View on sexuality based on Darwinistic Theory

  • visionsofruin

    Posts: 51

    Jun 09, 2012 5:35 AM GMT
    I decided to write this because of another post on if people believe if bisexuality truly exists.
    Don't hate me for this, but I just spent the last couple of months talking about Darwin and survival of the fittest, and things such as evolution and mutation. And it has brought me to this thought...

    There is a fact that 70% of the human population is bisexual in one way or another. This is including things such as bi-curiosity or any sexual thoughts about homo/heterosexuality when you are one or the other. This is as stated by Douglas Whaley(Law professor, gay rights advocate, and novelist) when he says,"So if you've had homosexual thoughts or experiences it only means that you are part of 70% of the human population for which that is true." (from his blog, http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2012/04/sexual-labels-straight-gay-bi.html?m=1)

    If this is the case, and applying Darwinism, then maybe people are not born hetero- or homosexual. Maybe we are all born bisexual, and early life experiences give us preference of homo or heterosexuality. I know this is nature vs. nurture, and that this theory leans more on the nurture side. But it also means that sexuality is not a choice, people do not chose their life experiences at infancy.

    But here is where Darwinism plugs in. Bisexuality would make sense as a mutation for survival of the fittest. Sex is commonly used among other mammals not only for procreation, but also for displays of dominance to become the "alpha male". So why not humans? Guys always want to be the hot-shot alpha of the group. I'm probably not saying this as eloquently as I hoped, but it makes perfect sense to me.

    This theory would also explain pansexuality as a hyper mutation of bisexuality.
    I do need to say that everything I learned about Darwinism I got from a philosophy class, not a biology course. So this is all hypothetical philosophical thought, and not a legitimate scientific theory.

    So, thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 5:38 AM GMT
    visionsofruin said
    There is a fact that 70% of the human population is bisexual in one way or another.


    citation_needed.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 6:04 AM GMT
    lol I stopped there too. Actually I think that's the only line I read.
  • visionsofruin

    Posts: 51

    Jun 09, 2012 6:32 AM GMT
    Ariodante said
    visionsofruin said
    There is a fact that 70% of the human population is bisexual in one way or another.


    citation_needed.jpg


    Is that better? Also, note that in the following lines I say "if this is true". Taking the fact from a blog, I feel it holds only as a hypothesis, and not as hardcore fact. I don't know if you can measure sexuality when it fluctuates so much during a persons life. It's like measuring a dream in inches. This is all hypothetical, and I'm more likely to believe that I'm wrong. But this is just based on a "if it was true" train of thought.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 6:41 AM GMT
    It never was a fact. Facts are true no matter how you look at it, and can't be proven false.


    The blog (omg lol as a citation) says 70% of people in kinsey's study (which may have dick to do with society today) identified as having not STRICTLY straight feelings. This is including gay people who have STRICLY gay-only feelings.

    70% bisexual is false
  • visionsofruin

    Posts: 51

    Jun 09, 2012 6:47 AM GMT
    SkinnyBitch saidIt never was a fact. Facts are true no matter how you look at it, and can't be proven false.


    The blog (omg lol as a citation) says 70% of people in kinsey's study (which may have dick to do with society today) identified as having not STRICTLY straight feelings. This is including gay people who have STRICLY gay-only feelings.

    70% bisexual is false


    Okay, so my perception of the numbers was off, way off. (yes I am increadibly dumb that I didn't notice that before).

    But I still stand by my hypothesis that bisexuality does exist as a mutation of sexuality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 7:02 AM GMT
    Ok, you definitely have something there. Professor Ashley Monks of the University of Toronto actually specializes in sexual behaviour and genetics and he did mention the idea of dominance... so I'm definitely open to investigating your specific notion that a part of being bisexual is to be able to exert dominance when required.


    However, the one major flaw in this theory is how it relates to women.

    Women who were into women would actually be viewed as completely inferior to women who were into men by other women, even though by the eyes of men, they were considered a gift in roman society.

    So, bisexuality could potentially be a factor for showing who's boss once in a while - but then it would only relate to men (As they can physically insert their penis and cause the effect).

    Essentially what you're saying is: Men are born bisexual, women are born heterosexual.

    -------------------------------

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 7:06 AM GMT
    I do want to say though in today's society there is no need for this portrayal of dominance and in fact, dominance, if need be, is shown more through socio-economic status than anything else.

    So, if your hypothesis is in fact true, it would be irrelevant and disregarded due to the simple fact that we aren't living in a barbaric society.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 7:08 AM GMT
    Also, one more thing...

    If your hypothesis is correct, then ideally, you are saying that all gay men are born with the desire to "top"...as bottoming does not exert dominance in animalistic society.
  • visionsofruin

    Posts: 51

    Jun 09, 2012 7:27 AM GMT
    _Mohamed_ saidAlso, one more thing...

    If your hypothesis is correct, then ideally, you are saying that all gay men are born with the desire to "top"...as bottoming does not exert dominance in animalistic society.


    All things in life are dominance, and even submissive people are dominant in that they want to bring pleasure to the dominant. Controlling pleasure, and controlling what the alpha feels is in fact a form of dominance.This is where women plug in, women control the initiation of sex. men proposition sex, but ultimately, (in a heterosexual relation), it is up to the woman to accept it. And this is assuming that the woman is submissive. But by the woman showing dominance in that they decide the initiation of sex, that can be catagorized as a bisexual frame of mind in that they are breaking the gender role of women being submissive. There are guys who enjoy being used by women, that is why there are things such as a "dominatrix". Basically, it is more likely for a woman to be bisexual than a man. And I think this is why it is okay for girls to kiss eachother, where as guys kissing eachother is more frowned upon in parts of society.
    And in bisexuality, most stereotypical gender roles go out the window. Much like how some gay men are feminine. The roles are shared instead of divided. Either can be dominant, or submissive. This is also true for homosexual relationships. It seems to be uncommon for heterosexual relationships to have inditermined gender roles, and if they do have inditermined roles, the. That is their bisexuality poking through.

    Sigmond Freud believed that everything is sex, I believe that everythig is dominance. I broke down the idea of sexual relations into something even more simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 7:57 AM GMT
    visionsofruin said
    _Mohamed_ saidAlso, one more thing...

    If your hypothesis is correct, then ideally, you are saying that all gay men are born with the desire to "top"...as bottoming does not exert dominance in animalistic society.


    All things in life are dominance, and even submissive people are dominant in that they want to bring pleasure to the dominant. Controlling pleasure, and controlling what the alpha feels is in fact a form of dominance.This is where women plug in, women control the initiation of sex. men proposition sex, but ultimately, (in a heterosexual relation), it is up to the woman to accept it. And this is assuming that the woman is submissive. But by the woman showing dominance in that they decide the initiation of sex, that can be catagorized as a bisexual frame of mind in that they are breaking the gender role of women being submissive. There are guys who enjoy being used by women, that is why there are things such as a "dominatrix". Basically, it is more likely for a woman to be bisexual than a man. And I think this is why it is okay for girls to kiss eachother, where as guys kissing eachother is more frowned upon in parts of society.
    And in bisexuality, most stereotypical gender roles go out the window. Much like how some gay men are feminine. The roles are shared instead of divided. Either can be dominant, or submissive. This is also true for homosexual relationships. It seems to be uncommon for heterosexual relationships to have inditermined gender roles, and if they do have inditermined roles, the. That is their bisexuality poking through.

    Sigmond Freud believed that everything is sex, I believe that everythig is dominance. I broke down the idea of sexual relations into something even more simple.


    Yes Sigmund Freud believed that everything was sex, but he was wrong in.. oh so many ways.

    Now, let's back track for a minute... in your OP, you tried to make the correlation with bisexuality and alpha males.

    It doesn't make sense that a man should be bisexual then if you claim women are the ultimate dominating force in human society.

    I understand that submissive people do have power... however, think back to the vikings, think back to the roman civilization where, submissive people DID NOT have power.

    You were raped if you were not tough enough or strong enough to defend for yourself back then.

    I.E: you were dominated if you weren't physiologically favoured by nature.

    So, no... down to the bare ... dominance has been all about "getting what you want, when you want it, how you want it..." and who is more adept at it than a big, strong man who can push around who he pleases.


    So, once again, who ends up being the top dominating human - the big, buff man.

    ------------------

    The fact that you are trying to correlate bisexuality to men alone indicates that the man would use his bisexuality to dominate - as you already stated earlier...

    now why would the man bottom for another man to exert his dominance... to imitate the woman's role with a man?

    Is he somehow going to secure his position as alpha if he puts his ass up in there for the leader of the group? - oh wait... the leader of the group is the alpha.

    It doesn't follow logic to state that bisexuality in alpha males would cause them to bottom - because women are the ultimate dominating human beings in society - so the alpha males would like to mimic that role with other men.


    This, ultimately leads me to one conclusion for your hypothesis:

    That, if proven to be correct, alpha males were given bisexuality as a form of strengthening their own societies by weeding out those who were not worthy of carrying on offspring.

    The weak men, who did not have the ability to hunt given their physiological state, and who did not have the ability to nurture for children - due to their inability to provide milk, and a mother's warmth, were used literally for satisfactory purposes only for the men who could provide for the group.

    I mean, if you are going to say that alpha males and bisexuality are correlated and then say women are actually more dominant in many societies... you have to give a reason for completely opposite and clashing predictions.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 8:02 AM GMT
    To summarize it up for the TL;DR people:

    what i'm saying is that women, for the MOST PART, in tribalistic societies did not have the final say in many things - maybe in some - but not in many... it was up to the alpha male.

    So, bisexuality for women is not efficient... they would exert dominance over other women, but there would be no real use to it as the alpha male would have the final say.


    Also, there would be no use for an alpha male to bottom for other men, so his bisexuality would be solely to penetrate other males.

    This means that somehow, nature is very selective when it comes to how it affects an individual's role in sex based on their societal status.
  • visionsofruin

    Posts: 51

    Jun 09, 2012 8:18 AM GMT
    _Mohamed_ saidTo summarize it up for the TL;DR people:

    what i'm saying is that women, for the MOST PART, in tribalistic societies did not have the final say in many things - maybe in some - but not in many... it was up to the alpha male.

    So, bisexuality for women is not efficient... they would exert dominance over other women, but there would be no real use to it as the alpha male would have the final say.





    I'm not saying that everyone is dominant. Everyone has a drive to be dominant, but a drive does not mean that they succeed. If everyone was the alpha, then life would not progress. The drive is stronger in some than in others.

    And if a guy is offering up his ass to the alpha, he may not be dominating the alpha, but he is doing something to ensure his survival in the society. Eventually, he may try to turn the tables.

    In the case of Vikings and ancient Rome, the victims of rape were just that, "raped", raped meaning non-consensual, you think they didn't try to fight back? Of course they did. They did not want to be invaded, they tried to assert their dominance, and they failed. For someone to become alpha, the other has to become beta, until they can try again.


    And in tribal cultures, women may not have been dominant with other adult males, but they were dominant with their children. They provided milk, and nourishment. Children were dependent on mothers to dominate and control their life till they were old enough to be the alpha of their own life.

    And even then, think of other tribal type dominat positions for women; oracles, priestesses, goddesses, witchdoctors, teachers. They made clothes, they kept the homes in order. Men were dependent on women, especially since they are the ones who bare children. I think this is where religions like Wicca come from, and I think part of that religion is that women are sacred.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 9:15 AM GMT
    visionsofruin said
    _Mohamed_ saidTo summarize it up for the TL;DR people:

    what i'm saying is that women, for the MOST PART, in tribalistic societies did not have the final say in many things - maybe in some - but not in many... it was up to the alpha male.

    So, bisexuality for women is not efficient... they would exert dominance over other women, but there would be no real use to it as the alpha male would have the final say.





    I'm not saying that everyone is dominant. Everyone has a drive to be dominant, but a drive does not mean that they succeed. If everyone was the alpha, then life would not progress. The drive is stronger in some than in others.

    And if a guy is offering up his ass to the alpha, he may not be dominating the alpha, but he is doing something to ensure his survival in the society. Eventually, he may try to turn the tables.

    In the case of Vikings and ancient Rome, the victims of rape were just that, "raped", raped meaning non-consensual, you think they didn't try to fight back? Of course they did. They did not want to be invaded, they tried to assert their dominance, and they failed. For someone to become alpha, the other has to become beta, until they can try again.


    And in tribal cultures, women may not have been dominant with other adult males, but they were dominant with their children. They provided milk, and nourishment. Children were dependent on mothers to dominate and control their life till they were old enough to be the alpha of their own life.

    And even then, think of other tribal type dominat positions for women; oracles, priestesses, goddesses, witchdoctors, teachers. They made clothes, they kept the homes in order. Men were dependent on women, especially since they are the ones who bare children. I think this is where religions like Wicca come from, and I think part of that religion is that women are sacred.


    Ok, but you're still missing the point here which is: why would it matter whether bisexuality enabled you to hold your alpha position in society when in the end, it matters whether or not you have the capability to exert greater force than the other person?

    Here's an example;

    Take a short, thin man who is bisexual and a bulky, tall man who is bisexual.

    Now, according to you, the bulky tall man needs to be bisexual so he can exert his dominance over the other man.

    However, let's say that the bulky, tall man was NOT bisexual... he is still alpha based on the mere fact that he is bulky and tall.

    So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: alpha males don't need to be bisexual to be alpha.

    In other words, your hypothesis isn't useful to society. It doesn't change anything.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 9:17 AM GMT
    Well all I can say is bisexuality exists.

    If you don't believe me just bring me an attractive female prostitute...I will have sex with her, then I will have sex with you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 10:07 AM GMT
    visionsofruin said
    SkinnyBitch saidIt never was a fact. Facts are true no matter how you look at it, and can't be proven false.


    The blog (omg lol as a citation) says 70% of people in kinsey's study (which may have dick to do with society today) identified as having not STRICTLY straight feelings. This is including gay people who have STRICLY gay-only feelings.

    70% bisexual is false


    Okay, so my perception of the numbers was off, way off. (yes I am increadibly dumb that I didn't notice that before).

    Doesn't mean you're dumb. In this world of bullshit, one must scrutinize everything to see the truth. Although it doesn't help to spell "incredibly" wrong.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jun 09, 2012 2:55 PM GMT
    Ariodante said
    visionsofruin said
    There is a fact that 70% of the human population is bisexual in one way or another.


    citation_needed.jpg


    i need to blow this up on a 10 X 10 and glue to the roof of my classroom
  • visionsofruin

    Posts: 51

    Jun 09, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    _Mohamed_ said


    Ok, but you're still missing the point here which is: why would it matter whether bisexuality enabled you to hold your alpha position in society when in the end, it matters whether or not you have the capability to exert greater force than the other person?

    Here's an example;

    Take a short, thin man who is bisexual and a bulky, tall man who is bisexual.

    Now, according to you, the bulky tall man needs to be bisexual so he can exert his dominance over the other man.

    However, let's say that the bulky, tall man was NOT bisexual... he is still alpha based on the mere fact that he is bulky and tall.

    So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: alpha males don't need to be bisexual to be alpha.

    In other words, your hypothesis isn't useful to society. It doesn't change anything.






    Straight males are naturally dominant. And I'm not sayin that you have to be bisexual to be dominant. I'm just saying that the flexibility of sexuality can help enhance dominance. The tall bulky man could be straight, and he would still be more dominant than the skinny one, because(assuming he has more sexual experience) he could brag about his conquests to the skinny one. And by bragging, he is showing that the other his inferior, and below him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 4:11 PM GMT
    Darwinism may have its applicability in biological fields, but no social scientist would seriously consider using Darwin's ideas to talk about society, or at least not anymore.

    So... if most of us are "bisexual in one way or another," which implies that our sexuality is open, how would you reconcile that with the biological aspect of 'survival of the fittest'? Where does one stop and the other begin? We don't have an answer for that, partly because everything we know, we know from a cultural position.

    I don't think you need Darwin to argue that we are all born "bisexual" or open to being shaped in a particular way given our experiences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    I'll be honest: this thought has crossed my mind in different way.

    What is perfection? Would perfection be able to achieve pleasure through a limited amount of the population or would they be able to achieve it through the greatest amount of people? Albeit nobody is perfect but bisexuals might be the Michelangelo's of sex.

    Or not. Ignore me.
  • visionsofruin

    Posts: 51

    Jun 09, 2012 5:17 PM GMT
    dlct101 saidDarwinism may have its applicability in biological fields, but no social scientist would seriously consider using Darwin's ideas to talk about society, or at least not anymore.

    So... if most of us are "bisexual in one way or another," which implies that our sexuality is open, how would you reconcile that with the biological aspect of 'survival of the fittest'? Where does one stop and the other begin? We don't have an answer for that, partly because everything we know, we know from a cultural position.

    I don't think you need Darwin to argue that we are all born "bisexual" or open to being shaped in a particular way given our experiences.


    Darwinism is adaptation. Bisexuality allows a person to adapt sexual preference and in cases gender roles in order to "survive" certain situations. In order for things to survive, they have to be able to adapt and change to fit the situation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 5:22 PM GMT
    visionsofruin said


    Straight males are naturally dominant. And I'm not sayin that you have to be bisexual to be dominant. I'm just saying that the flexibility of sexuality can help enhance dominance. The tall bulky man could be straight, and he would still be more dominant than the skinny one, because(assuming he has more sexual experience) he could brag about his conquests to the skinny one. And by bragging, he is showing that the other his inferior, and below him.
    You sure about that? Ya mean Im straight? Hmmmmmmm thats odd.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 5:32 PM GMT
    _Mohamed_ saidOk, you definitely have something there. Professor Ashley Monks of the University of Toronto actually specializes in sexual behaviour and genetics and he did mention the idea of dominance... so I'm definitely open to investigating your specific notion that a part of being bisexual is to be able to exert dominance when required.


    However, the one major flaw in this theory is how it relates to women.

    Women who were into women would actually be viewed as completely inferior to women who were into men by other women, even though by the eyes of men, they were considered a gift in roman society.

    So, bisexuality could potentially be a factor for showing who's boss once in a while - but then it would only relate to men (As they can physically insert their penis and cause the effect).

    Essentially what you're saying is: Men are born bisexual, women are born heterosexual.

    -------------------------------



    True, I actually also think that sexuality is used by species as a way of dissipating conflict, such as in bonobo chimpanzees... in that scenario, bisexuality for the whole species makes sense

    But in fact, the origin of bisexuality is much simpler... more primitive species, including most plants, lower animals, fungi etc, are all hermaphroditic... in this state, all creatures must inherently be bisexual, since there are no males or females, but everybody is by definition both. Thus, among living things, bisexuality is the norm. once evolution causes a split between male and female, such as in vertebrates, only then does it become necessary to begin polarising the sexuality.

    So in an evolutionary sense, bisexuality is a necessary norm, which is then polarised in higher species as a consequence of the separation of the sexes, but it may be polarised imperfectly, giving rise to the opposite poles of homo vs heterosexuality... why it polarises thus, is a different question then. But it should be seen as a result of evolutionary polarisation of a default state, not as an evolutionary "mixing" of two separate default states, as they do not exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 5:32 PM GMT
    visionsofruin said
    dlct101 saidDarwinism may have its applicability in biological fields, but no social scientist would seriously consider using Darwin's ideas to talk about society, or at least not anymore.

    So... if most of us are "bisexual in one way or another," which implies that our sexuality is open, how would you reconcile that with the biological aspect of 'survival of the fittest'? Where does one stop and the other begin? We don't have an answer for that, partly because everything we know, we know from a cultural position.

    I don't think you need Darwin to argue that we are all born "bisexual" or open to being shaped in a particular way given our experiences.


    Darwinism is adaptation. Bisexuality allows a person to adapt sexual preference and in cases gender roles in order to "survive" certain situations. In order for things to survive, they have to be able to adapt and change to fit the situation.


    Um. Wow. This is by far the most generous use of Darwinism yet.

    Darwinism is obviously more than just adaptive practices. This adaptation, or change, happens by way of natural selection, as you pointed out. And it's also an excruciatingly slow process. So, no, it's not an adaptation to "survive certain situations."

    And also, I like how you didn't address my major point, which is to say that this is all nonsense, because we can't study biology from outside ourselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2012 5:42 PM GMT
    Hmmmm..... icon_confused.gif