I would assume it must be along these lines:
Men could be seen as least evolved on some level when it comes to being ruled by their intellect without intrusion of their sexuality.
I suppose someone could say that because heterosexual women get involved with men, that, too, “contaminates” any “operating on an intellectual level without influence of their sexuality as it relates to men”.
For gay women, since there is no male sexuality involved either individually or in a relationship I suppose someone may see that as freedom to operate more on an intellectual level alone without factoring in any male sexuality at all.
Of course, there is such a thing as heterosexual women who are very intelligent and evolved beyond their biological instincts and who are not in relationships; so I would think that gay women don’t have a monopoly on functioning on an intellectual and self-actualized level. There is also such a thing as mature, intelligent, people of both genders who do operate on an intellectual level and don’t function at the mercy of their own sexuality once they’re past their teens.
If what someone means is that gay women are in charge of their own sexuality without the complication of any male sexuality that may be one point. At the same time, whether that would be considered “evolved” is something many people would question, since it would seem that being “evolved” in terms of furthering the species would not lean in the direction away from male/female relationships.
If what someone means by “evolved” is really “sexually advanced” then I can see that. Gay women have to be a little creative when it comes to sex. They have to be “brave” (for lack of a better word) enough to have the relationship they want rather than the relationship “the world” thinks they should have. I wouldn’t necessarily include the gay woman who just lives by herself throughout her life in this group, but gay women in relationships have to have a certain amount of commitment to their own sexual preference and have to be willing to do the non-mainstream thing; so it would make sense that their personalities may lean toward being a little less conventional and more interested in their own sex life (because if they didn’t care a whole lot about it, the way many heterosexual women often don’t, they would just live without any relationship they way a lot of single, divorced, and widowed women do).
Of course, if anyone studies up on animal’s behavior they will see that female sexuality in the animal kingdom is quite different from male sexuality; and whether it is correct to call “sexually advanced” people “more evolved” is another question. Since gay women’s sexuality is more different from female sexuality in the animal kingdom than hetersexual women’s sexuality is; and since what may be considered “advanced” or “superior” for male sexuality and what is considered “advanced” or “superior” for female sexuality are two different things (because male and female are opposites) . it seems to me that a sexuality that is not similar to female sexuality in the animal kingdom isn’t necessarily more evolved. If any women had sexuality that mimicked male sexuality that wouldn’t be more evolved either because having a male-like sexuality without a body to match doesn’t make for being more evolved. If “advanced” means being “more like men” it isn’t evolved. If “advanced” means being like women on the farther end of the heterosexual scale (sexuality-wise) that would place these women in the “non-advanced” area. If being “sexually evolved” or “sexually advanced” means hovering near the center of the “scale” then gay women wouldn’t be “more anything” than either the most heterosexual males or females on each end of the “scale”.
Even the consideration that being more “evolved” could mean being more intellectually governed and more removed from more biological urges, there is still the issue that male sexuality has served a purpose. Presuming that “more evolved” must mean being more moved away from that isn’t necessarily correct either.
I don’t pretend to have read the “theory”. I’ve written what I think some of its premises may or may not be.
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

I would assume it must be along these lines:
Men could be seen as least evolved on some level when it comes to being ruled by their intellect without intrusion of their sexuality.
I suppose someone could say that because heterosexual women get involved with men, that, too, “contaminates” any “operating on an intellectual level without influence of their sexuality as it relates to men”.
For gay women, since there is no male sexuality involved either individually or in a relationship I suppose someone may see that as freedom to operate more on an intellectual level alone without factoring in any male sexuality at all.
Of course, there is such a thing as heterosexual women who are very intelligent and evolved beyond their biological instincts and who are not in relationships; so I would think that gay women don’t have a monopoly on functioning on an intellectual and self-actualized level. There is also such a thing as mature, intelligent, people of both genders who do operate on an intellectual level and don’t function at the mercy of their own sexuality once they’re past their teens.
If what someone means is that gay women are in charge of their own sexuality without the complication of any male sexuality that may be one point. At the same time, whether that would be considered “evolved” is something many people would question, since it would seem that being “evolved” in terms of furthering the species would not lean in the direction away from male/female relationships.
If what someone means by “evolved” is really “sexually advanced” then I can see that. Gay women have to be a little creative when it comes to sex. They have to be “brave” (for lack of a better word) enough to have the relationship they want rather than the relationship “the world” thinks they should have. I wouldn’t necessarily include the gay woman who just lives by herself throughout her life in this group, but gay women in relationships have to have a certain amount of commitment to their own sexual preference and have to be willing to do the non-mainstream thing; so it would make sense that their personalities may lean toward being a little less conventional and more interested in their own sex life (because if they didn’t care a whole lot about it, the way many heterosexual women often don’t, they would just live without any relationship they way a lot of single, divorced, and widowed women do).
Of course, if anyone studies up on animal’s behavior they will see that female sexuality in the animal kingdom is quite different from male sexuality; and whether it is correct to call “sexually advanced” people “more evolved” is another question. Since gay women’s sexuality is more different from female sexuality in the animal kingdom than hetersexual women’s sexuality is; and since what may be considered “advanced” or “superior” for male sexuality and what is considered “advanced” or “superior” for female sexuality are two different things (because male and female are opposites) . it seems to me that a sexuality that is not similar to female sexuality in the animal kingdom isn’t necessarily more evolved. If any women had sexuality that mimicked male sexuality that wouldn’t be more evolved either because having a male-like sexuality without a body to match doesn’t make for being more evolved. If “advanced” means being “more like men” it isn’t evolved. If “advanced” means being like women on the farther end of the heterosexual scale (sexuality-wise) that would place these women in the “non-advanced” area. If being “sexually evolved” or “sexually advanced” means hovering near the center of the “scale” then gay women wouldn’t be “more anything” than either the most heterosexual males or females on each end of the “scale”.
Even the consideration that being more “evolved” could mean being more intellectually governed and more removed from more biological urges, there is still the issue that male sexuality has served a purpose. Presuming that “more evolved” must mean being more moved away from that isn’t necessarily correct either.
I don’t pretend to have read the “theory”. I’ve written what I think some of its premises may or may not be.

Sex is about procreation. How can two people who can’t procreate be more evolved in the area of procreation.
Now, had you used the term Erotic I might have had a different view.
Unlike heterosexuality, homosexulaity is exclusively about the erotic and relief aspects of bodily functions and tantilizations. It is NOT about SEX or SEXUALITY, which is the domain of reproduction.
Homosexuality is largely a gratuitous lifestyle.

But momy said daddy was a whore!

Why must men be put down in every arena? Ladies please have your fun, but lesbianism is just as disgusting as two guys getting it on. That’s my personal opinion. I guess whoever proposed this theory is out to prove that men can’t do anything right huh?

Errr…would you explain what you mean by “sexually evolved”, please and thanks in advance.

I have also read Al Gore say that Global Warming is gospel.
I am still laughing at that one.
Nope if all we had on the planet were gay women –
earth would be without a human being in one generation.
Same if all we had were gay men.
yo ho, all together,
hoist your colours high
heave ho, thieves and beggars
never shall we die!

how can they be the most sexually evolved, when the fundemental idea behind sex is procreation?

Well, evolution tends to favor people who reproduce, so technically, no.
I’m not sure what the idea is here…..I’m very much in favor of gay rights, but to claim that they have sex in a more enlightened way seems a little silly.

Doesn’t appear to be a sound argument. Evolution is all about species survival. If the ultimate evolution of sex (which is meant to procreate) eliminates procreation than the human species isn’t very likely to survive for long….