But If They’re ‘Born That Way’ …

Posted on Comments

. . . why are there more lesbians than ever?

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:

  1. Sexuality is culturally influenced, so that decades of social change can produce an increase in the incidence of lesbianism;
    and
  2. 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!

 

88 comments

  1. If it were genetic or epigenetic the percentage of homosexuality per population group would be the same across all cultures. It’s not

  2. One might argue for a genetic tendency, but what the gay-rights radicals have instead argued for is a genetic imperative: DNA requires that some people be homosexual, they claim, and therefore any limitation on the expression of that trait is morally repugnant as the equivalent of Jim Crow.

  4. This is probably just because female bisexuality is a lot more accepted than male bisexuality. Numbers I saw estimated that among non-straight women, two-thirds are bi and one-third lesbian, whereas among non-straight men, two-thirds are gay and one-third are bi.

  6. The genetic argument has always been specious at best, for the simple reason that — leaving God out of it, as the gay “rights” movement is wont to do — such a gene is by definition a mutant and provides no evolutionary advantage. It would constantly be bred out of existence, again by definition. The only rational explanation is that the behavior is learned; call it “socially conditioned,” if you wish. That means, it can be changed, and that is the conclusion which proponents of homosexuality cannot abide, because it destroys the “rights” argument and exposes their agenda for what it is: recruitment, their only means of “procreation.”

  7. “Now we must believe:

    1. Sexuality is culturally influenced…..”

    —-

    From Wikpedia:

    “Lysenkoism was built on theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics that Lysenko named “Michurinism”.[1] These theories depart from accepted evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance.

    Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”

  8. The only problem with that augment is that the gay gene has never been found. And he know there is a predisposition for addiction are we to use the same logic and make it OK for folks to abuse alcohol and drugs barbecue they can’t help themselves?

  10. There certainly is an essentially born into tendency for some homosexuality. Whether that is genetic or prenatal (due to hormone exposures) is not fully understood. But that explanation/cause is certainly is not the case for all homosexuality (maybe not even a majority of it). It seems from my observation that many lesbians are made, not born, that way (through abuse, etc.). The same is likely true for some male homosexuality.

  12. Based on 20+ years in Los Angeles, my guess is women are getting it on with women because the men around them literally aren’t worth a fuck.

  13. There may be an advantage genetically for the group for the gay gene. Our cave men ancestors needed interior cave decorating, hair grooming and fur fashion advice and the gay gene provided that. The gay gene kept cave life fabulous.

  14. So it’s back to the 60’s and instead of sleeping with a guy you dated because it would be impolite to do otherwise, now it’s have a same-sex fling because it would be impolite to turn it down? Because the person hitting on you expressed interest, you must accede?

  15. Oh, and also, after a couple of decades of frat boys pushing the hot chick on hot chick porn theme on the world, no doubt women are pressured into same sex acts. And lately it seems that young people who see no wrong in same sex relationships are being brainwashed to believe it’s just fine so are more likely to experiment.

  16. I didn’t follow the link, but I wonder what percentage have gone to college, versus not at all. Based on my personal anecdotal observations (one distant relative, two daughters of coworkers), I have noticed that all three girls were the “brainy” (even nerdy), good girl types that did not have boyfriends (or girlfriends) in high school – seemed to be more focused on education and the future. Then they went off to college, and within a year or two became part of lesbian relationships. In two of the situations, their partners seem to be older students – in their late 20’s. In one case, the mother is very concerned that it is an abusive, “power” relationship.

    I suspect that there is a certain “predatory” dynamic going on here – although these girls are over 18, they go off to college (away from home and family) and may have doubts about their self-worth because they never had a relationship with anyone. And in my three examples, I am pretty confident that there was no prior sexual experience or abuse. Then, along comes an “older” woman who convinces them that they can fill this void in their lives.

  18. Were these girls from upper-middle-class homes with college-educated mothers, in which ambitions for the daughter — you must go to college! — would make pregnancy an unacceptable risk?

    That’s just it, see: If parents are super-focused on career achievement for their daughters, this makes heterosexual relationships inherently risky, because motherhood is viewed as incompatible with these goals. The “brainy” girls figure out that being a LUG (Lesbian Until Graduation) is more acceptable to their parents than getting pregnant.

  20. If a gay gene exists, why couldn’t a homophobe gene also exist?

    You postulate that Homophobia is the same as Homosexuality?

  22. How do you use Difference Theory to explain the fact that many, many conservatives at one time in their lives were lib-tards?

  23. That would depend on the genetic diversity of each culture. Some cultures have remarkable genetic diversity (ex: America) while others have little genetic diversity (ex: the Bonobo tribe).

  26. It’s all opportunistic. If sexuality is predetermined, then being gay is just like being Black and therefore a civil rights issue.

    On the other hand, many gays, just like many feminists, insist upon moral superiority, which is as indefensible for a genetic condition as it would be for, say, skin color.

    So you must accept that a) they can’t help it, they’re simply victims and b) they’re better than anyone not of their kind. Feminists demand equality unless they can get their way by being helpless, and gays insist upon equal treatment so long as we pay tribute to their superior sense of style or empathy or whatever. Claim special treatment when it suits and demand equality when that suits.

  27. There is a wildcard in that mix. Remember when the feminists resisted laws against gender selection based abortions? They will oppose all efforts to restrict abortion. So then, what if they do find a “gay” gene, and start testing for, and aborting them? Will it be gays vs feminists?

    If it happens, I’ll make the popcorn.

  28. The problem is that there is a deliberately exploited confusion factor, that being the difference between one’s preference for an actual mate, and copulation. Cunnilingus and fellatio can be performed by either sex, on either sex, and be just as pleasurable, but just because a male might enjoy being fellated by another male does not mean that he would choose another male as a real mate. It’s simply that he isn’t bothered by the societal “ick” factor of that.

    Which would seem to be borne out by the report: more women appear to be able to get past the “ick” factor for some good, hot times, without actually desiring another woman for a mate.

    We’ve always understood this in heterosexual terms: there are people you’d actually marry, and people you’d screw but never, ever, consider marrying. As society removes the ick factor, it simply widens the number of people you’d screw, but never marry.

  29. On the other hand, many gays, just like many feminists, insist upon moral superiority, which is as indefensible for a genetic condition as it would be for, say, skin color.

    That insistence upon “moral” superiority is what gives the game away. It is what allows the continuation of the “struggle,” long after the war has been won. Hence, the trope that Caucasians are, by definition, racist. It demonstrates that the goal is not equal consideration based upon one’s status as a human but upon attaining power over others.

  31. P.J. O’Rourke explained it in the context of party invitations: “Always invite one homo to bring the dance records.”

  32. Considering that “homophobia” is no more accurate a term than “schizophrenegenic mother,” his argument died the minute he hit the post button.

  33. Not from you, thanks.

    How about you give us one on the desirability for a gene that self selects against reproduction?

  35. A friend was bemoaning the paucity or women willing to consent to anal sex, which he wanted to try. I suggested that he go to a gay bar and try a pickup if he really wanted to explore the Hershey Highway.

    He found the idea a turn off. Disgusting, even. So I asked him if he really thought there was a discernible difference between a male and a female rectum.

    It did quiet him down. But it did not, so far as I could tell, make him… er, “bi-curious.”

Comments are closed.