As for my comments on sex specifically, I'll admit I'm speaking through the perspective of someone who A) doesn't have it in order to procreate, and B) has a healthier relationship with it than many of my own peers might. It's not solely an act of procreation or hedonism, but it can fill both roles - though I will only ever know it from the perspective of pleasure alone.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts like that. Thank you.

From a strictly biological perspective, I think it could be argued that gay “sex” isn’t actually sex. Like, what makes it sex? Is it sex for pleasure? Or is it something adjacent to sex? That has some commonalities with sex, but isn’t actually sex. Like there is a part of sex missing from the equation. Why do we still call it sex?

I kind of assume it’s the kind of thing hardly anyone thinks about and the notion of thinking about it will just make everyone angry. Sorry!

There's a concept in linguistics that language is constantly evolving. As someone on the spectrum myself, with a tendency towards systemizing the world around me, I understand how frustrating this can feel. A particularly excruciating example is the transition of the intended meaning of "literally" to increasingly mean "figuratively", particularly in social contexts. Makes me want to tear the skin off my face, lol.

While this isn't strictly relegated to social concepts, I understand how frustrating it can be to struggle to navigate this phenomenon in social contexts and be misinterpreted as a bad faith actor.

At the end of the day, I try to deal with it by accepting that not everyone else experiences the world the way I do, and that it's as unfair for me to expect everyone else to modify the way they perceive, process, and utilize information (including language) to accommodate my idiosyncrasies.

I do sometimes wonder whether mass education and extensive media exposure from childhood have essentially brainwashed all but the most stubborn-minded of us, who are then labeled “autistic”.

On the topic, if we did take a strict definition of sex, this seems like a fruitful angle of attack for traditionalists. Like, today gay men are regarded as having lots and lots of sex, which is awesome. But if you take this other perspective, most of them are virgins, which is lame. I wonder why the traditionalists/far right haven’t taken this propaganda approach…

It sounds like you're familiar with being socially ostracized for aspects of your identity that emerged from your lived experiences. I imagine you didn't enjoy that experience, did you?

I wish we could all just treat eachother with civility and basic kindness, even people we disagree with. That may be wishful thinking, but choosing not to aid the weapons manufacturers in culture wars feels both ethical and practical to me.

Your second paragraph seems like ad hominem? Or are you suggesting that homosexuality emerges from lived experience, and therefore I should relate? I am confused.

I don’t really have a dog in the gay fight. The longstanding cultural view in the west going back a very long time was that it is a choice. Some political people today retain that view. The modern view is that it isn’t a choice. Some political people today hold that view. I just look at the sides in a detached game theoretic way and it just seems like the red team has a move they haven’t played.

Is that bad? I do understand not wanting to go there mentally, since it is definitely hard to hold views apart from most of society, even if the view is “things are less clear than what everyone thinks they are”. I think humans generally seem to have some preprocessing that drops view candidates that would put them in that position.

Ever tried flipping the lid on this? You'd start opening up a lot of people. Those who would try to use that against you or judge have no relevance since they are not close anyway.

> why the traditionalists/far right haven’t taken this propaganda approach ...

they have little, low quality sex and any debate about it would force them to face this, even though it barely matters to them but admitting weakness with something so brutally natural is way above their heads.

if they didn't "make" their partner orgasm, ever, are they real men or gay men in disguise? (their thoughts, not mine, I think they are gay for other reasons)

it's similar to how young people used to or still do laugh about older men needing Viagra.

b) traditionalists and far right have build a merry go round in a dead end, "Sackgasse" in German.

it's a top down dogma.

they cannot have arguments that extend established ways of reasoning before their kind has engineered context and research within which their reasoning follows proper logic (see Quillete (don't) for lots of examples, or rationalists and autistic people easily running with the magic money herd).

they end up having to face the secret life's and thoughts of their partners, realizing they were actively kept in line so that their superiors and peers can reign freely vs having to compete with them, which would extend their minds, freedom and literal happiness.

This is funny to mention, because studies on sex life show the opposite: https://www.peterhaas.org/why-church-attendees-have-the-best...

the issue is, of course, the lying:

from the article:

> We Don’t Participate in Pre-marital or Extra-marital Sex

Yeah, people say that a lot but if you know church people, you know that they are, on average, pretty much like all the other liars.

Except they might hope to get punished for their sins, which does make for some nice and regular kinky evenings, I guess, but that would only be true for people further to the right of the bell curve, if you believe.

Also: the suspense and excitement in fantasies definitely improves the experience. And living free of bullshit other than the classics in the Bible and the consequences of a virtuous and communal life don't sound too bad of a foreplay at all.

Here's a source that's less biased that your source cites: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/19/the_family_r...

For what is worth, I remember when being a kid such uncles were superimportant to me and I remember them fondly.

I have thought about this a lot over the years and your comment only enforces my opinion: we think more about procreation and having children when we are in more survivally stressful situation. That's why developed societies have less children and poor people have more: rich people or people with enough wealth to live comfortably don't have a lot of children because they don't face death every day and don't feel the need to spread their genes.

Sex is - barring IVF - required for procreation. But saying that sex has a purpose implies a creator. And once you require a creator then you're off in the land of theology and biological studies take a back seat.

The "purpose" of sex is whatever we choose it to be.