Monosexuality and 'default' orientation

Watch
zillyhoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
For reference in this thread, monosexuality refers to being attracted to only a single gender/sex. This encompasses heterosexuality and homosexuality, where as polysexuality refers to attractions to multiple genders/sexes, encompassing bisexuality and pansexuality (as well as any other orientations that encompass multiple genders/sexes - you tell me).

As if it weren't already obvious by biphobia and homophobia in today's society, it would appear that heterosexuality is considered the default orientation.

The thing about this that confuses me is that most animals are not monosexual.

I, personally, am asexual - I'm effectively blind to gender when dating, and I have no interest in sex. However, I can't grasp the abstraction of why humans are so stubborn about monosexuality being 'default', and why biphobia is rapidly becoming more of an issue than homophobia, mainly due to peoples' assumptions that bisexuals are either sluts or can't make up their minds.
To be honest, I assume that somebody is bisexual until they tell me otherwise, mainly because it seems to me like this should be default.
I dunno, I just find monosexuality surprising, since humans seem to be the only species so stubborn that it's the only way.

Food for thought.

-Please debate, I'm really interested to see others' views on this-
2
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
It is entirely possible for there to be different underlying drives behind different sexual behaviours. For example, male apes will wave their cocks in each other's faces or hump each other, but that doesn't mean they're bisexual as such, it's just a social dominance behaviour.

In fact most human sexual behaviour during your teens and early twenties is not genuinely "sexual" (that is, procreation-directed) behaviour but social dominance behaviour. You can tell because for most young people sleeping with others of the correct calibre is an opportunity to establish your position in the social hierarchy rather than anything to do with monogamy.

It is plain to me that it's possible to be genuinely gay - that is, your ultimate aim is to love someone of the same sex, live with them and only be disbarred from procreation due to gender - based on an actual innate disposition, or to exhibit a gay attachment pattern and/or sexual behaviour due to life experiences or the need to establish a social hierarchy.

Within this framework we realise that the very last thing sexuality centres on is the gender of the participants, allowing any degree of surface "bisexuality" you could want. However it is not that sexuality is necessarily completely ungendered and gender bias is socialised; rather there is a possibility that the socio-sexual complex will result in different (or, as a special case, very similar) motivations for observable sexual behaviour when directed towards different genders.

And this applies to all sexualities, including those not directed to a sexually recipient human, such as bestiality, paedophilia, fetishes, autoeroticism, asexuality and sexual preferences of all types.

The association of sexuality with procreation is at once specious and inextricable.
0
reply
John Stuart Mill
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
I don't know it may be the whole reproductive organ thing.
0
reply
zillyhoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by scrotgrot)
It is plain to me that it's possible to be genuinely gay - that is, your ultimate aim is to love someone of the same sex, live with them and only be disbarred from procreation due to gender - based on an actual innate disposition, or to exhibit a gay attachment pattern and/or sexual behaviour due to life experiences or the need to establish a social hierarchy.

Since I'm unclear on whether you picked up on this or not (please feel free to ignore me if you did), I never mentioned that I don't believe in monosexuality (homosexuality in the mentioned scenario). I can totally understand that not everybody is polysexual, but I can't understand why monosexuality is perceived as 'normal'.
0
reply
zillyhoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by John Stuart Mill)
I don't know it may be the whole reproductive organ thing.
Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason I can come up with - but it still doesn't explain why homosexuality is more widely accepted that bisexuality.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by zillyhoo)
Since I'm unclear on whether you picked up on this or not (please feel free to ignore me if you did), I never mentioned that I don't believe in monosexuality (homosexuality in the mentioned scenario). I can totally understand that not everybody is polysexual, but I can't understand why monosexuality is perceived as 'normal'.
Because of the historical need for localised ethnic groups to outbreed the ********s on the other side of the valley. That is why religions, which were basically just ways to manufacture cohesion in such a group (through exceptionalism or fear) always have a strong sex-is-for-procreation element. They don't want people pulling out or shagging up the wrong hole or wearing a sheep intestine over their ****.

Broadly speaking, popular society was dominated, particularly in relation to sex, by religious interests until the Industrial Revolution. The effect of industrialisation was to reduce the need for a workforce, so children became a liability and the demographic profile of industrialised countries changed.

Thereafter, there was no need to use religion as a tool to moralise on the need for procreation, and we saw increased open expression of sexuality in its myriad forms. However, this process is far from complete, if complete it can ever be, and so monosexuality is still seen as the norm.

Basically, if procreation = survival advantage then sex = procreation and if sex = procreation then sex = monosexual.
1
reply
zillyhoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Because of the historical need for localised ethnic groups to outbreed the ********s on the other side of the valley. That is why religions, which were basically just ways to manufacture cohesion in such a group (through exceptionalism or fear) always have a strong sex-is-for-procreation element. They don't want people pulling out or shagging up the wrong hole or wearing a sheep intestine over their ****.

Broadly speaking, popular society was dominated, particularly in relation to sex, by religious interests until the Industrial Revolution. The effect of industrialisation was to reduce the need for a workforce, so children became a liability and the demographic profile of industrialised countries changed.

Thereafter, there was no need to use religion as a tool to moralise on the need for procreation, and we saw increased open expression of sexuality in its myriad forms. However, this process is far from complete, if complete it can ever be, and so monosexuality is still seen as the norm.

Basically, if procreation = survival advantage then sex = procreation and if sex = procreation then sex = monosexual.

Ah, I get your point now. Thank you for contributing!
0
reply
NekoNoKoi
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
Well personally, I believe that monosexuality is the obvious norm simply because it has been throughout the history of humanity since the beginning (correct me if I'm wrong). Straight people, as far as I am aware, have always been the majority.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (398)
56.29%
I don't have everything I need (309)
43.71%

Watched Threads

View All