful of all mammals, for they can feel lust all the year long in a more or less marked degree, while most mammals do not. Then, the sexual stress among the males that are not allowed to breed, for they are segregated from the females, are too strong. Then, it is not any miracle at all that is so frequent to see cases of homosexuality among humans when compared with other animals. Then, while most instances of male herbivores mounting another males occur during the routing season, in humans the sexual lust occurs during the whole year but is more marked during summer. This is the season in which the mood is more optimist and takes more risks to play sex.

I heard in a video, that most women only feel attracted to alpha males when they are in estrous, but prefer males to marry that have more a feminine outlook. It is suppose they think of this males as more responsable fathers, and more easy to control.

I am trying to postulate that the concept of being gay is a complex phenomenon. It is not any easy to analyze.

[West Coast Dude]

Scientists speak out to discredit 'gay caveman' media reports

 

 

If you don't think that there are gay cavemen, wait till you get a load of me.

 

OMFG this cumback was radical dude.

[Brandon]

I think there was homosexuality present in the past...many animals have been shown to be homosexual from mammals to birds even some reptiles, and its more than just sex. Many mammals and birds find permanent companionship with males of the same species which includes sex. Male penguins, swans and ducks have been shown to even try to raise chicks from infertile eggs when they are in relationships. I doubt this decided to appear when humans decided to create a "society" we are all animals after all.

[hh5]

Wooo is this a hint of a new Geico commercials - I could just imagine the slogan!!

[bigbear427]

Our brain is getting wired with the behavior we are doing.

 

WOW! What an interesting discussion, so many points of view.

 

You know, I was going to question John's (apparent) assertion that "homosexuality" is a socially acquired "behavior", but in the final analysis I think the more important point is the issue of 'classification'.

 

As the 'thinking' animal, we use symbols to think and communicate. We classify things, labeling them, in order to make them easier to deal with when we think, and to give them intangible form, so we can communicate about these things with others. We dissect complex phenomena into smaller and smaller quanta, labeling each piece in the process, and pretend that each piece of a phenomenon stands alone; is a single thing.

 

A simple example is this: John uses the 'label' "Bisexual" in the description of his sexuality on his profile. I seriously doubt however, that what I think that means is the same as what John thinks. In my case the 'label' on my profile says "Gay" but, in truth, someone would have to have a fairly lengthy discussion with me to discover what I mean by that. Undoubtedly, my definition would not be the same as anyone else.

 

For instance, does "Gay" mean I have never had, or will never have sex with a woman? The first assertion is definitely false, the second-- well anything is possible under the right circumstances, though not likely. Yet, how I see myself IS "Gay", as I have a strong preference for men over women. I look at men, not women, when I 'people watch', and yet the beauty of the occasional female will also catch my eye.

 

All of this is to illustrate the folly, and danger of substituting the symbols we use for the actual phenomena we are thinking about. And the simple fact that human sexuality is such an EXTREMELY complex phenomena as to defy any labeling we may try to apply.

 

In the end, "Gay", "Bi", "Straight", or any other label we care to think up only applies at the grossest level of understanding of what we are talking about.

 

A 'Gay Caveman'? Hilariously funny, but what do we REALLY mean by that? Given historical context, the label has no meaning at all...

Edited April 18, 2011 by bigbear427