An interesting overview over at New York Magazine.

It's long been obvious to me that homosexuals (and heterosexuals, as I am) are born, not made. What I did find interesting was the notion that women may not have an inherent sexual orientation, or at least one not as clearly delineated as that of men. It certainly jibes well with my own observations. But I'm skeptical that there's no such thing as a male bi-sexual.

According to my early morning viewing of infomercials on Comedy Central, I've categorically concluded that all women are indeed bisexual and, when young, are known to "go wild" in the presence of alcohol and sand.

Also: Giggity.

A lot of people nowadays feel it's obvious that homosexuals are born that way. I wonder what the explanation is for the high incidence of homosexual behavior in places where males have no female company, such as prisons, boarding schools, old-time sailing ships, and so forth. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to imply either that homosexual behavior is circumstantial rather than inherent, or else that homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to wind up in such situations, or else one must simply deny the phenomenon somehow.

I wonder what the explanation is for the high incidence of homosexual behavior in places where males have no female company, such as prisons, boarding schools, old-time sailing ships, and so forth.

"Higher" != "High"

I don't know how high such incidents are. In many cases (particularly in prison) it's rape, and I don't think that you can call the rapee a homosexual, or even someone engaging in homosexual behavior. That's why I'm dubious that there's no such thing as a bi-sexual man. I think there are, and when there are no women around, they're happy to take what they can get. The fact that the behavior is not universal in such circumstances (I know that I wouldn't do it, unless raped) indicates that heterosexuality exists, and is probably a plurality if not a majority.

Anyway, once again, I suspect that commenters are responding to my post rather than taking time to actually read the article.

Anyway, once again, I suspect that commenters are responding to my post rather than taking time to actually read the article.

That's unfair Rand, there were a lot of words in that article. The pictures were cool, though. I admit I held up my hand to the screen to see if my index finger was a long as my ring finger.

I think that the whole "do bisexuals exist" thing is largely political (as in politics of gender). Not that I can offer anything more than anectdote, but I've met gays and lesbians that are offended by the notion of bisexuality. Their orientation is their life.

That said, I think that it isn't black and white, that the Kinsey scale-style spectrum is in play. I for, example, am strictly het, but I loves me some showtunes and I've been known to karaoke at gay bars.

Not that I can offer anything more than anectdote, but I've met gays and lesbians that are offended by the notion of bisexuality.

No doubt there are, just as many heterosexuals are. That has nothing to do with the reality of whether or not bisexuals exist.

I've met gays and lesbians that are offended by the notion of bisexuality.

Offended as in "do not believe it exists and offended by anyone who thinks otherwise", or "offended by the behavior of bisexual people"?

The latter is understandable, if bigoted. The former is just denial of reality.

Offended as in "do not believe it exists and offended by anyone who thinks otherwise", or "offended by the behavior of bisexual people"?

Offended as in "their fluid sense of sexuality lessens my status as a Gay American."

Again, these aren't my opinions, just an observation.
And Rand sez: No doubt there are, just as many heterosexuals are. That has nothing to do with the reality of whether or not bisexuals exist.

I don't think they* deny bisexuality so much as they feel threatened by it.

*Disclaimer for the easily offended: "they" meaning a certain subset of folks, not all gays or lesbians. However, I do have one lesbian friend who is fairly certain that straight people don't exist.

I do have one lesbian friend who is fairly certain that straight people don't exist.

That's what's so frustrating about discussing this stuff, on both (all?) sides of the debate. Many people see it through the prism of their own sexual orientation, and assume that everyone is like them, but are simply lying about it.

Many people see it through the prism of their own sexual orientation, and assume that everyone is like them, but are simply lying about it.

Good point. As much as I love my lesbian, her offensitivity levels are set a much lower level than mine. Of course, I risk ostracization just by reading a right-leaning blog.

So they say in the article that no one has a good idea why evolution would create gay males. How about this:

Assumptions:
1) In a large group of humans, the best ratio for maximum progeny is 1 man for 10 women - just ask Dr. Strangelove.
2) In a small group of humans (everyone barely surviving), the best ratio is 1:1 - the males don't survive long enough to procreate all the time.

So if your first male is almost never gay, you can be assured of offspring. But if further males are gay, the society has less fighting over breeding rights (well, and lets be honest, everything else too!). It's kind of a throttling mechanism - during high death rate years where people only survive to have one or two kids, both kids are breeders. When the death rate is low with lots of kids per couple and social problems become dominant, testosterone is automatically removed.

If that were the case, it is an interesting self-limitting effect.

I think someone who is straight (or gay for that matter) would have serious trouble living the other type of life-style, even for a short time, no matter the peer and societal pressures involved.

Anyone that says there is no bi-sexuality is somewhat nuts.

I think that there is actually a continuum of sexual preference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.