On Bisexuality

I often hear from advocates that “bisexuality” is logically consistent. That may or may not be true, but it doesn’t matter for my argument. Bisexuality may be or seem to be logically coherent within itself, but that logic on its own may be baseless and ultimately incoherent.

Bisexuality is rooted in the idea that a person is sexually attracted to both men and women. In the case of heterosexuality, a person is attracted to the opposite sex, whereas homosexuality is sexual attraction to others of the same sex.

Heterosexuality as an action of nature is creative and generative, uniting two unique beings in an unlikely bond to create a new human being, imbued with the inheritance of mankind. Later this new human can accomplish the same thing, and repeat the cycle of regeneration as Man and Woman have together for so many millennia.

In contrast, homosexuality is not regenerative, and in many other senses is consuming. Homosexuality as an act or lifestyle can produce no children. It is not part of the cycle of regeneration nor can it lengthen the Great Chain of Being. In the logical and intuitive sense it has at best neutral, but more often than not degenerative, consuming, ruinous, and in some instances harmful effects.

Intuitively then we know there are qualitative and quantitative differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. We can demonstrate this logically as well through a simple thought experiment. Would a wholly homosexual population be capable of a regenerative process? No, not outside of logically incoherent rape scenarios. The primary natural purpose of sexuality is procreation, and even though some claim sex also carries the purpose of bonding, for what purpose is the bonding but ultimately regenerative? Is the purpose simply for bonding itself? That doesn’t make logical sense. These evolved mechanisms are not simply there for their own purposes, but for the regeneration of our species.

In the sense of procreation, homosexuality is entirely masturbatory. In the sense of bonding, it is simulacra, for bonding is remnant of a regenerative process in which homosexuality cannot partake, meaning such is an act purely for the simulation of feeling. In the base evolutionary sense, this feeling and lifestyle is ultimately degenerative, depleting resources which could be elsewise used.

The retort that homosexual sex isn’t masturbatory is not logically consistent. Again, masturbation is not merely characterized by it being done alone, though it can be, but instead by the expression of biologically pricey material without generative purpose, which logically correlates with homosexuality.

Homosexuality also correlates in an intuitive sense, for what future can relationally persist without co-creation? Such partnerships contain no mortar which unites them besides the fickleness of will, corrupt and banal as it tends to be. It lacks a fundamental narrative, a great echoing vacuum in the Great Chain of Being, a dead end in the story of Man upon the Earth. This of course is besides the facts of the physical reality of homosexuality, to which I needn’t make judgement on here. Homosexuality is masturbation.

When it comes to the idea of so-called “bisexuality”, we must examine it even as a category. So-called “bisexuals'' have two components to their sexual attraction or action. On the one hand one could assume that their heterosexual component is generative and naturally aligned with procreative acts and thus partake in the Great Chain of Being, imbuing progeny with ancestral wisdom.

But one must also consider the homosexual component of their claim. This is non-generative, masturbatory, as previously explored. Taking this into account one could wonder if the flip-flopping between generative and mastubatory modes is indicative of stability or chaos? (The answer seems clear in and of itself).

Is the masturbatory element not corruptive? Or a signal that there is an inherent corruption contained within? Perhaps poisoning the very essence of the person? On average in Canada, nearly 18% of heterosexual couples are parents living with children, while 11.5% of bisexual couples and 4.2% for homosexual couples do the same. Statistically this might mean that the homosexual element is not as strong as one might guess; but equally one could posit that a portion of alleged bisexuals are not in fact bisexuals at all (on average 11.5-4.2=7.3%: portion of “hypothetically false” bisexuals). If this cohort were added to the heterosexual statistics, the contrast would draw a dark line between generative and non-generative [even if simulacra] processes, perhaps a difference of some 4-5 times more likely for heterosexuals to rear children.

From a broader societal perspective this is damning evidence against non-generative sexualities, for there is no explaining away the failure to reproduce. It can be explained rather matter-of-factly, given that homosexuality is masturbatory. If homosexuality cannot be shown to be equivalent, and it cannot be logically or intuitively discerned as such, then for all intent, it is not equal. We even see it in the numbers of adults living with children by sexuality. The homosexual (masturbatory) element of “bisexuality” lowers the generative process, likely converting a proportion into the masturbatory process. This by any definition is degeneration of the generative process (heterosexuality). This is truly the origin of heteronormativity: Nature. By this measure, bisexuality is just “gay” and “fake”.

Furthermore, what characterizes alleged bisexuality in a man who is in a relationship with a woman? Besides this relationship, would this man be willing to engage in homosexual intercourse with another man? We have defined it here roughly as “masturbatory degeneration”, but such acts would include: sucking on a penis until ejaculation; stroking a penis until ejaculation; inserting a penis into a man’s anus until ejaculation; having another man insert his penis into the anus until ejaculation. All of these acts seem extremely and obviously gay from an intuitive perspective, and from this point no rescue from logic is possible.

Since this homosexual element of bisexuality is necessary as a component, not being willing, capable, or acting in such a manner would disqualify the bisexual claimant from such a claim. But in contrast if they do claim to be willing, able, or acting in that manner, they are intuitively gay, thus revealing a Catch-22 situation.

Instead if we scale it like so, where sexuality is termed the generative process, you would have heterosexuality at the top left of a graph with a slope downwards towards the bottom right, called the degeneracy slope. At the bottom right would be Pure Masturbators, in the most mentally ill configuration possible. Somewhere in between would be lesser degenerates until the upper limit where generative processes operate without any masturbatory elements.

Heterosexuals do engage in masturbatory processes however, to varying degrees, but given they are heterosexuals, never do they engage in homosexuality. At the mid point of the slope would be the homosexual-turning-point. Below such a point is non-generative (or as the data shows, 4-5X less  generative than heterosexuality, and even then is the result of expensive treatments or “overflow” ).

As you can see in the image, I’ve placed a theoretical line of bisexuality in the middle, along with the line defined in sum as willingness to suck a penis. However, this activity places the so-called “bisexual” into the realm of the “non-generative” or “intuitively gay” portion. At point 0,0 there is the CELIBATE, while at point 10,10 we have the ANTICELIBATE.

Likewise, at 0,10 we have the Theoretical Pure Generate, who would be solely focused on reproduction maximizing; whilst at 10,0 we have the Theoretical Pure Degenerate who would exist in a pure masturbatory state.

On the x-axis, left to right indicates increasing degeneracy, whilst the y-axis indicates increasing generative process. Anything in the red area (Generative) is intuitively straight, whilst the purple-pink area is intuitively gay. The areas are not to scale as most people are intuitively straight, and even of the intuitively gay, most are bisexuals or claim to be. The “Line of Sucking Penis” is along the same slope as “Bisexuality”, both laying in the section labelled “intuitively gay”.

The point 5,5 in the graph would be a relatively hypocritical claim of a moderately sexually degenerated person with lagging generativity. If a man in such a case is a penis sucker, he is in the purple zone, and if he is not then he is in the red zone. This we have the conundrum drawn before us. A woman sucking a penis can be either generative or degenerative depending on the purpose of the process, but a man doing so cannot be generative and so must be degenerate, thus intuitively gay. It should be noted that this graphic largely only applies to men, though it may be capable in limited ways to apply to women.

Since bisexuality is only theoretical, logic is not a useful way to consider the concept when it comes to men, so instead we must use our natural instinct and intuitions to make determination.

As for women, “bisexuality” can be better explained by female neuroses and emotions rather than actions. On the one hand a female’s sexual proclivities are focused on attention and cooperation dynamics, because women evolved to cooperate for survival, and differentiation from the group is an excellent strategy demonstration to attain attention, essentially guaranteeing survival. In other words the majority of female bisexuality is performative.

It is important to note that I am not disputing the existence of gays or lesbians, only bisexuals beyond the undiscovered theoretical bisexual unicorn at the end of the rainbow accompanied by a pot of gold. It’s simply intuition, dear reader.