Gay Caveman? Ok, now i've heard it all!!

[Feuer Frei!]

Five thousand years after he died, the first known gay caveman has emerged into the daylight.
According to archaeologists, the way he was buried suggests that he was of a different sexual persuasion.
The skeleton of the late Stone Age man, unearthed during excavations in the Czech Republic, is said to date back to between 2900 and 2500 BC.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2qxlr9w.jpg

During that period, men were traditionally buried lying on their right side with the head pointing towards the west; women on their left side with the head facing east.
In this case, the man was on his left side with his head facing west. Another clue is that men tended to be interred with weapons, hammers and flint knives as well as several portions of food and drink to accompany them to the other side.
Women would be buried with necklaces made from teeth, pets, and copper earrings, as well as domestic jugs and an egg-shaped pot placed near the feet.
The ‘gay caveman’ was buried with household jugs, and no weapons.
Archaeologists do not think it was a mistake or coincidence given the importance attached to funerals during the period, known as the Corded Ware era because of the pottery it produced.
From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake,’ said lead researcher Kamila Remisova Vesinova.
‘Far more likely is that he was a man with a different sexual orientation, homosexual or transvestite. What we see here does not add up to traditional Corded Ware cultural norms.’
An oval, egg-shaped container usually associated with female burials was also found at the feet of the skeleton.

SOURCE (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1374060/Gay-caveman-5-000-year-old-male-skeleton-outed-way-buried.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

[DarkFish]

So even in prehistoric times they accepted gays. Something that nowadays many, mainly religious, people can't seem to do:shifty: Oh lord, praise the Abrahamic religions...

[Penguin]

Oh no, this can't be true. As certain users here have repeatedly stated: we would have all died out, if our ancestors had tolerated homosexuality!:88)

Another possible explanation for the grave goods could be that the guy was something like a healer or a shaman, this would explain the pottery.

[mookiemookie]

Take it with a grain of salt - this is the Daily Fail after all.

[Skybird]

Oh no, this can't be true. As certain users here have repeatedly stated: we would have all died out, if our ancestors had tolerated homosexuality!:88)
When was your so-called "quote" said that way by anybody? As far as I remember, and put it myself , this ^ I have never said, nor anyone else.

People really have weak points only to make, if they need to put lies into other peoples' mouth in order to get these points across.

[DarkFish]

Oh no, this can't be true. As certain users here have repeatedly stated: we would have all died out, if our ancestors had tolerated homosexuality!:88):har:

Take it with a grain of salt - this is the Daily Fail after all.The telegraph has a separate arcticle: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html

Which also goes in on the possibility of it being a shaman as Penguin says

[DarkFish]

When was your so-called "quote" said that way by anybody? As far as I remember, and put it myself , this ^ I have never said, nor anyone else.

People really have weak points only to make, if they need to put lies into other peoples' mouth in order to get their own weak points across.

Seen that way we only survived until today and got that far only because the Apemen who were our forfathers had no capoability to discuss this concept, and could only say Oh, Uh, Ah and Eh. And procreate - most likely with partners of not the same sex, considering that the story of mankind did not end with them.Well, it seems they did have the capability to discuss this concept..... And it seems they "tried to procreate" with same-sex partners as well as that is what gays do.

[Herr-Berbunch]

...or just somebody got their left/right mixed up - I'm sure we all still do it occasionally!

...or it may have had some x-gender anomolies featuring a male bone structure and some more feminine external features (shall we call them Dowly's favourites?) :D

[frau kaleun]

The acceptance of "alternate" or androgynous gender identity and behavior is a known phenomenon in some very old cultural traditions (cf the tradition and recognition of "Two Spirit" individuals in some Native American and First Nations peoples). I see no reason to believe that its existence in historical times down to the present is not a continuation of a tradition that goes well back into prehistory. So, um, this? Not very surprising, really.

[AVGWarhawk]

Perhaps he/she was a hermaphrodite :hmmm: Perhaps this individual tended toward the the female side of things. :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Well, it seems they did have the capability to discuss this concept..... And it seems they "tried to procreate" with same-sex partners as well as that is what gays do.
Try to be a smartass again?

Quote the full context of that posting and note the irony I was using in frustration over there.

WhatI an others pointed out repeatedly, is two things. That a society cannot survive if it does not reproduce and makes babies, and thus a civilisation based on the principle of homosexuality being the norm will die out, and that this shall not mean not to tolerate homosexuals today. Will you please find these quotes too, you master-quoter? I explicitly defended homosexuals from getting discirminated. I just insist on them not beign seen as a bioliogical norm representing the design mainstream of evolution. And the sociual fucntion of families for a society making them more important, beyoind comparsion, for a society, then singles like me, or homosexual couples.

Now go on, twist and turn words again to bring over your "point". Its gettin g tiresome.

:nope: :damn:

Tolerance for the small number of deviations in a biological norm, whether it be albionis of homosxual individuals,m is one thing. They way a population developes by biological terms of evolution'S design of reproduction, is somethign different. I am not dumb enough it seems to understand what is so difficult in this to understand it. :dead:

[Skybird]

The acceptance of "alternate" or androgynous gender identity and behavior is a known phenomenon in some very old cultural traditions (cf the tradition and recognition of "Two Spirit" individuals in some Native American and First Nations peoples). I see no reason to believe that its existence in historical times down to the present is not a continuation of a tradition that goes well back into prehistory. So, um, this? Not very surprising, really.
+1 ^this.

Now I just wait for someone coming with gay apes and birds again - iognoring that wile these are existent, they do not represent the norm and way of biological survival of a species.

[AVGWarhawk]

they do not represent the norm and way of biological survival of a species.

True, a male dog humping my leg is not the norm and or way of bilogical survival of the canine. :DL

[gimpy117]

Oh no, this can't be true. As certain users here have repeatedly stated: we would have all died out, if our ancestors had tolerated homosexuality!:88)

I have a lesbian friend...and I can tell you for a fact shes not completely into women. so if that true today im sure it was then. I would think they would continue the species if necessary.

[onelifecrisis]

If he was gay, and if there is an afterlife, then I'm sure he's thrilled at all this attention he's getting for being different! :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

+1 ^this.

Now I just wait for someone coming with gay apes and birds again - iognoring that wile these are existent, they do not represent the norm and way of biological survival of a species.
They also are a minority and don't significantly affect the propogation of their individual species, nor do they make hysterical arguments about the end of the world.

[Tribesman]

He wasn't gay.
He was a celebrity chef, that explains the grave goods.

[Platapus]

Well since evidently in the US we have a hard time burying people correctly, I think we can cut the Geico Reps a little slack for making one mistake.

I suppose these "scientists" did not both to consider lazyness on the part of the burial party in their hypothesis?

I doubt the cave dudes did anything consistently and with unvarying precision.

Many times I wonder why I am sweating my Dissertation if this the "quality" of scientific investigation. :D

[Armistead]

Looks like the picture was perfectly set up, nice how they dug it all out and put every thing back in place perfectly setup..

Some joke or propaganda.

[razark]

I suppose these "scientists" did not both to consider lazyness on the part of the burial party in their hypothesis?

I doubt the cave dudes did anything consistently and with unvarying precision.
Or maybe the archeologists know the culture they're studying?
Archaeologists do not think it was a mistake or coincidence given the importance attached to funerals during the period....

From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake,’ said lead researcher Kamila Remisova Vesinova.

[Platapus]

And has it been demonstrated that every single cave dude took it so seriously that in every single case they always buried dead dudes the exact same way?

No, of course not.


This conclusion that these "scientists" are making would be an example of the logic fallacy of Reverse Fallacy of Accident

Or if you want to be a pompous jerk like me: a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter :know:

Simply because "A" has been observed across a wide sample, does not mean that all or any future samples will reveal "A". This is why polls can only serve as general indicators.

So unless these "scientists" can demonstrate that a group of dead guys were all buried by the same group of diggers, at the same time, under the same circumstances AND this was the only one what was buried differently, their conclusion is not supported. :nope:

Boy I can just imagine my trying to get this stuff past my Dissertation committee. My Chair would have my guts for garters. :oops:

[Penguin]

When was your so-called "quote" said that way by anybody? As far as I remember, and put it myself , this ^ I have never said, nor anyone else.

People really have weak points only to make, if they need to put lies into other peoples' mouth in order to get these points across.

Getroffene Hunde bellen, eh?
Was this a quote? Sorry, you must read another subsim forum, I didn't see the quote tag in my post. Please don't think that my statement was exclusively addressed to you. Besides: claiming irony for oneself and crying when another guy uses a hyperbole: that's weak.


Quote the full context of that posting and note the irony I was using in frustration over there.


It seems that Señor DarkFish had just quoted one of the things which I also had in my mind. To do you a favour, here's the whole quote:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1631366&postcount=7

This is another opportunity to press it into people's wanted, demanded, almost ordered and certainly politically corrected opinion that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual people, and both are of the same sociological importance for a sociaty and culture, and have the very same biological meaning.

Seen that way we only survived until today and got that far only because the Apemen who were our forfathers had no capoability to discuss this concept, and could only say Oh, Uh, Ah and Eh. And procreate - most likely with partners of not the same sex, considering that the story of mankind did not end with them.


no difference between homosexual and heterosexual people? - Yup, only in sexual preferences
same sociological importance for society and culture? Yup, as cultural and sociological importance depends on individuals, not (inhomogeneous ;)) groups
very same biological meaning? Not if you only think in terms of procreation. However I refuse to see humans as insects or breeding machines whose only purpose is the upkeep of the species. Sorry, I cannot follow the rational, determenistic way, as I have a brain, a mind and emotions and can't follow only instincs or whatever way that the evolution has planned for humanity.

Yes, and in the second paragraph I can read the fear that we wouldn't be here if our forefathers participated in homosexual activities.
Not only in this statement, but also in others, you reveal a very particular german Angst that we are all going to die out.


WhatI an others pointed out repeatedly, is two things. That a society cannot survive if it does not reproduce and makes babies, and thus a civilisation based on the principle of homosexuality being the norm will die out, and that this shall not mean not to tolerate homosexuals today. [...] I explicitly defended homosexuals from getting discirminated. I just insist on them not beign seen as a bioliogical norm representing the design mainstream of evolution. And the sociual fucntion of families for a society making them more important, beyoind comparsion, for a society, then singles like me, or homosexual couples.


Where are all these societies based on homosexuality - or did they all already die out? :haha:
Hell, just following the strange assumption that people promote or advertise homosexuality: would it change the percentage of gays? Or just the other way around: do societies that oppress homos have a lower percentage of them? Maybe, but it is only because in countries like Iran a certain amount of gays is at the crane and not in the closet.

What about people who procreated before they discovered their homosexuality? Or lesbians who get impregnated? Are they better than others like me and my Frau who decided not to breed? What about working gays who pay taxes in comparision to families who live off welfare? Is breeding good as a self-purpose?


(quoting Frau Kaleun's post)
+1 ^this.


Funny that you give thumbs up to an example from societies where homos had a special, even privileged, status, as this seems that something you (plural 'you' like in 'y'all') don't want to give them. Besides, I never heard of anybody sane from the gay community demanding special rights.

[Penguin]

If he was gay, and if there is an afterlife, then I'm sure he's thrilled at all this attention he's getting for being different! :haha:

Looks like the picture was perfectly set up, nice how they dug it all out and put every thing back in place perfectly setup..

Some joke or propaganda.

Maybe you're both right. The people who buried him just wanted to **** with later archeologists. "Hey, let's bury this guy facing the other side" - "Yes, and let's add some pottery!" - "Man, I'm laughing my arse off when I imagine the dumb faces of the people who will dig him out in the future!" - "And just imagine the discussion in submarine simulation forums!" :rotfl2:

[DarkFish]

So unless these "scientists" can demonstrate that a group of dead guys were all buried by the same group of diggers, at the same time, under the same circumstances AND this was the only one what was buried differently, their conclusion is not supported. :nope:Well they have. Apparently several graves ("group of dead guys") were found buried by members of the same culture ("group of diggers") all in the same timeframe and this was the only different one.

It's impossible to say with 100% certainty the skeleton was gay. But if you ask me it's pretty certain there's something special with this skeleton, and that "something special" could very well be that he was gay.

I wonder if you would have made this comment and had put scientists between quotation marks if the conclusion had been "The caveman was a god-fearing christian republican gun owner." I highly suspect you don't believe the conclusions because you don't like them.

[Bilge_Rat]

I highly suspect you don't believe the conclusions because you don't like them.

or you want to believe it because you like it. Something you want to tell us Darkfish? come on, we are an open, enlightened group. :woot:


back to the OP, it could be a special ritual for Gay members, but hard to tell based on the skeleton. It could just as easily have been a "hermaphrodite", genetically male, but with female sexual organs, so "she" would have lived her life as a female.

I see no reason why an ancient culture would have had a "special rite" for homosexuals. In ancient times, in Rome and Greece, it was considered normal to be bisexual and no one really cared who (or what) you had sex with. Funeral arrangements were based on class, not sexual orientation. I personally think the researchers here are projecting too much of their modern hangups into this situation.

[Madox58]

Sorry. But he could not have been Gay.
There was no such word nor term as 'Gay' back then.
Hell, Gay is a word that was adopted from a totally different meaning until recently!
Anyone recall the Gay 90's?
(In reference to the 1890's)

Maybe Oglagremph or something like that.
But not Gay.
:D

[Penguin]

I wonder if you would have made this comment and had put scientists between quotation marks if the conclusion had been "The caveman was a god-fearing christian republican gun owner." I highly suspect you don't believe the conclusions because you don't like them.

naw mate, I think you're doing Platapus wrong - besides the gun part ;). He's not really known here for his rants against gays. Even if he would have a political stance you don't like, his argumentation was straight (no pun intended :)) from a scientific point of view. He's a big guy and can speak for himself, but I think this was uncalled for.

Sorry. But he could not have been Gay.
There was no such word nor term as 'Gay' back then.
Hell, Gay is a word that was adopted from a totally different meaning until recently!
Anyone recall the Gay 90's?
(In reference to the 1890's)

Maybe Oglagremph or something like that.
But not Gay.
:D

:rotfl2:
Not that long ago indeed. When i was in the US in the 80s, I was at a fun fair that had a gay ride. I thought it was pretty discriminating against straight people, untill somebody explained it to me...;)
It was the same for me as I grew up learning British English, when I said "Let's light a fag!" - "Penguin, why the hell do you want set a homosexual on fire?" :haha:

[Bakkels]

Sorry. But he could not have been Gay.
There was no such word nor term as 'Gay' back then.
Hell, Gay is a word that was adopted from a totally different meaning until recently!
Anyone recall the Gay 90's?
(In reference to the 1890's)

Maybe Oglagremph or something like that.
But not Gay.
:D

Well I like the word gay better. The 'Enola Oglagremph'; it just doesn't sound right :haha:

[Platapus]

naw mate, I think you're doing Platapus wrong - besides the gun part ;). He's not really known here for his rants against gays. Even if he would have a political stance you don't like, his argumentation was straight (no pun intended :)) from a scientific point of view. He's a big guy and can speak for himself, but I think this was uncalled for.




I appreciate what you wrote. Since Darkfish has no idea who I am or what I do, his opinions are not based on fact but on emotions.

Darkfish, you can apply any label you wish if it makes you feel superior.

However, I think we should agree to disagree so we don't further hijack this thread.

[Platapus]

Well I like the word gay better. The 'Enola Oglagremph'; it just doesn't sound right :haha:


I am reminded of the headline from the Star Bulletin.

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/01/15/editorial/flanagan.html

Atomic Bombers Upset Over Enola Homosexual Exhibit"

DOH! :D

[Madox58]

I am reminded of the headline from the Star Bulletin.

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/01/15/editorial/flanagan.html

Atomic Bombers Upset Over Enola Homosexual Exhibit"

DOH! :D

If the Enola Homosexual dropped it's load what type sickness would you suffer?
:hmmm:

And did anyone on the Enola Homosexual puff on a fag during the flight?
:o

[DarkFish]

I appreciate what you wrote. Since Darkfish has no idea who I am or what I do, his opinions are not based on fact but on emotions.

Darkfish, you can apply any label you wish if it makes you feel superior.

However, I think we should agree to disagree so we don't further hijack this thread.I thought you were simply ranting against gays. It seems I was wrong, and I apologize for that, and take back the last part of my comment.

The first part still stands however. I still think you shouldn't immediately label their conclusion false. They are archaeologists and know much more about that particular culture than any of us ever will, and I'd expect them to know perfectly well how bodies were usually buried back then. Which, according to them, is not in this way. That convinced me pretty much that there's something unusual with this body. If this "something unusual" is indeed that he's gay, I don't know and nobody ever will. It may very well be that he was having some special function in his tribe or something. But it also may very well be that he simply was gay, or transvestite. Which would be a good explanation.

[GoldenRivet]

Intolerance for homosexuality is one of the great failings of conservatives.

The religious right has its claws too deeply embedded into conservative politics.

I dont mind gays... its nice to have someone buy me drinks for a change. LOL

once, some dude purchased about 4 or 5 rounds of drinks for my friend and I - We figured he was some rich show off with good conversational skills that talked too damned much.

he was mighty disappointed when i turned down his offer to go to his place.

Taking note of the low count of women in the bar, and adding what had just happend to the equation... i asked the cute little waitress;

"excuse me, miss... is this a gay bar?"

she smiled knowingly, and in a deep he-man voice said "You bet sweety!"

My friend and I left and went to hooters. after we had some drinks and finished our meal, we thought "you know... we should have stayed there. we had 5 rounds and didnt spend a dime."





can't win for losin'




tonight, I'll drink to you, probably gay caveman.:up:

[Gargamel]

Maybe you're both right. The people who buried him just wanted to **** with later archeologists. "Hey, let's bury this guy facing the other side" - "Yes, and let's add some pottery!" - "Man, I'm laughing my arse off when I imagine the dumb faces of the people who will dig him out in the future!" - "And just imagine the discussion in submarine simulation forums!" :rotfl2:

Speaking of duping archeologists... there's a really great sci fi piece I read many many years ago, don't remember it exactly now, but basically alien archeologists come to a deserted earth, and find, in every building, these little shrines. They have a bowl of sacramental water in them, with a shelf behind to place idols. When the humans would do their daily prayers to this water God, they would pull a lever and exchange the water. This must have been a very import deity in their lives, as every building had at least one, and most buildings had multiples. It was a very private ritual too, as there was usually only room for one person per shrine.


Archeology is all in the context, and sometimes they just get it wrong.

I have no idea on this one though.......

[Madox58]

I see a new insurance add in the makeing!
So easy even a Oglagremph Cave Man can do it.
:haha:

[Bakkels]

Speaking of duping archeologists... there's a really great sci fi piece I read many many years ago, don't remember it exactly now, but basically alien archeologists come to a deserted earth, and find, in every building, these little shrines. They have a bowl of sacramental water in them, with a shelf behind to place idols. When the humans would do their daily prayers to this water God, they would pull a lever and exchange the water. This must have been a very import deity in their lives, as every building had at least one, and most buildings had multiples. It was a very private ritual too, as there was usually only room for one person per shrine.


Archeology is all in the context, and sometimes they just get it wrong.

I have no idea on this one though.......

Ha! That's brilliant. :yeah:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Intolerance for homosexuality is one of the great failings of conservatives.

The religious right has its claws too deeply embedded into conservative politics.

I agree. Homosexuality is not a choice, save where one joins the Navy or the Army or the Air Force.:O:

Seriously, though, it's not usually a choice. We don't fully understand human development or psychology, but evidence suggests that testosterone deficiencies in fetuses may lead to homosexuality. Other evidence suggests that genetic defects that lead to hormonal imbalance in early childhood leads to homosexuality, at least for males.

And that's not considering the role that human genetics play in social development and the development itself. People are genetically engineered to be people, which is to say that they are engineered to make more people. Who is to say that this selection pressure might not result in a person who is sexually confused because they can't establish a working heterosexual relationship? Who knows?

Intolerance of homosexuality is indeed one of the great failings of conservatives, and the religious, and I wish we would drop it. We don't have the time or the reason or the political clout to carry on with this nonsense. It just weakens our platform.

[Platapus]

I thought you were simply ranting against gays. It seems I was wrong, and I apologize for that, and take back the last part of my comment.

Fair enough /shake

That convinced me pretty much that there's something unusual with this body. If this "something unusual" is indeed that he's gay, I don't know and nobody ever will.

I think we are actually in agreement on this issue. :yeah:

[Betonov]

Nah, the article doesn't convince me. Gay simply by lying on the wrong side in grave.
But I don't doubt there were gays back then. The more I read history the more I have a feeling that the three abrahamic religions are the only ones intolerable of gays (or anyone different for any other reason).
Animals are mostly bisexual. I've seen a cow hump a cow, a rooster hump a rooster and my dog hump anything regarding of gender.

[Bakkels]

...and my dog hump anything regarding of gender.

That's actually how dogs procreate; they hump anything they run into, and once or twice in their lifetime they get lucky and hump another dog. A little loophole in natural selection.

[Betonov]

That's actually how dogs procreate; they hump anything they run into, and once or twice in their lifetime they get lucky and hump another dog. A little loophole in natural selection.

Some humans are the same, certain males hump anything they come across and certain females spread their legs to anything they come across

[Bilge_Rat]

once, some dude purchased about 4 or 5 rounds of drinks for my friend and I - We figured he was some rich show off with good conversational skills that talked too damned much.

he was mighty disappointed when i turned down his offer to go to his place.

Taking note of the low count of women in the bar, and adding what had just happend to the equation... i asked the cute little waitress;

"excuse me, miss... is this a gay bar?"

she smiled knowingly, and in a deep he-man voice said "You bet sweety!"

My friend and I left and went to hooters. after we had some drinks and finished our meal, we thought "you know... we should have stayed there. we had 5 rounds and didnt spend a dime."





I have a better story which is 100% true. In the early 80s, I was single one summer and hung around with a girl and her friend who was an outragiously gay guy, but with a wicked sense of humour. He was part of an amateur theatre group.

One weekend he was planning a weekend camping trip and asked me to come along since I had all the camping equipment and had been camping since I was a little kid. We would be going with two of his friends from the theatre group, a man and a woman. I had met his friend before and knew he was also gay. I had never met the woman.

So friday we drive to her house to pick her up (Her name was Marie) and meet her husband! He helps us pack and wishes us a good weekend. I figured that since the other two guys were gay, he must have figured I was gay as well.

Along the way out of town, I find out that Marie had just found out that week, that her husband was having an affair and she wanted to take off for the weekend.

So we set up the tent, just one big one for all of us, and spend the evening drinking and talking around the campfire and eventually retire to the tent, me and Marie last.

In the tent, Marie and I were lying next to one another and next thing I knew we were tearing each other's clothes off. I dont know if the guys heard, but they never mentioned it. I saw Marie on and off for the rest of the summer. Last I heard, she had patched things up with her husband.

Since that summer, my philosophy has always been: thank god for Gay guys! :arrgh!:

[Hottentot]

That's actually how dogs procreate; they hump anything they run into, and once or twice in their lifetime they get lucky and hump another dog. A little loophole in natural selection.Dog humping another dog is a sign of dominance in addition to occasionally procreating. What we rarely observe in those situations (for obvious reasons) is that while they do that, they also get to put their front paws on the top of the other. And for them that means superiority. Try it with a submissive dog: put your hands on the top of its back, push lightly and it's very likely to show some sign of submission (such as lowering its neck or going to the ground).

Some dogs try to show such dominance over other species too. I know a family where the dog considers two people to be above it, but one below it. And sure enough, it always tries to hump the person below it in the hierarchy.

As for procreating, they know what they are doing and when to do it by scent. Ever had a young male dog? Then you probably know. A single female that emits the "hump me" scent can make literally all the males around it mad. That's why in the kennel I occasionally work for we separate them from the rest of the dogs as soon as we notice the signs of that time in their cages, such as blood drops on the floor.

[Platapus]

That's actually how dogs procreate; they hump anything they run into, and once or twice in their lifetime they get lucky and hump another dog. A little loophole in natural selection.

:nope:

Than how do you explain female dogs humping male dogs? Or male dogs humping male dogs? Or sexually immature puppies humping?

Humping is not a sexual action for dogs, although it resembles the mating action. Humping can be an action of domination. My female Lab humps my male lab because the female is the dominant dog in the house. It can also be a way a dog deals with built up excitement (non-sexual). Puppies in the same litter will often trade-off humping during play.

In some cases, the dog is humping because the owners have trained it to hump. The owners, when seeing their cute little puppy hump, laugh and show attention to the puppy. This attention from the owners, can positively reinforce, to the puppy, that humping is a trick that the owners like. Humping can be simply a habit to some dogs. They do it because they have done it in the past.

There are many reasons dogs hump.

[Bakkels]

:nope:

Than how do you explain female dogs humping male dogs? Or male dogs humping male dogs? Or sexually immature puppies humping?

Humping is not a sexual action for dogs, although it resembles the mating action. Humping can be an action of domination. My female Lab humps my male lab because the female is the dominant dog in the house. It can also be a way a dog deals with built up excitement (non-sexual). Puppies in the same litter will often trade-off humping during play.

In some cases, the dog is humping because the owners have trained it to hump. The owners, when seeing their cute little puppy hump, laugh and show attention to the puppy. This attention from the owners, can positively reinforce, to the puppy, that humping is a trick that the owners like. Humping can be simply a habit to some dogs. They do it because they have done it in the past.

There are many reasons dogs hump.

Dog-owner are you? Relax, I was just kidding. I know they do the humping thing to show dominance. Actually I've been around dogs all my life, and I love them. My post was in no way meant to be taken serious :03:

Actually, this brings up a 'nice' memory. My parents have always owned Golden Retrievers, and one time while we were on vacation (I was about 9 or 10 at the time) I was lying in the grass reading something when all of a sudden I feel something jumping on my back and humping me. That was our dog, and unfortunately my dad was just taking pictures of the area...

[Sailor Steve]

Dog humping another dog is a sign of dominance in addition to occasionally procreating.
Sounds like prison. :O:

[Hottentot]

Incredible timing, Platapus :haha:.

Edit: Steve, you'd be surprised how close you hit the nail's head there. As I said, I occasionally work in a kennel and often we just have to put two dogs in the same cage. It doesn't take long for them to decide which one humps which. But that's still pretty tame, since it's normal for them.

On the other hand I have seen cases that are no different from our form of bullying. One of the dogs has simply established its place in the hierarchy in such a way that the other one has refused to go back to their cage after they have been left out for a while. And in some cases the dominant dog hasn't even let it back in.

Dogs are fascinating.

[Platapus]

Incredible timing, Platapus :haha:.

Yeah, but you were one minute faster!

Ya Bastage! (shaking an avenging fist) Next time, wait until next time! I'll beat you to the post. You and your little dog too!

:D

[frau kaleun]

Scientists Ruin "Gay Caveman"’s Coming Out Party (http://jezebel.com/#!5790086/scientists-ruin-gay-cavemans-coming-out-party)

Earlier this week, archaeologists revealed that they found a Stone-Age man from a culture with gender-specific burial practices in a female position, leading dozens of media outlets to celebrate the discovery of a "gay caveman." Now researchers are pointing out the obvious: Just because the guy has an unusual grave doesn't mean he was sexually attracted to men.

LiveScience reports (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42480811/ns/technology_and_science-science/) that the skeleton, which was found near Prague, dates back to 2,500 or 2,800 B.C. It's part of the Corded Ware culture, which usually buried males on their right sides with their heads facing east. This man was buried in the opposite position, which was reserved for females, and he wasn't surrounded by gender-specific items, such as jewelry or weapons, like the other remains.

While many in the media lept to the conclusion that this was evidence of homosexuality in the prehistoric era, the researchers say there isn't enough evidence to say that. Anthropologist Kristina Killgrove explained on her blog Bone Girl:
"If this burial represents a transgendered individual (as well it could), that doesn't necessarily mean the person had a 'different sexual orientation ' and certainly doesn't mean that he would have considered himself (or that his culture would have considered him) 'homosexual.'"
The man could have belonged to a "third gender," a term used by the anthropologists to describe a variety of gender identities in different cultures that are outside of the male/female binary. It's also possible that he was some kind of shaman or witch doctor, as they were often buried in unusual ways.

In addition to not being homosexual, there's a good chance the guy wasn't even a "caveman." University of Wisconsin paleoanthropologist John Hawks says, "Corded-Ware burials are not 'caveman' in age. We're talking about pre-Bronze Age farmers." Plus, the remains may not be male. "I haven't seen any evidence that really convinces me that the skeleton is male," he said. "It could be, but the photo is not convincing on that point, and I have not seen any claim of DNA testing."

It's likely we'll never really know why he was buried that way, or even how his culture viewed gender and sexuality, but in the end even the "gay caveman" got to enjoy 15 minutes of fame. Though, it's not like it makes much difference to him (or her) anyway.

[Armistead]

Maybe you're both right. The people who buried him just wanted to **** with later archeologists. "Hey, let's bury this guy facing the other side" - "Yes, and let's add some pottery!" - "Man, I'm laughing my arse off when I imagine the dumb faces of the people who will dig him out in the future!" - "And just imagine the discussion in submarine simulation forums!" :rotfl2:

I have no problem with the dude being gay, even as a caveman.

We all know homo behavior has been with us as long as men could scribble with a stick, but it's rather far reaching propaganda to assume this fellow was gay. He could've been a sissy or a coward, any behavior unmanly.

[Madox58]

This whole issue is why I'll be cremated when I exit!
I don't want a bunch of you bastums a thousand years from now,
saying I'm Gay, all over the 'Net,
because I was buried with a Leather Vest and Stainless Steel Underwear!
:haha:

[frau kaleun]

because I was buried with a Leather Vest and Stainless Steel Underwear and a Village People cd!


Fixed. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

WELCOME ABOARD! :sunny:

But also see Post #49, four above yours.