COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

a gay story about the invention of anal sex

imagining prehistory

Hypoxia said:
@biflipperguy:
Yes, when writing historical fiction, tis best to work within the framework of reality, of known history. My point was that an ORIGIN story would be pre-historical, undocumented -- so a LIT author is free to invent any scenario(s) desired. The discoveries of fire, weaponry, music, and anal sex can all be written about in imaginative ways, little constrained by preconceptions. Each was likely discovered independently many times, so many origin scenarios may be contrived.
Click to expand...

There's very little actual disagreement between us. Of course one can imagine a variety of scenarios. But if it's going to resonate as literature, it needs to be emotionally plausible to a human living today. With pre-historic "discoveries" it must have been (often) a matter of inventing a process for using something that's already in the environment. No one had to "discover" fire -- every animal knows there's fire -- they're a little scared of it, but enjoy its warmth when it's controlled by humans -- but my dog knows that fire exists. Some human being (or many, independently, you're right) thought up a way of keeping naturally occurring fire going, and using it to keep warm in cold weather. And then later on preventing food spoilage by heating food over a fire, and then much later that you could make fire happen. (Personally, I'm moved by the scene in Quest for Fire where a girl from an advanced tribe teaches her primitive boyfriend how to make fire, and makes him -- and me -- weep with excitement and joy. But that's teaching a known process, and how that process was invented is still mysterious, I think.)

For anal sex too there must have been many independent instances, each one different in particulars. The example of someone backing up onto a hard cock in a thunderstorm is just silly -- why would somebody have an erection in a thunderstorm? Thumb up the ass? A little more credible, that could work. But what feels plausible to me is that something that already exists in your environment, coitus, is done in a different way by creative individuals. Bonobo chimps do, polyamorously, everything humans do (tongue kissing, oral sex, etc.) -- except coitus -- that they only do heterosexually. A pair of human males (or many pairs, independently) invented a different way to do coitus, and of course it had different particulars each time it was invented.

Should a writer be "constrained by preconceptions" in imagining these scenarios? Yes -- inasmuch as one's understanding of human emotional life is a set of preconceptions.

I would be interested in hearing other possible scenarios -- that's why I posted this thread. But the story I'm writing will have the contours I've suggested.
 
biflipperguy said:
There's very little actual disagreement between us. Of course one can imagine a variety of scenarios. But if it's going to resonate as literature, it needs to be emotionally plausible to a human living today.
Click to expand...

Some LIT authors may wish their tales to "resonate as literature". Others may just write strokers to accumulate views and votes. We have a variety of approaches and goals. But we must also keep in mind a truism (by LP Hartley): "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." Past mindsets may not resonate well with modern readers. So, do we insist on incomprehensible accuracy, or do we grab eyeballs with a palimpsest of old and modern sensibilities? Is a puzzlement.
 
I covered the progression of GM anal sex in my "Beginning of Time," but I didn't start it with the first instance of anal penetration, I started it with anal penetration being an aspect of formal primitive sacrifice ritual. I had it moving on to a domination "thing" and to more of a personal relationship as civilization progressed.
 
Thanks for the explanation, bi-flipper. I guess we never run out of things to learn!
 
biflipperguy said:
There's very little actual disagreement between us. Of course one can imagine a variety of scenarios. But if it's going to resonate as literature, it needs to be emotionally plausible to a human living today. With pre-historic "discoveries" it must have been (often) a matter of inventing a process for using something that's already in the environment. No one had to "discover" fire -- every animal knows there's fire -- they're a little scared of it, but enjoy its warmth when it's controlled by humans -- but my dog knows that fire exists. Some human being (or many, independently, you're right) thought up a way of keeping naturally occurring fire going, and using it to keep warm in cold weather. And then later on preventing food spoilage by heating food over a fire, and then much later that you could make fire happen. (Personally, I'm moved by the scene in Quest for Fire where a girl from an advanced tribe teaches her primitive boyfriend how to make fire, and makes him -- and me -- weep with excitement and joy. But that's teaching a known process, and how that process was invented is still mysterious, I think.)

For anal sex too there must have been many independent instances, each one different in particulars. The example of someone backing up onto a hard cock in a thunderstorm is just silly -- why would somebody have an erection in a thunderstorm? Thumb up the ass? A little more credible, that could work. But what feels plausible to me is that something that already exists in your environment, coitus, is done in a different way by creative individuals. Bonobo chimps do, polyamorously, everything humans do (tongue kissing, oral sex, etc.) -- except coitus -- that they only do heterosexually. A pair of human males (or many pairs, independently) invented a different way to do coitus, and of course it had different particulars each time it was invented.

Should a writer be "constrained by preconceptions" in imagining these scenarios? Yes -- inasmuch as one's understanding of human emotional life is a set of preconceptions.

I would be interested in hearing other possible scenarios -- that's why I posted this thread. But the story I'm writing will have the contours I've suggested.
Click to expand...
I have 0 authority or background here, but am curious what you think of the following with respect to your story line: the frequency of homosexuality in human populations is (roughly, didn't look up latest numbers) about 5-10%, and appear to be largely genetic not ( entirely/predominantly) cultural. So given that biological tendency, it seems that it was inevitable that, given a large enough group, attraction developed and hole exploration occurred (perhaps, as you or someone said) to mimic het sex. This doesn't quite address the original question head on, but I thought I'd throw it in there since the general topic interested me.
 
PS Re freq of homosexuality - certainly not limited to human populations, as we know.
 
thanks for this, sr71plt

sr71plt said:
I covered the progression of GM anal sex in my "Beginning of Time," but I didn't start it with the first instance of anal penetration, I started it with anal penetration being an aspect of formal primitive sacrifice ritual. I had it moving on to a domination "thing" and to more of a personal relationship as civilization progressed.
Click to expand...

I will definitely look this up and read it. It might help shape what I'm doing, even though I'm taking a different tack.
 
the Hartley quote is cool

Hypoxia said:
Some LIT authors may wish their tales to "resonate as literature". Others may just write strokers to accumulate views and votes. We have a variety of approaches and goals. But we must also keep in mind a truism (by LP Hartley): "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." Past mindsets may not resonate well with modern readers. So, do we insist on incomprehensible accuracy, or do we grab eyeballs with a palimpsest of old and modern sensibilities? Is a puzzlement.
Click to expand...

Since I love to travel in foreign countries, precisely because "they do things differently there", maybe my interest in "time travel" -- through reading and writing literature -- is related to my globe-trotting urges. The thing is, there's always a road between us, whether it's travel to places or to times. It doesn't get me off, sexually or otherwise, if I can't imagine myself in that context, doing that. I can imagine myself as a paleolithic hominid, just as I can imagine myself as a Hutu tribesman, or a Samurai, or as a Turkish girl sold into sex slavery in 2014, or as a Norwegian pastor struggling with his urges, or as a trucker from Amarillo getting his rocks off at rest stops. That's why literature is fun, and that goes for strokers too.
 
genetic basis for homosexuality

Mara12 said:
I have 0 authority or background here, but am curious what you think of the following with respect to your story line: the frequency of homosexuality in human populations is (roughly, didn't look up latest numbers) about 5-10%, and appear to be largely genetic not ( entirely/predominantly) cultural. So given that biological tendency, it seems that it was inevitable that, given a large enough group, attraction developed and hole exploration occurred (perhaps, as you or someone said) to mimic het sex. This doesn't quite address the original question head on, but I thought I'd throw it in there since the general topic interested me.
Click to expand...

This is a very hot topic in ev-psych today. Politically correct gays argue it's all genetic, because they want to argue that it's wrong to force gays to change. Homophobes want to say it's a cultural choice and therefore can (and must) be changed. The informed scientific view in ev-psych nowadays is that no human behavior is 100% genetic (nature) or 100% cultural (nurture) -- everything humans do is a nature/nurture mix. It's very difficult to argue that a gene for exclusively same-sex mate choice could be transmitted, since same-sex couplings don't produce offspring. (since genetic evolution is about differential reproductive fitness, i.e. # of offspring) The best they can do is say it's altruism -- a gay person may benefit the reproductive fitness of others who share their genes, basically brothers and sisters. Personally I find that far-fetched. And I see cultural factors in the development of my own homosexual side. A gene for bisexuality (for opennes to either kind of sex) is different, and is very plausible, since our evolutionary stock is close to bonobo chimps, who are ALL bisexual.

Ass fucking has to be all cultural invention, and that's very plausible since the explosion of cultural behavior is the human difference. I agree that its discovery was inevitable -- I mean the holes are so close. GRIN -- All of the scenarios that have been suggested here make sense: that it grew out of masturbation play (the thumb up the ass), that it was a ritual behavior, and that a pubescent boy envied his sister's pleasure and went over and sat on her boyfriend's dick after she went to sleep (the premise I'm working with). Any other ideas? I'd love to hear more.
 
biflipperguy said:
This is a very hot topic in ev-psych today. Politically correct gays argue it's all genetic, because they want to argue that it's wrong to force gays to change. Homophobes want to say it's a cultural choice and therefore can (and must) be changed. The informed scientific view in ev-psych nowadays is that no human behavior is 100% genetic (nature) or 100% cultural (nurture) -- everything humans do is a nature/nurture mix. It's very difficult to argue that a gene for exclusively same-sex mate choice could be transmitted, since same-sex couplings don't produce offspring. (since genetic evolution is about differential reproductive fitness, i.e. # of offspring) The best they can do is say it's altruism -- a gay person may benefit the reproductive fitness of others who share their genes, basically brothers and sisters. Personally I find that far-fetched. And I see cultural factors in the development of my own homosexual side. A gene for bisexuality (for opennes to either kind of sex) is different, and is very plausible, since our evolutionary stock is close to bonobo chimps, who are ALL bisexual.

Ass fucking has to be all cultural invention, and that's very plausible since the explosion of cultural behavior is the human difference. I agree that its discovery was inevitable -- I mean the holes are so close. GRIN -- All of the scenarios that have been suggested here make sense: that it grew out of masturbation play (the thumb up the ass), that it was a ritual behavior, and that a pubescent boy envied his sister's pleasure and went over and sat on her boyfriend's dick after she went to sleep (the premise I'm working with). Any other ideas? I'd love to hear more.
Click to expand...
I agree with your summary, but people fall too easily into thinking that every behavior/trait is selected directly for itself. I think there are any number of traits that are accidental by-products of other selected traits, and are not themselves under selection. As long as they do not detract too much from overall fitness (as you pointed out, reproductive fitness), they are not selected against.

But that's probably way beyond the fun and pleasure of this thread. You gave me, indirectly, an idea for sci-fi-ish story based on selective breeding, thank you. I hope I can pull it off.
 
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I've never bought the "born this way" argument. I've known two sets of identical twins in my life, where one was gay and one was straight. That pretty much blows away any all-genetics theory.
 
Carnevil9 said:
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I've never bought the "born this way" argument. I've known two sets of identical twins in my life, where one was gay and one was straight. That pretty much blows away any all-genetics theory.
Click to expand...
I don't claim at all that homosexuality or any trait is 100% genetic. There are two ways, however, to explain the great point about twins that you bring up: one is known as epigenetic modification, essentially a "soft-wired" code, which can differ between twins, overlaid on the identical genomes, and a second that we are just now learning more about has to do with the influences of the "microbiome," the bacteria and viruses associated with individuals, that can and do differ between twins, and would effect immune responses differently in the twins. I am not advocating that this is the way it is, because I have no clue in this case. I am only pointing out ways in which it could. It is way complicated, and fascinating. To me, anyway. In the next ten years I think we'll learn a heck of a lot more about genetic vs. cultural influences because so many more individuals are being sequenced.

No reason environment couldn't have a role as well.
 
Carnevil9 said:
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I've never bought the "born this way" argument. I've known two sets of identical twins in my life, where one was gay and one was straight. That pretty much blows away any all-genetics theory.
Click to expand...

Your conclusion is incorrect since it is flawed with the assumption that identical twins are 100% carbon copies of each other in every way. Yes, they share DNA, but there are many studies that show monozygotic twins (the proper term for "identical twins") have numerous genetic-based differences also.

Most telling is that they do not have identical fingerprints.

While unusual, different eye colors occur often enough to not consider it rare.

Perhaps the most interesting difference though, is the fact that the percentage of one twin being left-handed is, at 18-21%, nearly double the rate of it's occurance in single births. Obversely, the percentage of BOTH being left-handed falls dramatically to, at 4%, less than half the typical occurance in single births. Much like being gay, science can't explain why people are born with a very natural orientation to left-handedness...it just happens...and as a society, we finally stopped looking at as being "strange" or "a choice" or "needing fixed" about thirty-five or forty years ago.

Thankfully, society as a whole, is also finally adopting the same reasoning with regards to those of us with a very natural orientation to the same sex. It's the way we came from the factory. ;)
 
biflipperguy said:
This is a very hot topic in ev-psych today. Politically correct gays argue it's all genetic, because they want to argue that it's wrong to force gays to change. Homophobes want to say it's a cultural choice and therefore can (and must) be changed.
Click to expand...

And then there are those of us to think sex is sex is sex and that, if it gets you off in a given situation, that it doesn't matter what gender your partner is--and that this is what, basically, is inside us all.
 
Oh, and since we are sharing "I know twins that..." personal stories:

I had friends growing up, that were a family of seven brothers...two single births, a pair of twins, and set of triplets. They were all born just over eight years apart, and couldn't have been raised any more alike as far as nature and nuture.

One of the twins and one of the triplets are gay and can guarantee you that they would look at you as if you have grown a third eye if you try to tell them they had ANY choice in the matter.
 
Last edited:
Mara12 said:
I agree with your summary, but people fall too easily into thinking that every behavior/trait is selected directly for itself. I think there are any number of traits that are accidental by-products of other selected traits, and are not themselves under selection. As long as they do not detract too much from overall fitness (as you pointed out, reproductive fitness), they are not selected against.
Click to expand...

Yes, and much more so once cultural evolution kicks in. For one thing, the tether to reproductive success disappears in cultural evolution, and practices can evolve for completely different reasons. Some of them directly counter to genetic success: not only exclusive homosex, but also monasticism, adoption, elective childlessness. but also things just unrelated to reproduction altogether: the writing and reading of books, for instance, and thousands more. We're a very cool species.
 
Mara12 said:
No reason environment couldn't have a role as well.
Click to expand...

Environment does have a very big role. In fact it has to be considered a third major determinant of human behavior, along with genetics and culture. Of course another way of looking at it is that culture is part of environment. But for me (and I think for many) it works better to think of them as separate agents: the cultural environment and the natural environment.

Discoveries in the past couple of decades about the way genes are expressed, and especially the role of TIMING (a-tick-a-tick-a-ticka-a-ticka) in gene expression. Genes are just recipes for the body to make amino acids, and any genetically controlled behavior is controlled by a complex of amino acids, not just one. And the shape a behavior takes in any individual is altered by the timing (a-tock-a-tock-a-tocka-a-tocka) of the onset of each of the separate aminos in the complex.

The clearest examples (or at least the ones I know best) have to do with the timing of learning. Imprinting in some poultry species: there is a window of time after hatching, I think I read that it's about 36 hours) during which they have a genetically controlled trait to follow the first moving object they see, as their mother. Birdsong is an even cooler example. It is not learned, it is genetically encoded. But it is only activated if the song is heard during a particular window of time. If the fella doesn't hear it at the right moment, he never gets it, and will not sing, or attract a female mate, will not reproduce.

In humans, the instinct to learn language is an example (Steven Pinker is good on this in The Language Instinct): language is culture, but the way the brain learns it is genetically controlled. Before the age of six, there is no such thing as foreign language. The toddler brain contains a machine for deducing the grammar of whatever language it hears. Instruction only gets in the way at that age. At 6 that machine withers. There is a similar trait for learning phonology before age 12 (before sex kicks in). Young people who emigrate after adolescence tend to keep an accent their whole lives. If they emigrate before adolescence, they will assimilate flawlessly to the phonology of the target language. That is why the timing of language teaching in American schools is such idiocy. (Can you tell that my background includes language teaching? ha ha)

It's broader than language. The physical brain of a 6-year-old who has had an enriched cultural environment is a different physiological structure that that of a same-age classmate who has not. That is why the de-funding of Headstart is not only idiotic but criminal. Kids who start school with brains that have not experienced enriched culture are LEARNING DISABLED by comparison with their peers, and they will keep right on shooting each other in the streets when they are teens.

Back to HOMOSEX: given all of this, it's quite plausible that experiences in adolescence shape behavior not only by influencing the conscious mind, or even the unconscious one, but also by triggering or blocking the release of specific amino acids. This is what makes the determination of human behavioral traits so fucking complex (so wonderfully complex).

Sorry to soap-box for so long. Excuse me. -GRIN-
 
sr71plt said:
He was taunting the Persians on their claims to have invented/discovered everything.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that interpretation? I hadn't heard of that before, nor would I expect the Persians to make such claims as such a young nation compared to their much older and more established neighbors, like the Egyptians and Babylonians. Hell, the Persians didn't even use their own language as their imperial lingua franca.
 
Hypoxia said:
For the purpose of writing a LIT story as requested by the OP: who CARES about any actual history? Just make stuff up! Posit a tribe where somebody found that a thumb up the anus felt good for the thumbee (when done properly), then expanded to penis-in-anus sex (guys just gotta stick that thing anywhere), then to guys daisychaining front-to-rear. The question then becomes: who was the first Lucky Maurice?
Click to expand...

According to legend, Emperor Tiberius invented daisy-chaining at Capri, from what I've read.
 
biflipperguy said:
Environment does have a very big role. In fact it has to be considered a third major determinant of human behavior, along with genetics and culture. Of course another way of looking at it is that culture is part of environment. But for me (and I think for many) it works better to think of them as separate agents: the cultural environment and the natural environment.

Discoveries in the past couple of decades about the way genes are expressed, and especially the role of TIMING (a-tick-a-tick-a-ticka-a-ticka) in gene expression. Genes are just recipes for the body to make amino acids, and any genetically controlled behavior is controlled by a complex of amino acids, not just one. And the shape a behavior takes in any individual is altered by the timing (a-tock-a-tock-a-tocka-a-tocka) of the onset of each of the separate aminos in the complex.

The clearest examples (or at least the ones I know best) have to do with the timing of learning. Imprinting in some poultry species: there is a window of time after hatching, I think I read that it's about 36 hours) during which they have a genetically controlled trait to follow the first moving object they see, as their mother. Birdsong is an even cooler example. It is not learned, it is genetically encoded. But it is only activated if the song is heard during a particular window of time. If the fella doesn't hear it at the right moment, he never gets it, and will not sing, or attract a female mate, will not reproduce.

In humans, the instinct to learn language is an example (Steven Pinker is good on this in The Language Instinct): language is culture, but the way the brain learns it is genetically controlled. Before the age of six, there is no such thing as foreign language. The toddler brain contains a machine for deducing the grammar of whatever language it hears. Instruction only gets in the way at that age. At 6 that machine withers. There is a similar trait for learning phonology before age 12 (before sex kicks in). Young people who emigrate after adolescence tend to keep an accent their whole lives. If they emigrate before adolescence, they will assimilate flawlessly to the phonology of the target language. That is why the timing of language teaching in American schools is such idiocy. (Can you tell that my background includes language teaching? ha ha)

It's broader than language. The physical brain of a 6-year-old who has had an enriched cultural environment is a different physiological structure that that of a same-age classmate who has not. That is why the de-funding of Headstart is not only idiotic but criminal. Kids who start school with brains that have not experienced enriched culture are LEARNING DISABLED by comparison with their peers, and they will keep right on shooting each other in the streets when they are teens.

Back to HOMOSEX: given all of this, it's quite plausible that experiences in adolescence shape behavior not only by influencing the conscious mind, or even the unconscious one, but also by triggering or blocking the release of specific amino acids. This is what makes the determination of human behavioral traits so fucking complex (so wonderfully complex).

Sorry to soap-box for so long. Excuse me. -GRIN-
Click to expand...
Thanks for the elaboration - I enjoy thinking about how we work and what's under the hood.
 
Dolphins and porpoises, holy smoke now you have me interesed. I have swum with porpoises and it eas a very intimate,sensuos thing, but Inever. . .
 
robertreams said:
Dolphins and porpoises, holy smoke now you have me interesed. I have swum with porpoises and it eas a very intimate,sensuos thing, but Inever. . .
Click to expand...

Amazon River dolphins. If the piranhas don't get ya, the nose-fuckers will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Are there any Good story series about a couple developing threesome type of a relationship with a dominant bisexual man ?
Replies
2
Views
160
countdowntolov3
countdowntolov3
RachelPost
Some input on the very start of a story
Replies
2
Views
152
CuttingEdge
C
T
Gender of MC and ship captain in my story idea
Replies
14
Views
311
TheOtherTeacher
T
B
College roommate is a past fling
Replies
12
Views
358
drobert44
D
Greyarea2234
True story of a mom and son
Replies
9
Views
820
georgerb
georgerb
Back
Top