Interesting news from the world of science:
Women are three times more likely to become bisexual than men because they are more flexible in their sexuality, new research has suggested.
While the majority of men are convinced they are either ‘100 per cent’ homosexual or heterosexual, women have a much more fluid approach to relationships, based on who they meet, it is claimed.
However US researchers found that women who avoided young motherhood, were physically attractive, or had high levels of education were less likely to explore relationships with same-sex partners because they had more romantic opportunities with the opposite sex. These women were more likely to say they were ‘100 per cent heterosexual.’
….
“Women with some degree of attraction to both males and females might not be drawn into homosexuality if they have favourable options in the heterosexual partner market.
“Women who are initially successful in partnering with men, as is more traditionally expected, may never explore their attraction to other women.
“However, women with the same sexual attractions, but less favourable heterosexual options might have greater opportunity to experiment with same-sex partners.”
So, who is going to tell ’em that it’s only because they couldn’t get a bloke?
It certainly explains a lot of hardcore feminists.
Ooohhhfffff!
Does it have anything to do with the fact that their private parts are a different shape to men’s.
There must be more going on: this theory doesn’t explain how a hot babe like Bea Campbell becomes a lesbian.
AK: She got the taste during her career in porn movies.
🙂
Oooh er Tim………….better don your flak jacket, Tommy helmet and get behind the sandbags……
Incoming!
I can think of a why, which may explain the first two paragraphs.
There’s two, not one thing, going on.
There’s sexual attraction. And there’s rivalry with members of the same sex. So they pull in opposite directions.
Men are naturally more rivalrous. So that will tend to counter the sexual attraction. Women less. Sp the attraction wins though more frequently.
So it’s just possible, attractive women, with a much wider choice of male sexual opportunities, are more rivalrous with other women because they have more territory to defend.
May go some way to explain the dom/sub thing as well. Because i can think of one particular individual who combines being drop dead gorgeous with being violently combative when it comes competition over males. Yet is enthusiastically dom bi. Real alpha bitch.
And it’s just occurred, this may shed some light onto the obsessing over alpha-maleness being shown at Chateau Heartiste. Because there’s through alpha & out the other side. Alpha+, if you like. So sure of your superiority that you don’t bother about competing.
The lesbians I know of fall into three categories. 1. The uglies whose existence confirms Tim’s theory. 2. The chic teens and twenties – lipstick lesbians, if you like – who might grow out of it, eg Cara Delvigne. 3. Divorced women with kids, who are so disillusioned with chaps that they opt for rug-munching. 2 and 3 are often attractive women, in my limited experience. So the ugliness theory doesn’t explain that much.
Above a certain BMI, all women are lesbian.
Steve, try googling ‘fat fuckers’. Thus I refute you
Theophrastus: What about women who are just attracted to women but not men? There’s not always a reason.
Theophrastus – No way am I Googlizing that! I’ve been tricked before.
Matthew L – of course there’s always a reason. We live in a universe of causation.
Fatness, too much testosterone, Daddy issues, C-cluster personality disorders… take your pick.
No woman just wakes up one day thinking “you know what? Sandi Toksvig makes me quiver!” without a reason.
Matthew L:
As Steve says, there’s always a reason. If one is lesbian from early childhood, then the reason or cause is probably an intra-uterine imbalance of hormones affecting the development of the foetus. One day, it might even be possible for prospective parents to prevent homosexuality…
Theophrastus – There’s more than one type of gay man and more than one type of lesbian, so there’s probably more than one type of cause.
So, at one end, you’ve got your probably-born-this-way gay folks. These would include stereotypically flamboyant men in the theatre and your classic boot-faced gnashers in Doc Martens.
At the other end of the rainbow, there are people who experiment with or become gay. That could be down to socialisation, environmental factors, or God-knows-what.
It’s an interesting subject, but there doesn’t seem to be much honest discussion about it. Like the subject of IQ, it’s too politicised for polite discourse, so instead we get mealy-mouthed and conflicting slogans.
Though I do think gays will always be with us for as long as human beings are interested in sex. It doesn’t appear to be hereditary.
Steve – I wouldn’t disagree with anything you say above. Good summary.
It can be explained if you believe the stuff about the personal is political.
Feminists are anti men. So if they want to get laid…
Muslims are anti women, so if they want to get laid… My anecdotal experience is that muslim countries are heaving with gays, though this may be a consequence of a lack of opportunity.
But most blokes are born with it, lesbians do it as a statement.
You lot need to get out more, meet some different people. Expand your horizons a bit.
Theophrastus – thanks!
Matthew L – I know your game. You’re sex people!
Obviously I move in different circles from the author of this post but I have frequently wondered why all the really pretty women are lesbian.
“…but I have frequently wondered why all the really pretty women are lesbian.”
Selective observation. Couple fit birds having a snog.Cor lezzies! (underpants problem) Couple of spaniels? WGaF what they’re doing? They could be disemboweling each other with chain saws. Who wants to look too closely?
Girl on girl is much more acceptable and even a fetish among some (many?) straight males. When I look at a pretty fem I cannot imagine anyone not wanting to investigate that further. Even dogs are attracted to girls. Pretty girl pics dominate both women & men magazines. I’ve read that Play Girl magazine was mostly a gay-guy rag rather than a girl’s magazine. Girls are just luscious. I don’t fret it. I love it. They can do whatever they want. I just want to investigate them further. As has been said, “Once you’ve had one. . .you want them all.”
Steve:
“At the other end of the rainbow, there are people who experiment with or become gay. That could be down to socialisation, environmental factors, or God-knows-what”.
I read ‘socialisation’ as Socialism.
Sounds like Tim’s bitter cos he’s never had a threesome.
Well, not with two women anyway.
I’ve shagged an awful lot of attractive, childless, educated woman, and most of them had strong bisexual inclinations. It didn’t take many drinks to reveal that, but they certainly wouldn’t reveal it to some stupid survey, not if it might put off that rich, rugged corporate banker who’ll they’ll eventually marry and reproduce from. (But they didn’t mind revealing it to an artistic type like me who had his charms back in the day).
They might also — and probably did – have an affair with a similarly elegant and disreet lady friend from Uni in their 30’s. But again, while this was no great secret in their circle, they wouldn’t dream of telling that to some survey.
(However, they might reveal it in their 60’s when they want some attention and they can pretend they’re furthering some cause and it makes them look look chic again, eg. Debbie Harry. The only ones who reveal it now are the ones who are so hot and successful that it doesn’t matter what they say, eg. Cara Delevingne.)