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.