The Heterosexual myth.
In the same way as there’s a gay myth there’s also a heterosexual myth. There is no such thing as gay and there is no such thing as heterosexual (and just incase you’re trying to escape there’s no such thing as ‘bisexual’ either, but we’ll get on to that later.)
The heterosexual myth is that most of the population is heterosexual and a smaller percentage are gay.
The counter myth is that everyone is bisexual.
All ‘gay’ means is a mass of confused concepts.
All that ‘heterosexual’ means is myopic object fetishism.
Sure, if you’re willing to accept being embroiled in that kind of autism you can call yourself heterosexual, but otherwise you should reject it with vehemence.
The classic heterosexual dilemma is the transsexual. This is where the ‘heterosexual’ man may be more attracted to a transsexual than a biological woman (especially if he doesn’t know) because the transsexual may have even more cultural accoutrements than the average woman, and therefore be more attractive to the object fetishist.
The thing that the heterosexual is lusting after is not a human being as such, but a set of cultural and conceptual traits.
Therefore a heterosexual man may make out with a suitably madeup and attired male, but then when the pants come off there is this conceptual shock.
Infact so long as the penis and balls have been cut off, or turned inside out, or whatever, he may be perfectly happy to have sex with someone who is genetically male. He even gets to retain the title of ‘heterosexual’ if he does that.
After all, a heterosexual is not defined as someone who is having sexual relations with someone of the genetically opposite gender, but rather someone who has (or wants to have) sexual relations with someone of the culturally opposite gender.
This is where concepts in our rational minds, that have been developed over thousands of years take over from automatic responses that have been developing for millions of years.
Guess what? Animals don’t define gender by clothes and hairstyles as we falsely teach children to.
If you put a dress and lipstick on a monkey, it’s not going to make any difference what the other monkeys think of it. Why? Because they don’t accept our fucked up cultural symbols that’s why. They’d rather go with their inbuilt biological ones.
Basically the animals are smarter than us when it comes to this.
With ‘bisexual’ we must reject it because it’s so bound up with the other concepts of homo and hetero sexual. It doesn’t mean that just because I reject those two ideas that I think people are infact bisexual, because that generally means all the stuff that heterosexual means plus all the stuff that homosexual means.
It would be like if we go to the ancient conception of the four elements of earth water air and fire. Now because I would reject something being described scientifically in those terms I would reject even more something being described scientifically in any number of those terms.
Besides if we are to look at the bisexual thing we come across the problem that people may never have experienced sexual attraction to one or the other gender. I’ve been in that situation myself.
So what is there then?
What there is, is you can either produce male or female behaviours, and you can either object fetishise particular culturally identified gender traits or not.
The normal individual in society is forced into producing a range of male and female and ‘other’ behaviours just to get along in the world. However, what matters in our culture is whether they have some or other types of apparel and styles of personal grooming.
If however, they are not interested in object fetishism of that kind then they get to be called ‘gay’ rather than ‘straight’.
That’s the kind of reality we’re trapped in.
Luckily for me in society, I’m heavily into object fetishism, which would be for one indicated by the number of objects I haul round with me such as pieces of vinyl and books etc.
Lucky for that eh!