Posted on | December 2, 2013 | 88 Comments
More women than ever are having same-sex experiences — or at least more women than ever are reporting it.
This week, a long-term British survey found a fourfold increase over the past two decades in women reporting at least one sapphic fling. Self-reported same-sex behavior among men, however, has remained somewhat constant. Now “the proportion of women reporting sexual experience with same-sex partners . . . exceeds that of men, at least at younger ages,” says the survey. Neither this increase nor the gender difference can be explained by a change in sexual self-identity, according to the study.
This isn’t just a British thing, either. Indiana University sex researcher Debby Herbenick tells me that her U.S. research has yielded similar results: 8 percent of men and 15 percent of women report same-sex sexual behavior in their lifetime. . . .
Why the gender difference, and why the increase?
Meredith Chivers, a sex researcher at Queen’s University, says, “Women have a greater capacity for gender-fluid sexual expression than men do. This might relate to women’s capacity to become sexually aroused by a broader range of sexual stimuli, including images of women.”
What we’re seeing here is the opportunistic quality of radical arguments. Never mind the contradictions. As long as the conclusion serves to encourage immoral perversion, logical consistency is optional.
Feminist writer Tracy Clark Flory of Salon happily discards the genetic-destiny “gay DNA” argument that was essential to the egalitarian “civil rights” claims of gay-rights activists in the 1990s. At the same time, however, she also abandons the androgyny-as-equality arguments of feminists, who insist that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. Now we must believe:
- Sexuality is culturally influenced, so that decades of social change can produce an increase in the incidence of lesbianism;
- Women are so different from men that their “gender-fluid sexual expression” makes them more susceptible to social influence.
Of course, most of the “women reporting at least one sapphic fling” are not exclusively lesbian, but would properly be classified as bisexual (at least, on a temporary or experimental basis) and, if you think about it, promoting this kind of opportunistic bisexuality is entirely acceptable to the gay community if their interest is primarily in obtaining a greater number of more attractive sex partners.
WHAT? Did I just suggest that some people may be less interested in “gay rights” as an abstract political concept than they are in increasing their chances of getting it on with a hottie? Holy cynicism, Batman!
Consider the implications: If homosexuality is so widely accepted that it is considered hateful to disapprove of it, then no one would dare take offense at being propositioned for gay sex, lest they be accused of homophobia and discrimination. Thus the childish peer-pressure claim that “Everybody’s doing it” (or at least, everyone is open to doing it, except haters) cloaks itself in “civil rights” rhetoric, and anyone who would refuse the offer of gay sex is a bigot.
Stigmatizing heterosexuality as a sort of prejudice is thus exposed as the next stage in the progress of radicalism, and if the arguments made tomorrow are inconsistent with the arguments made 10 or 15 years ago — when the claim of sexual identity as hard-wired from birth was crucial to the radical movement’s immediate goals — the only people who would call attention to this inconsistency are haters.
The gay-rights “argument” is therefore ultimately a coin-flip: Heads, they win; tails, SHUT UP, YOU THEOCRATIC HOMOPHOBES!