We knew this - but it does depend upon circumstances

The insistence that we’re all bisexual really is being taken as some great revelation about the human condition. Whereas, among those who have met actual humans and considered their behaviour, it’s very old hat indeed.

No, this is not to say that we’re all equally likely to be wandering Hampstead Heath in search of a little cottaging. But a useful definition of near all humans is that we’re really, really, interested in sex. Because, and for pretty much no other reason, we’re descended from those who were really, really, interested in sex. That being how this evolution thing works. Yes, of course, only one variety of sex leads to that progeny but the drive, the over-ridding one, is for the sex, not the form.

There is no explaining public schools nor prisons – to the extant that I am not repeating myself – without grasping this point:

Strictly heterosexual people don’t exist, according to a psychologist who claims more and more men are better defined as ‘mostly straight’.

While most societies promote heterosexuality as the ‘norm’, a leading researcher at Cornell University has found most of us get aroused by both genders.

The paper brings into question strict definitions of sexuality, and posits that instead of categories we should see it as a spectrum.

If there is no such thing as pure heterosexuality then there’s also no such thing as pure homosexuality. Something that is less likely to be said these days given social fashion but they are in fact the same statement. Human sexuality is that spectrum, we all lie at different points along it and our position at any one moment in time depends upon the opportunities available to us. Some will choose one thing more than another but change the incentives and we will, as with near all other things humans do, change the behaviour.

Entirely male societies do have more incidence – sorry, often do – of male on male sex than more gender mixed ones. We would assume the same of all female ones.

Note that the existence of this spectrum still allows for something like the vast majority not to act out in anything other than a heterosexual manner. For given the incentives we do have in the society around us people do tend to end up doing what they prefer rather than being driven by circumstance into something they’re not all that keen upon. The usual numbers are that some 10-12% of all men have ever had a same sex experience. Thus, despite agreeing upon the existence of the spectrum we’re also saying that 90% of men are, in action, heterosexual.

Support Continental Telegraph Donate

43 COMMENTS

    • Fairly sure I read somewhere that wannabe porn actors (the men at least) often start out in gay porn – can’t remember why: it was either the only way in or it was that the pay is better than being a male actor in boy/girl scenes.
      Either way, there were practical considerations in straight male actors going “Gay for pay”

      • It pays a lot better. There’s simply a lot more men that would like to spend all day fucking women than fucking men. There’s also much more emphasis on looks. The viewers of straight porn are generally men and don’t care what the man looks like. The viewers of gay porn want to see attractive men. So, the top men make a good living at it.

  1. Well the spectrum thing may or may not be true, but it is beside the point. By pushing the concept of bisexuality they are making a political point. They are trying to make heterosexuality abnormal and probably, in the end, illegal.

    So they should f**k right off.

    The fact that some people, in the absence of women, will turn to other alternatives means nothing. And it certainly does not mean we are all bisexual.

    • “The fact that some people, in the absence of women, will turn to other alternatives means nothing. And it certainly does not mean we are all bisexual.”
      I suspect that the above is 100% correct. Certainly, given the (ever handy) “do-it-yourself” alternative, an absence of suitable and willing gay men has never made me the least bit inclined to seek sex with females.

      • Because being Gay is an intrinsically disordered lifestyle. Hence Gay people usually have problems. Hence everyone else will judge them.

        Hence they will hysterically try to silence everyone and their natural response.

      • What does the T stand for “T”? It wouldn’t be Twatty would it?

        Nah– anyway as your post admits you wouldn’t have the balls for a “straight” fight without hiding behind the Spud-U-Like or pathetic tricks like trying to pretend you are me.

        The nightmare that is socialism has amongst its ranks some of the worst scum the so-called human race has ever produced. But most of ’em are gutless little turds and wannabe back shooters like Twatty.

      • they cannot be held to account for their own conduct

        No, “T”, not their conduct in their own bedrooms, their conduct in the auto showroom when they insist on showing up in a dress and repelling customers because they are merely exhibiting their innate tendencies which we all share in trivial amounts, and the state must protect them from being told they are not fit for that job.

          • Odd then”T” that “Twatty” disappears but you emerge at the same time.

            Of course it would be beyond stupid to choose T as your new nom-de-deceit but Twatty was nothing if not stupid.

            And a arsehole just like his friend Richard Murphy.

  2. More marxist subjectivist cockrot.

    How could these pundits have any exact knowledge of what they claim? It might be true for leftist scum. But should all the rest of us be judged by the standards of the adherents of a murderous , mind-warped and evil death cult?

    Deprived of women some males will turn homo. Most–ie the vast majority– won’t . The claims are just propaganda designed to corrupt and weaken moral standards.

    Propaganda however that will be thrown out the window double quick while they are trying to suck up to their imported pals.

  3. It’s the gay propagandists that don’t like that idea. They like to call anyone who has ever even experimented with homosexuality a LGBTQWERTYFAG to make it appear they’re more represented than in reality. It’s the same with ‘BAME’ or whatever. “Obama is half white” said no leftie identity politics nutter ever.

  4. “Strictly heterosexual people don’t exist”

    I am. I’ve never wanted my cock or arse to be touched by another man (except medically) or vice versa. Not even when I’m ill, blind drunk or high as a kite. And I’m as libertarian as it comes in this area. You want to get together and have orgies where you sand each others bollocks (anyone remember that prosecution?) go right ahead. Just shut the curtains.

  5. Some men fancy other men. Get over it.

    Some men start to fancy other men if there are no women around. Get over it.

    Some men find the idea of men fancying men abhorrent. Get over it.

    Presumably some men who find the idea of men fancying other men abhorrent will start to fancy other men if no women are around. Get over it.

    And some men find men who find men who fancy other men abhorrent to be even more abhorrent. But you can get over that too…

    In summary there’s a lot of different secular reactions and responses to these around. And that’s fine because we’re free. If SMFS or Spike want to be a twat and object to other people’s sexuality in a stupid fashion then that’s fine. And the joy is that I get to call them a twat for doing it whilst defending their right to be twattish in that particular way. And also defending their (hypothetical I presume ) right to have sex with any legally competent and consenting person they choose. By not being bigoted I get to be smug about my moral superiority and to call a twat a twat: I like this sexual politics thing.

    • No, it is because you are a name-caller. I do not object, and have not been objecting, to anyone’s sexuality; merely to their call for special political rights, and the techno-babble they generate to justify it, such as the claim that their choices are not really choices.

    • If SMFS or Spike want to be a twat and object to other people’s sexuality in a stupid fashion then that’s fine.

      I am not objecting to anyone’s sexuality. Not in any fashion. I am pointed out the objective facts – homosexuality is a disordered life style and hence the people doing it are more likely to be disordered themselves.

      Nothing I do or say will change that one little bit.

  6. “While most societies promote heterosexuality as the ‘norm’, a leading researcher at Cornell University has found most of us get aroused by both genders.”

    Eh, nah.

    Do societies “promote” heterosexuality as the “norm”? Or do the vast majority of people just recognise normality for what it is?

    As for most people feeling randy about both genders, this would seem to be nonsense:

    Men’s eyes dilated watching women masturbate, and watching men masturbate – regardless of their stated sexual preference.

    Obviously this means we all secretly want to bum Elton John, according to Professor Ritch C Savin-Williams, the author of “MOM, DAD, I’M GAY”, and “AND THEN I BECAME GAY”, and also “YOUNG MEN ON BEING GAY”

    Why, I don’t know about you, but I sense some sort of agenda on Ritch C Savin-Williams”s part.

    • Concur. Nudity and sexual activity (other than one’s own) is shockingly unusual to see. The fact that a view caused eyes to dilate says nothing about one’s preferences. I react viscerally to violence on the silver screen but that doesn’t mean I fancy committing some. A “researcher at Cornell University” may well have an advocacy agenda.

    • You can’t “promote” a norm, a norm is what exists in the absence of any promoting. They’re confusing what “promote” means and also confusing what “norm” means (and it isn’t a synonym for “normal”).

  7. It’s pretty much like saying that “People who don’t like eating insects don’t exist” on the basis that when anyone is on the verge of starvation after three or four weeks with no food, those insects start looking pretty damn tasty. It depends on context.