It looks like there is an escalating battle brewing between Apple and Gawker Media. The feud started when one of the Gawker blog sites, a tech site called Gizmodo, bought a prototype iPhone 4 that had been lost by an Apple employee. They dismantled it, took pictures of it, snooped as deeply as they could and blogged every detail to the world. This was weeks before the official announcement of the new iPhone, and Apple was not pleased. They hold to a very strict level of secrecy when it comes to their upcoming products, and they don’t think its funny when someone breaks that secrecy.

Gizmodo could have immediately notified Apple about the phone, and build good will with them. Instead, they bought the phone (which under California law constitutes buying stolen property) and told the world in vivid detail. Not surprisingly, Gizmodo found itself uninvited to the official unveiling at WWDC. Today Gawker Media fired back with a post that blamed Apple for a security breach that exposed some personal information of cellular iPad owners. The trouble is that the error was AT&Ts,not Apple. The blog post goes to strenuous lengths to vilify Apple, so I guess they’ve decided to become a vocal enemy of Apple, despite the lack of factual support to their argument. So far, the anti-Apple bias hasn’t crept into the other Gawker sites (including, ironically, Gizmodo) but if it does show up, it will be pretty clear that it’s a mandate from the top of Gawker on down. Will this change or affect Apple in any significant way? Nope.

Sometimes I am struck by an idea that is both highly unprovable and bound to make people who hear it shake their head and inch away from me. Nonetheless, I present today’s poorly thought out idea that posits an answer to the unasked question: why does prostate stimulation provide sexual gratification for men?

Uncomfortable yet? Well we’re going ahead anyway. What if the sexual reward brought on by prostate stimulation is a population control mechanism? This argument is made on the assumption that we’re only talking about biological interaction between two parties, with no toys or multiple  simultaneous partners thrown into the mix. It’s also depends on the premise that the male sex drive is consistently higher than the female sex drive. And, being a biological discussion, there’s no cultural perspective on homosexual sex to muddy the waters, so we’re going to make a pretty big assumption for the purposes of this discussion that, in the wild, normal male sexuality would include some bisexual tendency.

It’s pretty safe to say that any sex act that involves the prostate getting tickled will not result in conception, so that will cut down on the numbers of kids right there.  And if there wasn’t a sexual alternative, a tribe of humans would quickly find itself with all the women pregnant, and most of the men frustrated. The possibility of popping out to the woods for a quick man on man cuddle would lessen the sexual pressure on the female members.  So, the most content and successful tribes had a higher population of men who enjoyed a little back door action, and evolution took care of the rest. This idea may be the perfect way to make an American Christian’s head explode:let’s call it gay-volution!

I must remind you again that I am not trained or qualified in any way to even ponder the nature of human evolution and sexuality. This blog post is for entertainment purposes only, and no I am not a weirdo.