Frankly I am sick of the consent bombardment of pseudo scientific evolutionary psychology clap trap, which tries to explain homosexuality, that keeps being published. The people that come up with these theories, are the same ones who claim that when female animals run away or try to fight off male animals who are sexually harassing them, they are not trying to avoid rape, but just ‘playing hard to get’ and ‘testing the male’s genes’ etc.
I realised long ago there will never be any credible research into how sexuality develops, because it is an area that is male dominated, and those conducting such studies hold assumptions that because heterosexuality enables reproduction and is dominant in society it must be the default and innate. These assumptions allow them to conclude that people who are homosexual are born with faulty genes, are born with the brain of the opposite sex, have been exposed to opposite sex hormones in the womb etc. They are working from the same evolutionary psychology assumptions as those who argue that brain sex exists, i.e. that because males dominating females in societies (and the accompanying sex roles) are widespread, it must be due to innate evolutionary causes related to reproduction. These assumptions allow them to conclude that a female who is not submissive (or who does not follow the customary sex role of her society) or vice versa for a male, must have the brain of the opposite sex, have been exposed to opposite sex hormones in the womb etc. The arguments are practically identical. All of their studies and experiments seek to try and add ‘scientific’ weight to their preconceived ideas.
The fact that males have historically used brute force to dominate females and obtain sex/offspring, have imposed strict socialisation onto females, and the fact the brain is plastic, is simply dismissed or completely ignored by those pushing an evolutionary psychology narrative. The existence of bisexuals was always going to be difficult for them to explain, from their evolutionary psychology perspective, perhaps that is what this nonsense study is attempting to do?
Would be interesting to see how they explain the fact that men often develop fetishes for all kinds of inanimate objects. One would think the fact that such fetishes can be developed at all, would be a huge clue that sexuality in humans is often developed through the repeated pairing of a unconditional stimulus (such as orgasm) with a neutral stimulus (such as a particular type of person or object), that after repeated pairings the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus and then itself triggers a response such as desire i.e. a kind of Pavlovian (classical) conditioning.
Studies into sexuality (which are almost always conducted from an from evolutionary psychology perspective) also never consider that depending on how one makes sense of or interprets their feelings, reactions and experiences, can determine how they view and so classify their sexuality. Neither do they take into consideration the impact socialisation is likely to have. They clearly have a particular narrative they want to push and these considerations would get in the way of that. The fact they are now trying to say that females only sleep with each other for the benefit of males, just reveals their agenda for what it is. The truth is men cannot stand the thought that females could reject males as a sex, and actually prefer females, it is just too big a blow for their egos to take. The sooner evolutionary psychology is named as the sexist homophobic rubbish it is the better.