Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
This is interesting
If you read about actual science on human sexuality, you'll know one of the most fundamental differences between men and women is how our "sex mechanism" works.
Women for instance show no category-specificity (except lesbians). Meaning if you put a device that measures sexual arousal in a straight or bisexual women, the results are that they physically respond to whatever is sexual (but not subjectively apparently). They respond equally to both men and women. Lesbians on the other hand respond more to women than anything else, but not by much, meaning they have some categority-specificity, unlike other women, but not as much as men do.
Men however show category-specificity. If you put a device that measures sexual arousal in men and show them sexual content, men will respond MUCH more to what they're attracted to than to what they are not. Like for example, a straight man will respond a lot to a picture of a naked woman (even more than lesbian women do) and will not respond to one of a naked man, both physically and subjectively.
This doesnt mean male sexuality is either gay or straight though, since bisexual men exist and have been studied(plus the 1000+ paraphilias that exist among men but not among women). They are different from most men in that they show arousal to both men and women but they still show some category-specifity (unlike straight and bisexual women). A bisexual man is attracted to both sexes but is most oftenly somewhat more attracted to one sex over the other. A bisexual male who prefers men for instance responds to both women and men but somewhat more to men.
The question is, why this difference? Why do women, except lesbians, show no category specificity?
I think so far the most convincing explanation for why men do is because a men's evolutionary strategy to maximize their gene passing is to try to impregnate as many women as they can (a little more complex than this but you get it. Also they want to avoid having to invest in their offspring) and for this reason they need a mechanism that drives them to do that and this mechanism is one that will make them feel high sexual attraction to women but not to other stuff and thus drive them to have sex with women and not waste time with other stuff (Why gay, bisexual and paraphiliac men exist is not known yet). A man can impregnate women at any time. Male sexuality is also fixed, it doesnt change
Women too want to maximize their gene passing, however we can only get pregnant once at each 9 months, which means we cant go around making multiple babies at any time, which means that in order to maximize our gene passing, we need to focus on ensuring our baby survives and then get pregnant again. Thats why we are more selective than men, since we cant go around making babies at any time, we better select the best men available whose genes and/or father skills will ensure our baby survives. Female sexuality is fluid, meaning it is capable of change depending on the environment and life experiences of a woman
However, why dont women have category-specificity sexuality and instead show fluidity? The most convincing explanation I've read so far is that many ancient (and present-day lol) women would be abandoned by the men who impregnated them or couldn't find a remotely decent male so they would raise their babies with other women. Sexual fluidity could make sense in this context because since sex has a bonding mechanism (which exist with the primary purpose of increasing the chances a man and a woman stay together to raise their baby) it could've been used by these women to bond with other women so they raise babies together. And in turn a more "fluid" sexual mechanism in women was selected for. If this is true, this would literally mean men are such shitty creature that otherwise straight women had no other option but to date other women. Many women who have been straight most of their lives end up in a relationship with a woman later on and some never go back to dating men
An alternative explanation (I bet it is the favorite among scrotoids) is that maybe some men would have multiple wives (or more accurately female sex slaves) and in other to diminish conflicts between these women, *scrotoids selected* for women with a fluid sexual mechanism who wete thus capable of being sexually attracted to women and thus bonded with the man's other mistresses instead of fighting. Needless to say I think this theory is just male narcissist wishful thinking
I should add a male's sexual orientation doesnt always reflect on their behavior. Plenty of males still rape people and things that are not their preferred category. Although women have no category specificity, women tend to have very normative sexual behavior, feelings and thoughts
https://twitter.com/CostelloWilliam/status/1667074900606046209
-
Embed this notice
@RadLola You're wrong, sexologists (the purpose of sexology is to construct and control people's sexuality, so they're not scientists or pro-women in any way) were the first to insist that homosexuality is a biological defect/quirk because they couldn't understand how anyone would resist their brainwashing. Lesbian and gay liberation used to see this as offensive and sexualizing. LGB you describe was the group of mostly gays and some lesbians who decided to make a pact with the patriarchy/capitalism instead of fighting it.
What you say is still built on a premise that being able to feel attraction and who you're attracted to are inseparable, one. Therefore if people form/have one or the other orientation, this preference is biological because they can't eradicate their ability to feel sexual desire entirely. Well nobody can.
-
Embed this notice
@Mynona I dont know, I read the studies and they seemed unbiased and well done. It doesnt mean sexual orientation is totally or even mostly inborn, the evidence just point to biological factors being involved too. The biological factors that have been shown to influence orientation so far dont seem to have a big role. There have been many controversial political stuff that were studied and I eventually had to learn to accept the possibilities of uncomfortable things being true. That led to me to have a more unbiased approach to stuff, today I'm willing to accept I'm wrong about something if somebody proves it. Thats what science does, it aims to find the truth. It would certainly be more comfortable to me if studies showed for instance that AGP can be eliminated through therapy and these men could become normal people. Evidence, however, points to this not being the case so far and at first that was a little bitter to swallow
-
Embed this notice
@RadLola Science really doesn't aim to find the truth (the whole point of enlightenment was to find ways to break and instrumentalize people for instance) and sexuality studies look like a bunch of confirmation bias to me. It's always "what makes people homosexual" but never "what makes people straight" and it's definitely never "what biologically makes people nonconforming in general".
-
Embed this notice
@Mynona I definitely agree theres much more info about human sexuality that science havent been able to uncover so far. I'm also certain that the environment and culture play a role. It is possible the cultural environment play a bigger role than they credit it for but there are certain evidences from these studies that you can't really argue against. The FBOE effect for example has been replicated cross culturally several times. We dont know exactly what causes it but we know something happens while a male baby is inside his mother's womb that increases the chance this male fetus turns out a homosexual later on the more older brothers he has. They have accounted for environmental influence, they tested this with adopted brothers and the effect was only present among biological brothers
-
Embed this notice
@RadLola The "scientists" are notoriously stupid at "researching" sexuality because 1) they're men or women identified with male interests 2) it was in male interests to persecute homosexual behaviour in the first place 3) it's still in male interests to paint homosexual behaviour as a biological defect that a little percent of population has 4) all of this history is covered up like it never happened. I'm sure if these persons were examined by someone who doesn't have their head up their ass and doesn't filter the truth through several layers of BS they would find a simple relationship.
-
Embed this notice
@Mynona Biological determinism is usually indeed more common among men than women. Could it be because men are wrong, right or it could be a reflect of the fact women are more vulnerable (or better put, adaptable) to environment than men are and therefore this reflects on why men tend to think in terms of biological determinism and women tend to think in terms of environmental determinism. Nothing is just one or the other, its both, the real question is which has a bigger role on certain traits. I disagree with the rest of your post, if anything, most conservatives and "homophobes" claimed sexual orientation was purely environmental, purely a choice and it was the LGB movement the first and only to insist it was 100% biological. The LGB movement pushed the media to convince the public that being gay was even the result of genetics, that there was a gay gene. The LGB movement tried to ruin the lives and careers of people who dared to say it wasnt biological (mind you this was before the T). We now know there isnt a gay gene and genetics play a modest role in homosexuality and heterosexuality, it is NOT a determining factor on whether somebody will turn out gay or straight. Other processes are much more important. There is solid evidence that biology plays a role in sexuality and it isnt exactly a choice for many, we just arent sure yet how much its culture vs biology but *right now* proponents of biology have way more evidence to base their position on than proponents of "its all environment". Lisa Diamond is a lesbian researcher who thinks sexuality (both male and female) is much more flexible than most researchers think, I've been wanting to read her latest paper but cant find it for open access
-
Embed this notice
@RadLola Why go into complex evo psych when it's a result of obvious cultural processes?
1) women are dehumanised and vilified to justify exploitation
2) you can only love someone you see as a person and don't hate
3) being fucked by a man is dehumanising so fucking other men is taboo
4) therefore male sexuality is not able to normally and naturally develop as a two sided dynamic and instead it's being replaced by porn and it's one sided reenactment upon a woman
5) women are not taught to hate those who they are supposed to love so their sexuality is more normal and women react to the dynamic rather than images of dicks or whatever.. men aren't even dismembered into sexy body parts like women are for me to list anything else
So it makes sense that men don't react to something that doesn't resemble their favourite porn while women react to sexual stuff on the whole
RadLola
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the