Not that I want my blog to turn into a full on LGBT blog because I post one homosexual entry right after another, but it’s been on my mind lately.

What I notice most often when people are grossed about by homosexuality is really a reaction to gay men. Not so much lesbians or bisexual women. Now I don’t want to get any hate mail from lesbians who have been through the wringer in their life, but lets be honest, the mass majority of people are focusing on gay men. Most of the negative slang against homosexuality is male centric. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard some idiot on the internet proclaim that “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” when the phrase could likely have been “God made Adam and Eve not Ashley and Eve” or something to that affect. You also hear things like fudgepacker and even fag is most often pointed at gay men. Granted lesbians have dike. But I’ll take a wild guess and say that fag is more often used than dike in the world of homophobia.

So why is this? Does it have anything to do with our social outlook on men? The fact that we expect men to be the strong pillars of society and family and we go a little more gentle on women. Is it that men (the hornballs that we are) all want to mate with multiple wome (at the same time if possible) that we’ve just gotten used to the idea of two women being together? How many men blindly believe that if that lesbian just got a taste of their big throbbing cock that she’d turn away from the dark side? Is it just in the nature of humanity that people expect women to be more bisexual anyway? So as a result lesbians really aren’t a huge shock?

I think there may be something to all of this. If we take a look at human history we see countless cultures in which men have been with multiple women and even had multiple wives. Historically women have been the more submissive of the sexes. Biologically men can mate with and impregnate multiple women in a day if given the opportunity. Women have to be more selective due to their “value” biologically. They only have so many eggs in their lifetime. One per month on average from puberty till menopause in their late forties or early fifties. Their window of procreation is smaller than a males. Even smaller when you take into account that pregnancy after thirty five has greater risk for complications.

That said, you would think that such a scenario would lead to women ruling the world. But ultimately they must compete with each other for the more attractive men, just as men compete with each other for the more attracive women. This leads to women doing countless things to try and out-compete each other.

I like to say that men are the observers and women are the observed. In other words, men are the audience and women are the show. I once heard someone say the value of a women is in her existence, whereas the value of a man is in what he can do. Men compete for women by being harder workers, smarter, more successful, more stable, better leaders, good fathers, funny and stronger protectors. Their value is in what they can do and how they can outclass other men in those areas that women find important. Physical attractiveness ranks lower on the scale for most women than it does for men. So when I say that women are competing for more attractive men, I don’t just mean on looks. Often they are competing for well rounded men who are financially stable, physically fit, funny and charming. They are looking for good fathers for their children. Men who can provide for and protect their offspring and their woman.

In a world that has been predominately ruled by men, it is not unlikely that some women will be willing to share a single man who is all these things. Afterall, it’s better to get a piece of the pie than be with a man who has no pie. This can ultimately lead to women sleeping with each other for a variety of reasons. But before I get to that, I have to explain how the gender roles play out.

Naturally men are the providers and protectors and women are the caregivers. Men build the world and women populate it and use it. Men care about machines and structures and winning the hunt. Women care about people and relationships. As mothers they are naturally caregivers. They have to be soft and gentle. They have to be capable of understanding a range of emotions and be supportive. These things are important when taking care of children. Children are people afterall and people have a range of personalities and emotions. So women have been built with an ability to deal with these things. Their core mind is based on their biological role.

This may an oversimplification of the facts. We all know women sho don’t fit these traits well. But that’s not to say that it’s wrong to oversimplfy and stereotype in this way, it tends to be the norm which is why the stereotype exists. But that said, nature is diverse and as a result, so are people. Not everyone fits into the stereotype perfectly. But when you look at it from this mile high view it’s easier to understnad why most societies have been patriarcal. It’s not that men have supressed women, it’s that men have built the societies, the governments, the laws, the roads, the fortresses and the public works. Men have gone to war to protect and expand empires. All so that they can better protect and provide for their women and their children. So that their women can bring children into a safer world with food and shelter and an easier life. That’s the role that men naturally play.

I had often wondered why it was that the womens rights movement didn’t happen until the modern western world. Had women really been that oppressed throughout history? If so why didn’t they rise up thousands of years ago? Then the answer hit me like a ton of bricks. Women didn’t view themselves as oppressed. They viewed men and women as naturally playing different roles in the world. It was only after world war II in an advanced and economically sound United States that women began to burn their bras and ask for more. A shift began to happen. Men had created a society that was safe and plentiful with modern easy living. They had paved the way for the feminist movement to occur. In a harsher world it would have been more difficult for women to gain these rights. Even today it’s not that safe for a woman to walk down the street at night on her own. Even today women struggle with a work/family balance. The answer to that last part has come mostly due to women having less children then they would in the past. The reason for that is modern medicine. Children have a lower mortality rate today than they ever did. It’s only through these modern advancements that the womens rights movement could have occured. Yet many women today still desire a more classical scenario where they can stay at home and raise their children while depending on a stable man to provide and protect. Not because they view themselves as less than a man, but because they find that to be a more natural scenario. It’s hard to breed out tens of thousands of years of gender roles in a few decades. It could also be argued that if modern society collapsed and we lost our technological advantage, that humanity would return to its classic gender roles faster than you can spit. That would be the end of feminism.

So what does all of this have to do with targeting gay men more than lesbians? Everything.

As I stated above, women seek men who can do more for them. A mans value is in what he can do. A woman need only exist. She relies on attracting a man not with what she can do so much as how she looks. If she is young and beautiful she stands a greater chance of finding a more desirable man. Her youth means she has more time to have more children, her beauty is a reflection of what her children can potentially look like. All people naturally like beautiful things. All men what beautiful children. Beauty has value. If a man has beautiful daughters they are more likely to have offspring with men who are more valuable in society. So the cycle continues. Even attractive sons have more value so long as they also inherit their fathers charactertics and skills.

So it may be harsh to say that historically we’ve never expected much from women. We expect them to be beautiful, faithful and good mothers. From that we wish them to be good cooks, housekeepers and lovers. But those last three aren’t deal breakers if they aren’t. We certainly haven’t expected women to be breadwinners, protectors, leaders or innovators. That’s just not where we have put value in women. Those values we reserve for men.

It’s do to this more submissive caregiving nature that women have, that we have given them more liberty in homosexuality. We almost expect them to be bisexual because of their natural tendancy to be more emotional and people oriented. They use their physical closeness as a way to expressing these nurturing qualities, first with children but that carries over with adults as well. Even other females. They do afterall nurture and raise both males and females, so it’s not odd for us to view them as being close to both, physically and emotionally.

But that’s just one aspect of it. Nature often provides us with more than one reason for why it does something.

The other asepct has to do once again with biology and the way that men and women work.

Strictly from a biological standpoint a woman always knows a child is hers. She carries that child until birth. So it doesn’t matter how many other women a man sleeps with, she most definitely knows it is her child. However a man isn’t so sure. He can sleep with a woman and she can become pregnant, but he can’t be one hundred percent sure that the child she carries is his. She could have had a fling with another man when he was out. He can either lock her away from other men or he can trust her. Guys throughout history have done both.

So technically speaking, women can share a single man easier than men can share a single woman. Men want to care for their offspring. To ensure it’s their offspring they don’t want any other men involved. So it’s more likely that man would have multiple woman or wives than for a woman to have multiple men simply based on this biological fact alone. And that certianly has happened in many cultures throughout history. From plural marriages to harems of women for the sultan alone. It’s in these situations that female homosexuality can grow or be encourage. A man in a patriarchal society has nothing to fear from his two wives getting it on with each other. Either with him or on their own. They can even both be pregnant with his children while they do so. Women on the other hand have little to gain from two men in the same household. While she may have more income, more protection and a greater variety of breeding partners, ultimately she can only be pregnant with one mans child at a time and this can lead to the other man leaving or the two men fighting it out for dominance. She also has to live with the fear that both men naturally being men will want to spread their seed and far as they can. So she runs the risk of losing both to other women. Most especially the man whose child she is not pregnant with.

Another reason can simply be that women understand men naturally want to spread their seed far and wide. So they lure attractive men in with their willness to share with other women. Either they do it because they want to be a cool wife and gain points with their man and/or because they naturally are bisexual themselves and it gives them an opportunity to explore their sexuality. They potentially risk their man going off with the other woman, but they weigh that risk against any cool points they may gain and hope their man sees that and sticks with them knowing they can have variety while sticking with her. This is a scenario that can potentially work for everyone. For a smart man it’s certainly a golden situation to be in.

It’s for all of these reasons throughout human history that female bisexuality has been exceptable. With such a long history of female bisexualty being acceptable it’s hard for men (and even other women) to see women as strictly lesbian. It’s almost like we can’t accept that idea and always believe that eventually they’ll turn around and want a man to have children with. In truth this does in fact happen many times. Younger women will experiment with their bisexuality and may even call themselves lesbians because they dated a girl in college, but by their thrities they’re married to a man and having his children.

For men however, things are different. Men are not viewed as nurturing caregivers. Historically their is little precedence for two men sharing a woman in a graceful manner and adapting to bisexual tendancies based on that living/sleeping/sexual arrangement. There have been very few if any queens who have kept harems of men for their sexual pleasure. Nor does it make sense for a woman to have so many men to produce offspring with her, when she is limited to carrying only one mans child at a time. For all of these reasons male homosexuality has less natural and social incentive to exist. Which is why it makes sense when I hear of studies that claim that women as a whole tend to be more bisexual, whereas men on the whole tend to hover closer to one end of the spectrum or the other. Most often on the straight end. Deep inside of us we know this. Which is why it’s more jarring for us to see two men kissing or fucking than it is to see two women doing it.

Yet strangely we would almost expect men to be more likely to do this based purely on male sex drive alone. That overpowering, brain altering testosterone that has made some men stick their willies in farm animals for relief. It is probably for this sole reason alone that male bisexuality does exist. An over powered sex drive.

But there is also one last important factor. We separate the genders and our expectations for them based on their natural dispositions. For women that is submission, caregiving, beauty/sexiness. For men that is strong, workerbee types and leaders. To view a male in a submissive sexual role is almost to view him as a female. We put greater weight in leadership, strength and dominance than we do in submission. We view submission in females as a normal and natural trait. Part of her role as caregiver and nurturer. Plus she often has a male to act as her dominate protector and breadwinner. They work as a team. But we view submission in males as a weakness. Afterall, men compete for women by being stronger, better protectors, smarter, better leaders, etc. So for a male to be submissive is for a male to fail at being a male. As women are the more biologically valuable, a male taking another male is almost like a sign of defeat that he cannot score a female. This is of course not what most of us personally think, I’m talking more about our subconscious hive mind as a whole society.

Last but not least, we put a lot of emphasis on pentration. We view penetrating as a dominate force. Which is why our society finds it so difficult to deal with males who may have been raped by females. It just seems odd to us. But we’ll easily call a male a rapist simply for having a penis and being with the wrong woman who felt cheated and decided to be a super bitch and yell rape after the consentual encounter with said male.
So to see or even think about a male being penetrated by another male we call foul. We said it’s cheating. That males aren’t allowed to do that. Many will even throw out the word “unnatural” because of biology and then go home and have anal sex with their wife. So it really has less to do with the physical penetration itself and more to do with what it stands for. Submission.

Male homosexuality isn’t bad or even unnatural. It certainly occurs. Humans are fluid creatures and nature is diverse. Its just that based on biology, typical natural gender roles as a result of that biology and society based on both those, we are less inclined to accept male homosexuality when we see it as a whole. Thats why two guys kissing can be offputting and create such controversy whereas two women kissing is not as big of deal ultimately.

Even in the swinging community male homosexuality is often frowned upon but bisexual women are treated as golden godesses.

It does sort of make sense when you break it all down like this. But this wasn’t entirely scientific. Just based on history and observations froma wide angle perspective, not a microscope. I reserve the right for all of this to be wrong. But somehow I doubt it.