I’ve heard this random theory that everyone is naturally pansexual (or asexual of course, though this not specified in the original theory (the original theory was a short Discord message, I’m expanding on it massively)), and that attraction only to particular sexes/genders/presentations etc. is a social construct, and that preference for particular traits or presentations is what being “straight” or “gay” or “bi” or “pan” acually is. I think this is reasonable and likely be true, but of course it could also not be.
The “but reproduction instinct” counterpoint doesn’t actually hold up against actual nature. There are many instances of same sex attraction in animals. I wonder, are the animals “gay” (same sex attraction only), are they “bi” (attraction to males and attraction to females), or are they “pan” (attraction does not take sex into account or has some but little regard for it). Probably some of each, I wonder what the proportions are. Telling between bi and pan may be difficult in this case.
Growing up on a farm, I for sure saw a lot of eunuch on eunuch action. Circumstance, survival (including psychological), physiology & biology (especially hormones (like if gonads have been removed)), opportunity, and more, all play into sexual expression.
It certainly helps put aside cultural indoctrinations to reductive certain absolutes, growing up seeing that.
Which in turn helps avert getting tied up in neurotic knots about it all.
So I continue to fall back on “everybody’s bi”, rather than pondering about straight or gay, seeing the apparent of either just as temporal-circumstantial leanings within “everybody’s bi”. … I could probably expand that asserted hypothesis as “everybody’s pan”, but I’m not sure how helpful or harmful that could be. Found peace enough in “everybody’s bi” for myself.
There are many examples of animals showing exclusive preference for one sex. How do they fit into this model?
What about people who realized they were gay without ever having heard of such a thing?
According to this theory those are some of the stronger cases of preference. This theory does not dismiss preference, it just dismisses it being inherently determined (that you’re not “assigned gay at birth” just like how you’re not “assigned liking apples over pears at birth”).
an important thing to note is that with us being possibly THE single most social species on earth, sex isn’t just about reproduction. It can also serve an important function in strengthening social bonds.
Imagine being part of a tribe 50k years ago: you’re sure gonna feel more comfortable around another tribe if you’ve all made a big campfire together then done funny drugs and bummed each other silly.
longer ago? I replied to a 4 month old comment, that’s basically yesterday on the internet.
Seriously, how long have you been online? It’s completely normal to reply to 5 year old comments.
Those two aren’t men, they’re an enby and a trans woman.
Yet they still make me hard. Curious
Well that means you’re bi
t’aint nothin wrong with it though
everybody’s bi.
I’ve heard this random theory that everyone is naturally pansexual (or asexual of course, though this not specified in the original theory (the original theory was a short Discord message, I’m expanding on it massively)), and that attraction only to particular sexes/genders/presentations etc. is a social construct, and that preference for particular traits or presentations is what being “straight” or “gay” or “bi” or “pan” acually is. I think this is reasonable and likely be true, but of course it could also not be.
The “but reproduction instinct” counterpoint doesn’t actually hold up against actual nature. There are many instances of same sex attraction in animals. I wonder, are the animals “gay” (same sex attraction only), are they “bi” (attraction to males and attraction to females), or are they “pan” (attraction does not take sex into account or has some but little regard for it). Probably some of each, I wonder what the proportions are. Telling between bi and pan may be difficult in this case.
This definitely needs research.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/resources/explainers/are-there-queer-animals/ https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/can-animals-be-gay
Growing up on a farm, I for sure saw a lot of eunuch on eunuch action. Circumstance, survival (including psychological), physiology & biology (especially hormones (like if gonads have been removed)), opportunity, and more, all play into sexual expression.
It certainly helps put aside cultural indoctrinations to reductive certain absolutes, growing up seeing that.
Which in turn helps avert getting tied up in neurotic knots about it all.
So I continue to fall back on “everybody’s bi”, rather than pondering about straight or gay, seeing the apparent of either just as temporal-circumstantial leanings within “everybody’s bi”. … I could probably expand that asserted hypothesis as “everybody’s pan”, but I’m not sure how helpful or harmful that could be. Found peace enough in “everybody’s bi” for myself.
Are ace people bi?
everybody’s bi.
Why does asexuality not count as a learned preference in this theory?
There are many examples of animals showing exclusive preference for one sex. How do they fit into this model?
What about people who realized they were gay without ever having heard of such a thing?
According to this theory those are some of the stronger cases of preference. This theory does not dismiss preference, it just dismisses it being inherently determined (that you’re not “assigned gay at birth” just like how you’re not “assigned liking apples over pears at birth”).
an important thing to note is that with us being possibly THE single most social species on earth, sex isn’t just about reproduction. It can also serve an important function in strengthening social bonds.
Imagine being part of a tribe 50k years ago: you’re sure gonna feel more comfortable around another tribe if you’ve all made a big campfire together then done funny drugs and bummed each other silly.
why are you replying to several of my comments from longer ago
are you so active on lemmy that you are looking through past posts, are you looking at the past posts of this community, or are you stalking me?
longer ago? I replied to a 4 month old comment, that’s basically yesterday on the internet.
Seriously, how long have you been online? It’s completely normal to reply to 5 year old comments.