Innate Bisexuality

>I'm a gay dude, and I can honestly say I've never once found a woman sexually attractive
That just seems so unlikely.
OK, OK, so I'm straight.
But STILL.
Women have... ok SOME women have an aesthetic that's just SO fucking awesome...

Oops, wrong pic

I think that attraction is more complex than just seeing the other gender as "pretty". Male pornstars have huge dicks, yet the guys who watch it do not consider themselves gay. I believe that most hetero guys are attracted to the idea of a woman being absolutely destroyed sexually. Thus it is an indirect attraction to "big dicks". Or maybe that's just me and I'm a fag. Both theories are plausible

Not that user, you type like a huge faggot.

like dicks ?

you're gay nigga

I think my psychology professor said that we're all a little bisexual. He said it's very rare for people to be 100% straight or gay and I agree. I mean even if you're straight/gay there's always that one exception.

She just wasn't the right woman :^)

>thinks his "theory" is new and radical
>doesn't know who Kinsey is
>muh anthropology/hand-wavey evopsych
>all of his personal experience is grounded porn and Veeky Forums

kys faggot your "theory" isn't wrong per se but literally every argument you provided is flawed

...

Homosexuality and bisexuality are most likely genetic, or psychological defects.

There is literally an evolutionary fail-safe for them.

Let's look at it as a spectrum.

A pure homosexual would be someone with no attraction to the opposite sex, and a pure hetero, the converse.

The genes of those most disposed to homosexuality would be naturally excluded from the gene pool, as they could not reproduce, and those most heterosexual would have the greatest possible chance of passing on their genes.

In order for a human to pass on their genetics, they have to comply to this evolutionary system.

So for most of humanity to be bisexual would be illogical. That would mean that there was a perfect balance achieved between the genetic/psychological defect and the proper, as in functional, reproductive structure of our species.

The most likely scenario is probably an inverse pyramid, where the number of pure homosexuals is very small, followed by those who are predominantly but not exclusively homosexual, then pure bisexuals (as in, right in the middle), and so on - increasing to the number of pure heterosexuals being the largest number.

Or, at the very least, those who are most inclined for heterosexual interaction over homosexual interaction.

Oh, and as for the "able to do it with both sexes" bit...

A vagina comes vacuum-sealed by nature and can carry life.

An asshole comes filled with feces.

Don't know what to tell you man. Speaking honestly. I can tell when women are attractive - anyone can. They look beautiful aesthetically. But so do sunsets and painting by Monet - and I don't want to fuck those either.

No - I have never once in my life been turned on by or sexually attracted to a woman. And believe me - I tried.

user you silly goose XD

Pick one:

a) Your small penis makes you too insecure about your ability to please women so you put them at a distance.

b) You're beta and submissive and that's why you choose only men.

c) You were molested as a kid and indoctrinated into fetishizing the D

So homosexuals are most genetically defective, bis are homo to the degree of which they're genetically defective, and full hets have the best genes to pass on?

Except a lot of gays do have a desire to have children, even biologically.

>thinking gay sex is anal sex
But gay sex is frot.

I'm not talking about an entire genome comprehensively, but with respect to sexual orientation, yes. Heterosexuals have the best genes to pass on.

The only way to have children is biologically, but I know what you meant.

The degree that the desire to reproduce with a woman (not simply a desire to reproduce, and settling for a woman) dominates the sex drive of a man, is the measure of this aspect of his genetic/psychological sexual health. This aspect only, mind you.

There are many other aspects to sexual health, and many other aspects to a healthy genome.

The kinsey scale doesn't claim everyone is bisexual, it just provides a spectrum. And I know this isn't new, this dates back to Freud.

>So for most of humanity to be bisexual would be illogical. That would mean that there was a perfect balance achieved between the genetic/psychological defect and the proper, as in functional, reproductive structure of our species.
Your logic doesn't follow.
A homosexual is exclusive, which means yes, they can't breed.
A bisexual can do it with both, meaning that they aren't "defective", just sexually active, which means not only do you have a higher chance to reproduce (a person who fucks indiscriminately will breed more than someone who is picky), but will have a high standing in the community for providing sexually service

According to Jungian psychology it's caused by an overbearing mother and an emotionally distant father, kek.

>Pick one:
>a) Your small penis makes you too insecure about your ability to please women so you put them at a distance.
>b) You're beta and submissive and that's why you choose only men.
>c) You were molested as a kid and indoctrinated into fetishizing the D

a) average size (maybe a liiiiitle small, lol) but I'm totally fine with it. I've never had any interest in pleasing women, lol.

b) I'm actually most comfortable the dom in most relationships, although I can pull switch if I'm feeling subby at the moment, which is rare. I mostly bang younger twinks, so... yeah.

c) never got molested, haha

The vagina also bleeds and spits out chunks of unused baby juice and can easily get infected.

>You're beta and submissive and that's why you choose only men.

Never understood this argument. It could only apply to submissive, femmy twinks. What about all the bears and doms out there who love pounding ass? How does being beta and submissive apply to them when they are neither?

Same here, virtually all gays are actually really popular with women.

I think most guys self-insert to some degree when watching porn whether they realize it or not. It's not just simple observation of an act; we imagine ourselves in place of the male star.

Considering that, porn stars having big dicks makes a lot more sense. It's no wonder that most guys are going to enjoy porn more if it helps them to imagine themselves as hung.

>not self-inserting as the female star
Step it up, senpai.

I suppose the definition would be having the potental to be sexually attracted to both sexes in a manner that is plesurable.

>A pure homosexual would be someone with no attraction to the opposite sex, and a pure hetero, the converse.
>The genes of those most disposed to homosexuality would be naturally excluded from the gene pool, as they could not reproduce, and those most heterosexual would have the greatest possible chance of passing on their genes.

And yet homosexuals still exist after milennia of evolution. Nice meme.

your hypothesis is only true for a single-locus, strongly genetic explanation of homosexuality

we already know homosexuality is weakly genetic, and whatever genetic component it has is polygenic in origin

it's more likely to be a derived feature of brain development, which is not inconsistent with a "bisexuality is the norm" hypothesis

>1 in 2 young British people say they are not 100% heterosexual
yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual/

>A third of young Americans say they aren't 100% heterosexual
today.yougov.com/news/2015/08/20/third-young-americans-exclusively-heterosexual/

advocate.com/world/2015/08/31/study-one-third-israelis-are-bisexual

Yeah, I'm fairly sure we're bi as a race. But if you look at the statistics you'll see the number of gays remains constant.

can follow your train of though user, but dont get lamarckian about it

I said earlier in the thread that being less picky and more sexually active mean that you tend to breed more while also making you more popular.

fair - desu i had a pretty decent acid + mushroom trip a while back and ended up at the same conclusion

i think you're on the fuckin money, but who cares

Sorry user, wanting to stick it up someone's pooper makes you gay.

What about heterosexual anal?

I agree, the theory is probably accurate to some extent.

>most of human history is bisexual
>but we turn it off to follow the norm

I see a problem with this already.

>Using modern statistics about sexuality
It is just an easy division to enter in the special snowflake olympics my friend.

Different cultures around the world were inclusive to homosexuality until the European culture dominated.
And the only reason europeans were not inclusive is because of Christianity, which became prevalent enough to change the norm.
And that only happened because religions (like Christianity) tends to be a mixture of philosophy, ethnic cultures and personal bias of the writer and has the power to change human nature.

When you're using practically the same biological tool set (male and female) you have to expect some eventual cross wiring.

Dogmatic straight fags for some reason seemed to forget that men and women still utilize the same base set of chromosomes. And just like how chromosome abnormalities can influence expression of the body and mind,

anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm

It appears it can also influence sexual orientation too,

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/

Wrong. I'm straight. 150% woman loving man.
I'm so straight I won't even drink homo-genized milk.
I'm so straight I'd rather drive an extra 3 hours to find a bridge than ride a fairy.
I'm so straight I quit smoking because some Brit said that I was sucking on a fag
I won't even go outside when there's a rainbow.
I won't watch porn with a dick in it.
I'm here to fuck women.
Deal with it.

Kek

Anal is a kink, it isn't vanilla for straight or gay couples.

Is anal really that much of a kink?
It's the closest hole next to the bagina. It doesn't take that much to find it hot.

I kinda wanna fuck an XYY guy now

A drug trip isn't exactly a reliable state of mind or judgement

>innately
Sexuality is learned
Or do you not remember a time before you first beat off or looked at a female's genitalia?
Or liked a girl on the playground
In the 90s there was this whole icky meme going on

If sexually to learned then that mean everyone is born bisexual because it would mean everyone has the potential to like both

>sexually to learned then that mean everyone
It's not easy to be a mobilefag

But why would we accept a religion that alters a norm to this extent?
It doesn't make sense my man, you are gonna need to cite a developmental advantage to removing faggots from society in order to prove that homosexuality is the "norm" without systems in place.

To do that I'd have to explain the foundation of Judaism, the rise of Christianity, the roman concept of masculinity, and how customs and cultures form.
in short, tl;dr
I will for those who are interested tho.
So why would a culture want to adopt something that goes against nature?
that really depends on who lives there.
In the region they live in an STD might of spread that caused those who caught it to get sick.
Or maybe in an age where marrying people off to each other without there say as the norm, marrying your son to another guy wouldn't get you grandchildren, so it would be wasteful. Or maybe it was just outright disgust from some asshole tribe leader who decided to start a cult around a war god. It could be all of maybe even none, but these are the best examples why.
So anyways, One of these thing happens (or all, or none) to a small cult in the area know today as Israel, where they slaughtered all who opposed them and became a nuisance to everyone around them for a while.
Skip quite some time later, and the Romans took over everything. Now the Romans were weird anyways, because they had a concept of Masculinity that basically placed domination as one of the virtues and if you can dominate and show your strength you will be recognized. They were still kind of gay, but as long as you were on top you were fine, but if you were on bottom, you were seen as submitting yourself to someone else, becoming their slave or toy (women weren't seen that highly back then).
cont.

So anyways, the Romans aren't doin' so hot lately on when some dudebro named Jesus came riding around Nazareth on a goat preaching some nonsense that apparently caught on with some poor desert hobos. These hobos were prosecuted, killed, and then martyred by other hobos until some roman guy became leader of Rome and say "whatev's" and allowed them to preach.
Then the hobos, with all of there hobo-ness spread across Europe to preach to the disenfranchised everywhere, and because everyone was poor and living in mudhuts on the outskirts of Rome, those who wanted food and charity came to the Christians, because they gave more of a shit than the state religion. The heads of these churches fed on these hapless morons and turned them into fellow desert hobo and made them share there own stupid beliefs. And because they weren't so bright in the first place they believed them and because most of them were in isolated villages or were married off like everyone else, they just kind of rolled with the punches.
And thats why things are the way they are
did that make sense?

Yes, because many homosexuals throughout history have hidden their homosexuality with families, or conformed to evolutionary norms in order to pass on their genes. Also, as OP points out (and I did as well in a different way), there are many in-between the two extremes.

Also, if it is not a genetic defect, but a psychological one, then there could be a myriad of causes that would bring it about even in someone who originally lacked the defect.

I'm not saying I have it all figured out. Just musing really, but your objection was already addressed.

You're halfway on point with what I was saying.

A person who indiscriminately mates with women would have a higher chance to reproduce, and this, in a true sense, is sexual activity.

A person who is so indiscriminate they mate with their own sex, an act which merely simulates the reproductive act, is sexually over-active to the point of wasting the body's time and resources (I've read an ounce of semen has as much nutrients as a pint of blood - though I can't verify it myself).

What is that dude from?

Looks comfy

I was intentionally simplifying the issue for the sake of time. Attempting to write a post that looked at homo and bisexuality comprehensively is, not only beyond my knowledge, but altogether too time consuming.

I consider your perspective accurate.

Lisa: The Painful RPG
Its comfy as fuck but you will want to kill yourself by the end of it.
In a good way.

>to the point of wasting the body's time and resources
How is tribal bonding wasteful?
If anything it means you get along more with the rest of the tribe, which is very beneficial

Male bonding does not require sex.

If anything, you risk complicating tribal bonds by adding the dynamic of sex to male-to-male relationships.

Sexual relationship complication is a modern culture concept and doesn't exist in many tribes
many casually fuck each other for fun.
In that sense male bonding is strengthened by sex

>Sexual relationship complication is a modern culture concept and doesn't exist in many tribes

This is utterly preposterous.

It exists even in wolves, primates, and other animals.

You are in denial.

>primates
Proof?
I have proof for my example, Bonobos
Oh, and here is one tribe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trobriand_Islands

Look it up, it won't be hard to find. Watch some documentaries on various animal species. It is literally everywhere in plain sight.

Even insects and birds compete for mates, and many hierarchies within social systems in the animal world are derived directly from the reproductive dynamic.

Also, "modern" is very vague. Anthropologically you can see competition for mates as far back as neanderthals - at least. Are they "modern" as well?

>Look it up,
Top lel, you ran out of fuel for your fire didn't you?
Look, even if there is tons of animal societies with sexual tension (many of which have nothing to do with human biology), most of them also have homosexual tendencies within their society as well, so how do you explain that?

As for your query about modern culture, I meant our current pervasive culture based on European culture, as nern explained above.
as before, just because many cultures (even our current most dominant one) are competitively monogamous doesn't mean it is universal or the best.

No, I just refuse to do you research for you.

I already explained the answer to your question in my very first post. As well as in an answer to someone else.

I know what you meant. It was rhetorical. I destroyed your argument because it is completely nonsensical. Sex has complicated relationships since man has been man (and probably before). It is not new.

Oh, also, I said nothing about monogamy. This is about homosexuality and bisexuality. Monogamy is an entirely different thing, and would require a completely different investigation.

>I have destroyed your argument despite legit criticism to the contrary and I will refuse to explain why
Ok, were done here.
Thanks for the forfeit.

We are done. Just not for the reason you think.

I do have to point this out though. We share ancestors (and therefore biology) with many insects and even plants, so to say it has nothing to do with us is just ignorant.

>being this mad you lost
We all have our days user

I think people have a number of ways to view pornography. Sometimes people might use the male a sa self insert, they might simulate what the penis is doing, or having done to it, and achieve arousal and gratification conceptually without it being a true self insert. It might be voyeuristic. It might be just the sight of genitals and the fantasy of a given context initiating the brain's predictor networks.

I think there's a number of things happening simultaneously, and it depends on context and frame of mind. There are numerous ways to be aroused.

I definitely like seeing attractive women slide their lips and tongues all over a large uncut dick. Though I'm just as well off with solo or lesbian porn, though the latter can bore me because the women aren't genuinely into it a good deal of the time. If I think of the man as an actual person however, I detach. I've never understood the "yeah, fuck her bro!" attitude, beyond in an evolutionary sense.

People like to watch. They like to immerse by proxy. Why watch movies? Why watch TV? Why watch birds? Why Watch a conversation at the other side of the room? Many reasons that trace down to our base axiomatic drives.

I don't think it's correct to say most people have the capacity to be bisexual. But I do think people can appreciate the aesthetics of either sex, it just connects to a different basis, desire, and intent.

This has nothing to do with your argument, which is quite good actually.
But the word aesthetic is really starting to piss me off and I don't know why

Not him - but feel free to call samefag if you want.

Your notion that "sex complicating relationships" is a modern invention is ludicrous. I agree with the other user 100% and I think you're an idiot.

Funny, I wasn't one of the anons arguing either.

That isn't even me freind, and I specified here that it isn't modern in the sense that is only happened today
Sorry if its too confusing, lets just use "Common Culture"

In fact the data shows that most bisexual people aren't even that bisexual

...

ever heard of Kinsey and preference?
You can be sexually be attracted to both and want to only make a relationship with one
That still makes you Bi

Why not just stick with arbitrary self definition?
Fuggin' fug it, shit ain't even worth it man.

I consider myself bi and I've been on one of those websites, but never marked it because closet.
I never considered that it could be perceived as more sexually adventurous.

If I did mark myself as a bisexual, I'd probably only message women, because I'm less picky about women and could actually find a girl that's "good enough".
Maybe the other bis are just waiting for someone cute to message them, and don't really care if it's a guy or girl.

Well regardless, your arguing in favor of the notion that sexual relationships have only been complicated in recent times. So guess what - I still think you're an idiot ;)

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm just making fun of someone for not holding their own in an internet argument. Honestly I wasn't really paying attention to what was being argued and have no opinion on it.

Oh, so you're just being a completely illogical, insufferable faggot commenting on shit you have no idea about.

Thanks for reminding me where I am.

Onlooker watching this conversation here. Made me laugh.

And you are being unreasonably hostile toward someone who in no way prompted your autism.

I could not help but notice your gif was not optimized user.
I have optimized your gif.
Your gif is now optimized.

Thank you for optimizing my gif.
I hope you enjoy the autism that is to come in this thread.

>3 kb based god

...

Gay = fear of getting women pregnant. You like these stylish grandmas because you know they're barren.

Let me put it to you this way: I'm not gay or attracted to guys at all, but I'd probably suck a dick if I got some pussy out of the deal.

Do you dislike dick because it turns you off, or do you dislike dick because it's dick?
Could you theoretically find yourself in a situation where you're attracted to a guy?