Ye honestly I dunno if I can even disagree on it. I used to be in a Christian Metalcore band that occasionally played fests for ex/recovering drug addicts (we were relatively woke), and lemme tell ya I heard a LOT of testimonies from people claiming God "saved them from the throes of bisexuality" or something
lol if you watch the video someone linked above it’s based on this completely bs idea that Christian society was the first to have a problem with homosexuality.
Massive amounts of grifting, being one of the dumbest right wing pundits and knowing the track record of their stupidity, that's quite the achievement.
A coal lobbyist and a right-winger that associated himself with people like charlie kirk and ben shapiro
Also, a major supporter of trump and the owner (iirc?) of PragerU, which provides... Very conservative ideas, and is currently being considered as an alternative to PBS for teaching children about topics like the civil rights movement and slavery
(Also, as for their views... They've said that the slaves were "treated well", and that abortion is immoral and should be criminalised)
I mean, sexuality being a spectrum is undeniable. You show an straight guy a photo of a femboy vs a butch lesbian and chances are the guy will, on a first look, probably find the femboy more attractive.
Both of these people exist within the confines of their own biology, they are just exhibiting more of the traits associated with the opposite gender rather than the one they were born with.
That's a gender spectrum, you can have a roided out gym bro on one end and a medically accurate anime girl on the other, but most people sit somewhere in between.
The same could be applied to sexual attraction. I think even Andrew Tate pointed this out. Almost all of what he says is absolute garbage but he did at one point tell people to chill the hell out about sleeping with trans people because I think in his own words he said that the average guy would still sleep with Megan Fox if she was born a man, rather than Hulk Hogan just because he was born a woman.
It's also worth mentioning that evolution isn't a sentient force with any kind of intent. It is just the natural outcome of the tiny random mutations we experience over generations.
That said, I can imagine there being an evolutionary benefit in having childless adults around a tribe to help take care of all the other kids for example, improving their chances of growing to adulthood and continuing their bloodline. Especially the ones that lose their parents. Bi and gay people achieve this without losing the chance to experience intimacy. So I genuinely think that non straight sexualities contributed to the survival and advancement of early humans
Hence why everyone being bisexual would be the most optimal, as everybody (who wants kids) would be willing to fulfil either role. You'd never really have a shortage of either.
That’s… not how that would work for a monogamous species like us. People don’t tend to control the sex they have based on societal data. It’s largely instinct and circumstance.
There wouldn’t suddenly be a mass shift in human behavior of adoption because boob and pecs became equal.
Also 50% chance of same sex couple would require crazy levels of dating success to be a viable species lmao.
That’s…also not how being bi works. It’s not like very Bi person has a 50/50 chance of dating a man or a woman. Thats a very silly way of thinking about it.
Sure. But if the implications are that most are going to lean straight dominant anyways I’m kind confused what the point of the hypothetical is even trying to get at.
The reason why bisexual people are more likely to end up in relationships with opposite sex partners is because there are a lot more straight people than gay or bi people. If everyone were bisexual that would no longer be true and the chances should therefore be coinflip.
I think it would make the most sense if everyone had the capacity to be bisexual but it was only ‘unlocked’ in specific circumstances. Like how some frogs change sex in specific circumstances. Which isn’t too far off from what happens
Eh it would make more sense for environmental pressure to switch sexuality then. If you are attracted to both sexes rather than just the opposite sex, opposite sex couples will just be less common regardless, resulting in declining population growth. (Not sure if we count that as bisexual or some kinda fluid sexuality)
Now if there’s tons of kids and the population may be too high, having attraction in some % of the population switching to strictly same sex achieves a good result without risking small populations not being able to grow fast enough due to constant same sex attraction.
I had actually thought I read some species seem to do something like this in the wild but its been so long studies may have clarified otherwise
This is still evolutionarily maladaptive. Organisms are generally trying to pass on their own genes, not care for the offspring of others who aren’t related to them.
Even if such an animal were to adopt a juvenile directly related to itself (i.e. a niece or nephew), from an evolutionary perspective it’d be better off just producing its own child since it would have more genes in common with that child.
Except in species that live in groups. If a trait is detrimental to the individual's gene passing but advantageous to the group, it is evolutionary beneficial and will persist in a fraction of the group
Right, but outside of clonal or eusocial species, it’s still maladaptive. If you’re an organism, you want to pass on as many of your genes as possible, not just ensure the survival of some other organism that might have some genes in common with you.
Natural selection occurs at an individual level, not a species level.
I mean, humans don't differ that much from (other?) eusocial species
And also, this whole discussion completely ignores the fact that humans aren't just trying to survive anymore, as a species we also have other goals and behaviours now
Looking at human behaviour purely through an evolutionary lens yields flawed results, e.g eugenics
Wrong: Google K-Selection. Non-reproducing members are beneficial to k-selective species. If we reproduced like flies (quantity over quality of care) we would be extinct. That is why we value quality over quantity.
WRONG: by helping organisms related to itself it still helps pass on its own genes. That's how collaboration works silly. Used to be villages were mostly family too so they would almost certainly be related. How do you think multicellular organisms work? Same concept, different scale.
It’s actually very common for some species to prioritize the survival of individuals in their groups over their genes being the ones that necessarily survive.
If humans work together to make sure the young survive, then that ensures humans survive to breed. That might not be beneficial to an individuals genetic line, but it IS beneficial to the group and species as a whole which is more important
I love the confidence by which you make your claim like a complete authority 9mon the subject with clearly absolutely no understanding of the subject what so ever . Reddit brained.
At the same time, I think Humanity has very much outpaced a whole lot of the functions born out of evolution.. Like sexualities in the end of the day is a matter of preference on the same level as having a favourite food; the desire to eat stuff is common amongst all, while specific tastes are a case-by-case thingy, compared that to the inherent intimacy, societal norms and that it is strongly based on a person's view and thoughts on an entirely other person born out of not only physical appearance, but shared experiences, personality, trust- in that scenario things can get EXTREMELY varied.
Suffice to say, evolution doesn't pump out hyper (or even anywhere near) optimized machine-like creatures, rather just whatever is able to continue existing, is what remains.
So evolutionarily we keep seeing a shit ton of species that have sex with the same sex, if it wasn't evolutionarily neutral or beneficial we probably wouldn't see that. I personally think it's beneficial, considering that within social groups having the occasional member not reproducing and instead be dedicated to helping raise family offspring would boost survival of the group.
Well sure but evolution can also just kinda fuck up some times. Generally a trait can survive as long as it doesn’t directly harm the animal. It doesn’t actually have to help.
Why are you assuming that this is a bug and not a feature? Surely an animal that is a lot less discerning about who or what it sleeps with will have more success passing on it's genes than an animal that is picky.
Never said it was a bug. I’m just pointing out that a surviving trait isn’t necessarily there due to efficiency and that thinking of evolution that way is flawed.
As others have mentioned that same sex can be beneficial socially and for cultivation of those who are abandoned, i genuinely fear how low birthrates has many causes way outside the simple fact that you can love any sex, like Japan and their culture, or states of social and economics all over the world at present's civilization.
the big issue is that sexuality isn't as well defined as it might seem, if you hit the borders of a sexuality you will see its a lot more blury then it is, some people who are straight are into trans woman, some are not even though they are woman in both casses, then bisexual people have a lot of personal bias and attraction for both gender but pansexual do not altough sometime pansexual people are not attracted to every person.
the most interesting one is asexual, because some asexual are not aromantic but they still experience heterosexual needs because they want to be with the opposite gender and not the same gender even though they do not participate in sex. the truth is that there is no norm, no one is 100% a sexuality, just love who you want to love and that's all that should matter fr
I feel at this point we can move past the biological impulse argument and rationally understand that procreating is necessary but can be ritualized.
Like, there are several ways nowdays for a gay couple to have legit kids with their own genes. Pissy christians be damned, as a species "inheriting the earth" does mean we have to do the things Sky Papa can and deal with the responsibility of such power.
While there are some breakthroughs in creating ovuums and sperms with a person dna, we are far from them being viable, currently any assisted fecondation technique, even with different sex parents, always carries a higher risk of genetic issues.
I guess it would also impossibile for female couples to have a male child since none of the parents carries an Y gene
i mean not really..? straight is the norm cuz objectively heterosexual sex makes future generations, so normalizing bisexuality like that would likely lead to a lower population
that being said, i think that normalizing bisexuality, and every other sexuality and gender, in the sense of it not beint frowned upon, is a great thing
That's a nonsensical argument. You define "good for the planet" as "less human influence", and then use "good for the planet" as an argument for "less human influence". I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy.
i mean fair enough but if humans arent there to maintain their creations, what happens? nuclear reactors fail, diseases in labs break out, domesticated animals like cats and dogs have no way to survive...
We have 8 billion people, even if I don't know 50% of that is reduced because people decided not to have children, that's still 4 billion. We will be fine
Bi men: Most men are not attracted to you and a lot of women think you're gonna cheat on them. Also, some gay men think you're secretly homosexual (???)
Bi women: Most women are not attracted to you and a lot of men oversexualise you. Also, lesbians think you're dirty for sleeping with men (???)
Bi enbies: Most people wanna feed you to a pit of snakes because they see you as an enemy of Christ, or Allah.
This is actually the case for bonobos, which are one of our closest relatives. Iirc they’re all bisexual and the majority of sex occurs between two or more females.
A lot of people significantly misunderstanding what bisexual means and making really suspect evolutionary biology arguments as though the Greeks famously went extinct due to bisexual practices.
As a bisexual who suspects a lot more people have a lil' sugar in their tank than they think, I feel weird about any argument where we think a certain sexuality should be the "norm." Maybe it's just semantics, but even if one might be more common, setting it as the "normal" sets up the others to be "abnormal."
"Most people are heterosexual" has a different vibe to it than "Heterosexuality is the norm" imo, but maybe I'm thinking too much LOL
Thats like saying it would make more sense if we naturally had clothes on instead of not. Fundamentally, humans are attracted to the opposite sex for biological reproductive purposes. The rise of casual sex has made the human brain more susceptible to seeking it in any way it can.
Dont take this as literal im speaking out of my ass
honestly i’ve always held this opinion, people are entitled to preferences but it just makes so little sense 😭 if the only thing a person cares about is reproducing, sure, whatever. but do most people have an invisible wall that tells them who they are and are not attracted to? what about a super girlish guy? a super guyish girl? is reproducing the priority for a majority of people, enough for it to singularly decide what kinds of relationships they’re willing to have? not that i think it’s wrong, just that i don’t personally understand where the line is drawn. feels easier to just not do rough labels
edit, this was typed at around four in the morning, it’s not my best work 🥀 i see now how it may be a little nonsensical
Certainly! Coming out as having a non-hetero sexuality is very often a tough emotional journey of self-discovery, identity redefinition and self-acceptance. It's often not the easiest, especially if you live in a place where queerness is generally looked down upon. A lot of people suppress those thoughts to avoid that journey, and avoid the possible social consequences that can follow with coming out.
It's almost a cliche to mention secretly homosexual conservative and/or religious people who live their life as heterosexuals, while secretly being homosexual or gay. The people you know are the kinds of people who went through that journey and came out better, and happier for it, so props to them! But they most likely suffer some degree of social consequences in their lives as a result of it. India and Russia are examples of places where queerness is so tabood, that most queer people keep their sexuality secret, or don't acknowledge it even to themselves.
What's actually interesting is that in ancient Rome, bisexuality WAS the norm. Obviously the term "bisexual" wasn't used as it wouldn't have been coined for millennia, but at least amongst men it was considered normal to be attracted towards both men and women.
What was scrutinized far more than whether one had sex with men or women was what position one took in sex. Topping was seen as the manliest thing one could do. Bottoming was considered womanly and unbecoming of a proper man. That's why bottoms in such scenarios were either younger men, actual children (🤮), or slaves.
Since sex is viewed in the lens of always being penetrative and about dominance, it was thought that sex between women either wasn't really sex or exclusively done via pegging. As the pegger is taking the man's role here, she would be violating the natural order and would be ostracized similarly to bottoming men. The pegee on the other hand would just be a normal woman doing what she's supposed to. Sappho was notable because she openly talked about female sexuality. She's the exception that proves the rule.
Attraction towards either sex was seen as completely normal, however heteronormativity was still enforced in the sense that men and women were expected to get married and have lots of children. Rome needs more soldiers after all. Before and even after said marriage, roman men would often have their way with the homies. Either during their time of military service, with local slaves, or with an underage apprentice (again 🤮). Due to plain old misogyny, women had a lot less freedom and acceptance towards relationships outside of marriage to their husband. Additionally, due to the paradox of finding a woman who's simultaneously dominant and ostracized from the social order naturally makes finding a female top all but impossible within the context of roman society.
*
I truly believe if every humans mind was wiped and all preconceived notions of sexuality were gone we'd have WAY more bisexuals.
I literally resisted my gay thoughts for all of high school and for what? I had no hatred towards the LGBT whatsoever, I just saw it as another inconvenience I didn't need in a world that already overwhelmed me.
Honestly, bisexuality could very well be the majority. I would argue that most people could realistically be attracted to people of any gender as long as they possess specific traits they find appealing. The way we define sexuality is reductionist anyways, obviously a lot more complex than just “I like men, women, both or neither”
Why would that make sense? From biological standpoint, it doesn’t make more sense to the majority of people because generally the population is gonna lead production and then they will survive much better leading to most people being straight because people who are generally used to survive, that isn’t really the case anymore, but nonetheless, that’s how we evolved
Yup. My assumption is that social norm/taboos have a hell of a lot more to do with who and how people are willing to bang than most want to admit. My current guesstimate for when we finally get rid of stigmatization surrounding homosexuality is that only 20%-50% of the population is truly “straight” (only attracted to cisgender-presenting people of the opposite gender (with or without genital preference)), and of the 50%-80% of the population that is some flavor of queer, most of those are gonna be bi with moderate to heavy hetero-preference.
It just… that just seemingly makes more sense considering many historical societies’ attitudes towards homosexuality than the current “80% of the population is fully straight”. Because like… unless microplastics or lead are more likely to make people straight, I highly doubt human sexuality has shifted enough to fully eradicate what clearly was - and STILL IS - a major percentage of the population within certain societies.
Sure but sexual attraction wasn't designed in the lab, it's far from exacting. The traits people tend to get aroused by are individual and quite often not directly based upon (or even unrelated to) genitals. You don't tend to search for a partner by checking who has the hottest penis or vagina, do you.
So since both choice of traits you find attractive and expression of traits someone might find attractive are semi-random, the line for attraction is necessarily blurry, making most everyone at least somewhat homosexual, because the categories we use to determine sexuality (genders) ALSO have blurry lines and aren't based on genitals either.
Otherwise, every heterosexual man would have to be attracted to every woman, and vice-versa. Clearly this is not the case, which proves our model of attraction to genders is inherently incomplete.
If bi were the overwhelming majority, both hetero and homo would be discriminated against. "It's not natural to be attracted to only one sex," would be the rallying cry!
People are people, and a lot of them are pretty shitty.
Im glad im bi, but alot of us are "less attracted" per gender, whether by physical arousal or sex drive fluctuations (google the bi-cycle).
If there is a way around this with a medicine, I would even take it, cuz only being attracted to one gender significantly more and one less and especially having them fluctuate is annoying
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 08 '25
Download Video
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.