The Legionnaire says neoreactionaries need a theory of bisexuality, so here it is:
It doesn’t exist.
Done.
****
Alright, so you actually want an explanation.
The evidence tends to lean towards true bisexuality (a natural sexual attraction to both sexes) not existing.
Men’s sexuality is rigid: they are aroused by women or aroused by men. Several studies have shown that ‘bisexuals’ show genital arousal similar to either homosexuals or heterosexuals, although a more recent (smaller) study funded by the Institute of Bisexuality with more carefully picked subjects has shown there might be otherwise (this study does not sound particularly persuasive to me).
OkCupid is one of the largest natural experiments in history on the dating market, and in the past they were kind enough to make posts on a bunch of their data. They looked at bisexuality, of supposed bisexuals less than a quarter sent any messages at all to more than one other sex. Most “bisexuals” are closeted gays or straights trying to look cool. Sadly, they did not include an analysis of how many messages were sent to each among those few who did message all, but I would guess they were very unbalanced..
So the evidence suggests bisexuality doesn’t exist in males. This is not to say that gays or straights may not swing towards the other side on occasion. Some experimentation may be natural, especially in younger men, and straight men may occasionally be aroused by a male presenting enough femininity (or for homosexuals, a women presenting masculine enough) . As well, “romance” (which some argue is all that is needed for bisexuality) is somewhat separate from arousal.
As well, there are non-natural situations where attraction may be aroused by environmental factors. First is the is the hedonic treadmill. Those engaging in hedonic pleasures will often have to go farther and farther extremes just to get the same rush as they did initially and so, due to unnatural hedonic plenty, will engage in behaviours not natural to them. One step down the treadmill may be bisexual behaviour. As well, male sexuality tends to be overwhelmingly powerful. When desperate or consumed by lust men will often use whomever or whatever is available to relieve themselves. Hence, ‘gay for the stay’ and ‘sodomy, rum, and the lash’. If no woman is available in a man’s environment, or if a man is significantly more convenient, straight men will often engage in homosexual behaviours, just as non-pedophiles will have sex with children and lonely Chinese men will have sex with benches.
But desperation, experimentation, and confusion do not a true bisexual make. There is little evidence to support the supposition that there are men who are naturally aroused by both men and women.
On the other hand, women’s sexuality is fluid,the categories of male sexuality don’t really apply.
Women are less aroused by visual cues, such as a someone’s body, and are more aroused by environmental, attitudinal, and interpersonal cues. To say they’re attracted to men or attracted to women would not be fully correct, most women are attracted to the cues given off mostly by men or the cues given off mostly by women, but if those cues were given by someone of the opposite sex (or even of a different species) they would also be attracted.
The neoreactionary theory of bisexuality is that it doesn’t exist but behaviours that appear like it on the surface do.
Of course, as with the pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality, this theory is not set in stone. If new and better data becomes available then the NRx position will change.
“There is no bisexual. Either you suck dick, or you do not suck dick.”
– Andrew Dice Clay, c. 1991.
Why should reactionaries concern themselves with understanding abnormalities and disorders?
You don’t worry about trying to understand them, or having an adequate theory about them; you just don’t do them.
That is all.
I would love to hear more about the fluidity of women’s sexuality and how that applies to regular life.
Could an incredibly butch lesbian just attract a lot of otherwise straight women for example?
‘Gay for the stay’ does not adequately explains the relative abundance of bisexuality in ancient societies. It isn’t enough for the male sex drive to be powerful, there has to be some intrinsic seed of attraction and plasticity to be present.
Bisexuality and homosexuality are not necessarily pathological, although maybe they are more susceptible to the dysfunction that seems to come with our current environment. We’re a pretty long way away from the sacred band of Thebes.
I don’t really agree. I read twin studies that seemed to suggest that sexual instincts came in either straight or “blank slate” flavors, with pure homosexuality being the variety that actually seems to “not exist”. The “blank slates” were neither gay, straight, nor bi, but could go either way based on environmental factors; in other words those few blank-slaters have a choice. Those “born with it” are born straight.
Personally I think that the concept of “sexual orientation” in general is a modern one that neoreactionaries should be very dubious of, especially considering how much our societies have degenerated because of people’s obsession with it.
@Will S.
Continuing from your previous quote:
“…..what do they do? Wake up in the morning and flip a coin- heads, I want hair pie, tails, balls across the nose, OH!”
Andrew Dice Clay c.1991
Yep! :)
Is the concept of sexual orientation degenerative? Maybe it indeed is. That’s not a reason to discount it.
Hello,
I completely disagree that a theory of bisexuality is in some sense fundamental to political philosophy. In reality, it is just another type of development error like mental retardation. The human body is a complex machine and there are millions of ways in which it can fail. Biology is very very complex. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands of ways in which proper brain development of gender (or anything else) can fail. In fact quite a bit is known about the development of the brain. In mammals at least, female is the default setting and it takes the concerted effort of a lot of different genes that is set into motion by a cascade triggered by the SRY testes determining factor protein to both masculinize and defeminize the brain, two apparently distinct processes. (see linked paper below)
Since it is essentially just another category of biological fault with many, many potential causes that can’t really be avoided (it is always possible for new errors to be introduced), it just needs to be managed. We can similarly expect not to be able to prevent all mental retardation and will just have to manage that as well. As far as I can tell, the big problem with gays is that the common excess promiscuity results in the spread of disease. Clamping down on promiscuity is probably already built into most visions of neoreactionary government.
This paper provides a good overview of
Schwarz JM, McCarthy MM. Steroid-induced sexual differentiation of
the developing brain: multiple pathways, one goal. J Neurochem 2008;
105: 1561-72
http://libgen.org/scimag/index.php?s=Steroid-induced+sexual+differentiation+of+the+developing+brain