How do we know that exclusive heterosexuality is normal?

[JellySlice]

Why do we think that the majority of people are heterosexual, and that this is natural? For women, at least.

Obviously hetero-sex is necessary for survival of the species, but sex among humans is for pleasure, communication and dominance, as well as for survival.

How do we know that the majority of women are not bisexual, with outliers being exclusively lesbian or exclusively hetero?

In even the most liberal of socities there is some socialisation to reject same-sex attraction - otherwise women would not struggle to accept it in themselves. Women who find men sexually attractive would not be deprived of sex by rejecting or suppressing their attraction to other women, so would not necessarily be distressed or notice that they were missing anything.

Are you asking who thinks everyone is a bit bi?

I kind of get what you mean - I've often thought that once you realise it's possible to be attracted to both sexes it seems a more natural thing. But my hormones remain resolutely attracted to dick.

I am reminded of the tongue in cheek (or darkly satirical) remark that if ever one needed proof that sexuality was innate, the existence of female heterosexuality should put the matter beyond doubt.

I gather that in some societies (eg in Classical Greek), the need of men to be assured of paternity meant that sex between the sexes was strictly controlled. Men would have liaisons with adolescent youths, but apparently liaisons between women were fine too - because not procreative. (This is from a short section of a lecture I heard, it's not my field at all).

I suppose I've always seen it as akin to handedness. About 90% of people are right-handed, about 10% left-handed, and a rare few are ambidextrous.

Socialisation plays no part in handedness. I see no reason why it should in sexuality.

Comparative Anthropology is Instructive on this question. across various cultures, when not either proscribed by taboo, Or Actively encouraged by ritual (eg Ancient Greece) homosexual behavior is present, but at a relatively Low frequency.

There’s more homosexual behavior in our cousins the bonobos (a type of chimp) but less among the other type of chimp. Interestingly bonobos are more matriarchal than humans and chimps more patriarchal.

Humans have far longer adolescent period, more cooperative breeding, and are more monogamous than either chimp (or our other great ape cousins).

Socialisation plays no part in handedness.

It doesn't play a part in inherent handedness but can most definitely play a part in acquired and thus reported handedness. Until relatively recently, left handedness was artificially suppressed. This is what's responsible for the myth that left handed people die younger www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23988352

Had I been just two years older Errol, school would have tied my left hand behind my back to force me to use the 'correct' hand. But I'd still have been left-handed, albeit holding the pen clumsily in my right.

Sure - but if you'd had to learn to write right handed, and then years later someone was asked about you, they would have said you were right handed. An inherent characteristic can be apparently modified by socialisation. So it can lead to mistakes in data and inaccurate conclusions.

So, in relation to the OPs question, do we at this point have accurate data about innate levels of homosexuality?

It’s not totally possible to collect data on “innate” human behaviors generally speaking. We are influenced too much by culture. We can try to infer based on what’s shared across cultures what might be an “original condition” of humans, and also compare to other animals to look for recent changes in our evolutionary lineage.

We don't. Not for women or for men.

And we're unlikely to find out tbh.

It's a really interesting question though. There have been a fair few threads over the years.

My view, based on nothing much, is that far more people would be bisexual in less heteronormative conditions. I also think that relationships might look different.

But, who can say.

Enforced heterosexuality seems to be a constant in current patriarchal societies/ those with patriarchal religions/ everywhere?

Men seem much more uncomfy with gayness I think.

My grand dad wrote with his right hand always, slowly and neatly. Till he was in his 90s.

He wasn't allowed to use his left hand at school.

Not sure what that has to do with the thread though.

The messages around sexuality are so strong and so insidious and given so much weight.

Not sure what that has to do with the thread though.

Discrepancies between innate and socialised characteristics, and inaccuracies in data for the former because of the latter.

Nothing and everything is normal. You can be heterosexual and turned on by so many things that are not strictly heterosexual. I often think that being heterosexual is more exiting than being gay or lesbian because when you come out you are saying what your limits are but with heterosexuals anything goes :)

So everything is normal really if you think about it, and there are no clear boundaries to say otherwise

Socialisation plays no part in handedness.

It really does though and your example actually lends to the OP’s argument.

What I’d to know is how the gay gene survives because presumably there was a time when being gay was not stigmatised and so how did the gene reproduce?

Perhaps it was like the grandmother hypothesis (the theory that women live far beyond menopause to care for daughter’s offspring) and gay men’s nieces and nephews were more likely to survive because of the extra childcare.

But really I don’t have a clue and would like to know.

I think the main reason we'd say that it's more common is that we tend to see that in cultures over time and geographically, unless there is some particular circumstance - for example ritual rape of enemy soldiers. Culture has some effect, and there seems to be some capacity for learned sexual norms and experiences to shape our perception, even at a young age, but overall, most people still seem to be mainly interested in opposite sex encounters.

I don't think people find that surprising generally, it's a pretty common state of affairs in other mammals, while there may be some homosexual activity, it usually doesn't dominate, if it did it would tend to make successful procreation less likely and that's not going to be selected for directly.

Sexuality for every individual ever born is inate (regardless of all judgements)

What we are "allowed" to do is dependant upon circumstances.

We are always only ever female (inc. DSDs) or male (ditto) and it remains the same:

Heterosexual
Homosexual
Bisexuality

What I’d to know is how the gay gene survives because presumably there was a time when being gay was not stigmatised and so how did the gene reproduce?

Well, we don’t really know but possibly:

1. being gay may seem maladaptive but in humans your reproductive success is only weakly related to how much sex you have. It’s more about how healthy your kids were, how well you did at teaching them to survive. Most gay men and women historically Probably married and had children. While also having recreational sex with other men/women. Possibly those outside bonds could be helpful in maintaining kids well being.

2. being gay is a complex trait that occurs due to combinations of other genes which by themselves don’t make you gay but increase reproductive success In other ways, but together make you gay.

3. an example of 2 really - that having more other brothers makes men gay due to changes in hormones in utero resulting from multiple male births. Statistically this is a measurable effect (3rd or 4th sons are more likely to be gay). It could be that third or 4th sons were unusual historically so natural selection had little chance to act against this.

Perhaps it was like the grandmother hypothesis (the theory that women live far beyond menopause to care for daughter’s offspring) and gay men’s nieces and nephews were more likely to survive because of the extra childcare.

Also possible. Unlike the GM hypothesis As far as i know there’s no good evidence that gay men actually helped or help provision their relatives’ children or contribute particularly well to the family coffers (compared to straight family members).

But really I don’t have a clue and would like to know.

It’s an interesting question! It seems like most people have given up on it because they’ve determined that it doesn’t really matter why, gay people should be protected by the law regardless. However I still get asked this one by students a lot - particularly out gay students!

it's a pretty common state of affairs in other mammals, while there may be some homosexual activity, it usually doesn't dominate, if it did it would tend to make successful procreation less likely and that's not going to be selected for directly.

Exactly - homosexual behaviour is present in other species as well. It is always a minority though.

As long as the significant majority of a species is heterosexual this will ensure that procreation is successful and will keep the species going. Beyond that, it doesn't matter if a proportion of the population are homosexual or bisexual. Homosexual activities don't lead to reproduction, but from an evolutionary perspective it doesn't matter as long as the majority continue to engage in sexual activity with the opposite sex. Human cultural forces have developed around this evolutionary principle and seeks to enforce and maintain it. Usually this is where the problems arise - traditions and rituals that force people to conform and punish those who don't by placing certain values and judgements on human behaviour.

Doesn't change the fact that homosexuality and bisexuality remain a minority.

Similar observations can be made about monogamy and promiscuousness / non-monogamy.

FWRLurker thanks for such a comprehensive answer at 3.30 in the morning

How do we know that the majority of women are not bisexual, with outliers being exclusively lesbian or exclusively hetero?

I find the thought of sexual activity with another woman utterly repulsive. I've never felt the slightest sexual attraction to another woman. I can and do admire beauty, elegance, style etc in other women but that is purely from an aesthetic point of view.

I don't for one minute think I'm labouring under enforced heterosexuality in a patriarchal structure.

@WhereYouLeftIt

I suppose I've always seen it as akin to handedness. About 90% of people are right-handed, about 10% left-handed, and a rare few are ambidextrous.

Socialisation plays no part in handedness. I see no reason why it should in sexuality.

OK. Going to say something here and I real hope I don't offend anyone, but it's something I have been thinking about around the 'sexuality is innate' topic. Please nobody take this the wrong way.

Why can't socialisation play a part?
I am a straight woman and I enjoy sex. But I am quite horrified by the brutality of mainstream porn.

I honestly think if I were a 12 year old girl today, and- as most children do now, unfortunately - saw some porn in the playground at school on someone's phone, which was standard porn, featuring a man and woman, with the man inflicting the usual acts of choking, deep-throating until the woman gagged, slapping, degradation, pummelling and forced, painful anal, etc, that I would be so horrified and traumatised that it would put me off sex with men completely. Especially as girls are now expected to do these things in real life now too in their teenage relationships.

I can imagine being a 12 year old girl, seeing what "straight sex" entails, then seeing "lesbian porn" being more gentle and all about female pleasure and thinking "maybe that's more for me".

I can then imagine having such a fear of the sexual violence of straight 'porn-sex' that I never want to have sex with a man, so wouldn't know that (non-abusive) male/female sex can also be enjoyable and so wouldn't realise that I could in fact be opposite-sex attracted too/instead.

Surely, this could happen? I honestly think that there must be some social impact from today's violent pornography on girls' sexuality.

How do we know that the majority of women are not bisexual, with outliers being exclusively lesbian or exclusively hetero?

I don't know about formal sexologist research results, but I'd always been under the impression that women were more flexible.

I recall Bret Stephens and Heather Heying discussing this from their evolutionary biology perspective somewhere in their YouTube.

(The video "Sex: An Evolutionary Perspective" on the front of their channel discusses various related things, but not sure this was in it).

Basic argument is that as human infants have a very long helplessness period, they need pretty much full-time care for years, and the female is the primary carer. Sexual pair bonding kept the male around to support female + infant. In the event of loss of the male, if the female were able to bond with either a male or female to aid with infant care, that would help infant survivability. So females evolving as more bisexual than males would make sense.

(Males certainly can attempt to mate with anything, due to their high sex drive, but not so much pair bond.)

A few reasons why you’ll never get an actual answer to that, think about these.

The UK is one of the most liberal places in the world, however if we asked the average straight person

Have you ever held a partners hand in public?
Put your arm around them?
Given them a peck on the cheek?
If you want a night out or even a date night meal do you have to go to special places specifically set up for people like you?
Are you insistent that your child doesn’t hold yours and your partners at the same time in public?
Do you refer to your partner in a way at work that reveals their sex?
Do you take them to the work xmas do etc?
Do people like you regularly get called a peado or needing “a dick to sort you out”?
Is your sexuality fetishised?
Is your sexuality and anything related to it considered dangerous, dirty and wrong for children to know about?
Can you go on holiday without googling if your existence is legal?
Do you have to consider if your family will ever speak to you again when they discover your sexuality?
Do people regularly apply false and hurtful stereotypes about your sexuality?
When people discover you sexuality do they tell you “its a shame that you’re going to waste”?
Did you get told you were too young and its a phase?
Do you get asked why you chose to be straight?
Do people shout straight slurs at you?
Do the press fetishise people like you and try to out them?
Do the press run campaigns trying to make you gay? (Sean mendes)
Do the press write articles about the myth of being both happu and straight?
Do the public protest your right to the most basic relationship education?
Do the public complain about two straight people having a kiss on TV/in a film?
Do people go around spreading lies about how gross and dangerous straight sex is?
Do people ask if you’re worried that you’re going to make your child straight?

Until questions like the above aren’t normal in gay persons life we’ll continue to see heterosexuality as normal and gay as abnormal.

If being gay was the norm and straight wasn’t we would have lots of closeted straight people.

SimonJT has laid out pretty starkly why we're probably nowhere near knowing the 'innate' levels of homosexuality and bisexuality yet.

My guess - based partly on consideration of our nearest kin, the bonobos, but noting they're an unusual example - is that theres no evolutionary reason against, and some reason for, a combination of procreative sex and 'social bonding' sex. Tied into this is a question of how natural (serial) monogamy is in humans (obviously there is a full range of possibilities in other species). It feels 'normal' to me - but I don't really know how much of that is down to socialisation and how much it's down to factors like men wanting to assure paternity (which is itself quite probably a 'natural' evolved trait)

I just wanted to note - in these discussions I'm using 'normal' merely in the statistical sort of sense, not implying any virtue.