Okay, you might not be, but there's a good chance you are. But before I explain, there are people that say my blogs are too long. Then don't bother reading them, assball! When you post a comment at the end that just says "too long" all it says is that you have the attention span of a caramel.
Secondly, if you don't like the topic, do the same thing you do with your remote at home and change the channel. That being said, on to why most men are gay and don't even know it. Or maybe they know it and won't admit it. Who knows. A guy with a secret is like an oyster with a pearl. You practically have to boil them alive to get them to open up.
I think I've dwelt enough on the monogamous partnership thing. That's not the only way to identify yourself and your partners, by a long shot. And, of course, there's always the straight versus gay issue. Do you like your partners heterosexually or homosexually, or a little of both. Most people identify themselves as straight, but the truth of the matter is that as with any bell curve most people wind up somewhere in the middle.
Approximately one hundred million men in middle America just said “I ain't gay!”
I didn't say you were. I said “somewhere in the middle”. Take, for example, a quote I noticed on the net recently:
Male 1: I am not gay.
Male 2: When you watch porn, do you like to see a girl getting it from a fat guy with a little floppy dick or a hung hardbodied stud?
Male 1: I had no idea I was gay.
The recent "buzzword" (and I effin hate buzzwords) for the gray area of homosexuality is being "Flexsexual", but there has always been a difference between men and women. Men are constantly in the closet, so afraid to even think that they might be even the slighest bit gay that they are ready to attack anyone that suggests it. Meanwhile women have always been more like spaghetti...straight until you get them wet.
Furthermore, transsexual pornstars like Vanity report that even if men notice she's male when they meet her, once they start developing an attachment to her they will engage in sex that's usually classified as gay. And stars like the infamous "guy with a pussy", Buck Angel, report his largest number of love interests are...you guessed it: Men. But Vanity and Buck also say that relationships tend not to last long. Not because they are pornstars but because guys have a hard time being public about their attraction to them.
Plus, there is the classic example of a man who would rather spend time with his buddies than with his wife. Sure, with his buddies there's no sex involved (so they claim) but if he's dedicating most of his relationship time to males then what does that say?
But that's not the only dichotomy in regards to sexual identity. There's also the butch/femme factor. Whether you are male or female has no bearing on whether or not you are butch or femme, and neither does being straight or gay. Some people have a naturally masculine character, while others are feminine. People that are balanced in the middle are androgynous in their personalities, and oddly enough they are more rare. It's a kind of reversed bell curve, and most people wind up being either butch or femme.
Then there's the submissive and dominant issue, or as some people call it bottoms and tops. Once again, contrary to popular belief, the submissive is usually the driving force behind the relationship. That's why people who've identified themselves as submissives often complain of there not being enough “good tops”.
That leaves room for a lot of combinations. You could be a top femme woman who's attracted to straight femme males and butch transsexuals. You could be a dominant androgynous male who likes femmes of all types, or (if you're plain like that) a straight submissive female who likes straight submissive males. Tie all of this in with whether you are monogamous, polygamous, polyamorous, or just looking for sex and it's no wonder that relationships can get so confusing. And this doesn't even begin to cover physical attraction!
Bryan Sykes is a phenomenal researcher with a sharp mind, and he's not afraid to take a risk. Recently, he's combined some theories on genetics, evolution and Gaia hypothesis. All in a very risky way.
Many people here may not remember, but a few years back there was a discovery of “the gay gene.” Supposedly a gene that only affected males (It's passed on the Y chromosome), and a significant number of those that had the gene were homosexual. This caused a huge stir, publicly, as people envisioned ridiculous futures of genetic testing and treating the circumstance as if homosexuality was some sort of genetic disease.
Other researchers, as far back as the 18th (Arbuthnott) and 19th (Geissler) centuries had made another interesting discovery. There is another common male genetic anomaly known as the “super-selfish” chromosome. This chromosome makes sure that Y chromosomes are passed on in favor of X chromosomes. For those of you who remember your high school biology, that men cause the determinate factor of the sex of a child. “Super-selfish” chromosome males are predisposed to having more males.
Evolutionarily, this is good for those males. It means that they will have lots of little male copies to make more male copies and eventually breed other males out of existence. However, it's not so good for anybody but those males. It means problems with the female population. It means loss of genetic stock. It means lack of variance in evolution.
Furthermore, there is something important to remember about “super-selfish” genes. This is not a reflection of the male's personality or their choices. But it should be noted that these men are not necessarily genetic supermen either. They don't have to possess genes that make them healthy or strong or smart. It's just that their genes are efficient at outbreeding other males that produce balanced male and female children.
So what's the problem here? Well, that's where the Gaia theory starts to come in. You see, another problem is that there also seems to be a correlation between men who use wealth and power to gain social position and “super-selfish” genes. One example you can check for yourself is in United States presidents. The number of whom had male children far exceeds the females.
In other words, the same people who are limiting our genetic variation are also the ones who are responsible for policy making. The same policies that have been causing needless death because of national violence, polluting our world, driving our species to extinction, and doing their best to stamp out human rights. Women have always seemed to know that men are fucking up their planet. Sykes just had the stones to show it may have scientific support that they were right.
So what defense do women have? How can they defend themselves from a group of men who don't only intend to rule over them socially but genetically as well? Actually, they have two defenses. One is built right in.
You remember I mentioned the so called “gay gene” earlier. One thing I didn't say was that the mDNA that is passed for this gene comes from the female. Not the male. Now why would it benefit a woman to have gay sons? It does have a benefit if there is a gene that's trying to suppress her X chromosomes. Like I've mentioned before...doesn't it seem odd that more and more men want to be out bonding apart from women, only using women as sexual devices and to prove socially that they are not gay?
The other defense women have is choice. To say “basta”. No more. Nothing ever said they have to follow male social rules except for males. Women are the only ones that can create children, therefore they are the only ones that can choose what the future of our race will be. It's that simple.
To quote Alexander Pope “Know then thyself...The proper study of mankind is man.” More people should what they are really looking for, and what they are themselves, instead of attempting to live up to expectations.