Bear with me here. I haven't quite formulated a theory here yet, it is more like a jumble of thoughts, and it is 4:30 AM here. I have never fully accpeted the genetic description of sexual orientation. In my eyes, there is too much ecidence to suggest social conditioning. Not conclusively, or exclusively, but enough to not allow me to accept the genetic explanation. On the other hand, I have never accepted the homophobic arguments that homosexuality is some sort of social disease or disorder. This has kind of left me standing in the middle looking around me and getting a little dizzy. I read something on the philosophy forum that, while I have no clue if it has any factual basis, gat me thinking. Someone said something along the lines of: "The reason you don't hear about homosexuality in ancient texts, stories and social systems is not because it didn't exist, but because they just didn't have a name for it. It wasn't something that was out of the ordinary at all, it was just the norm, so there was no need to name it. Hell, just look at ancient Greece and Rome!" "Hmmmmmmm....", thought I, "That is certainly something to think about." And it stuck with me. Well. I HAVE been thinking about it, and I think I have come to a conclusion that satisfies me. Heterosexuality is a social disorder. Brought upon by religion and moralists developing and fostering the social stigma associated with homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is a natural instinctive rebellious response to attempted oppression of natural urges along with other social and developmental factors. The biggest argument I see people having against this is that homosexuality is not natural. The strongest instinct in all animals is reproduction (arguably of course, but that is the current scientific explanation of evolution) and humans are an animal that require both sexes to reproduce. Male + Female = Baby. Well, I have to admit, they have a valid point in that argument, however, that says nothing about bisexuality. Sure, rate and successfulness of reproduction is the most important factor in the survival of a species, but bisexuality would not threaten that at all. Think about this: Males are sexual, even when females are not menstruating. Stimulation of the prostate feels gooood. Females are sexual even when they are not menstruating. Pheremones seem to be asexual (meaning that female pheremones arouse both males and females and vice versa). I had other reasoning, but I can't quite conjure them up right now. If males have sex with males AND females it does not inhibit the reproductivity of the species. Nor does it if females have sex with both males and females. I can think of no physical scientfic argument against bisexuality being natural. Maybe there is some truth to the notion that all people are born bisexual, and whether they sway to homosexuality, heterosexuality or stay bisexual is a direct result of social conditioning. The most open minded people I have ever met have been bisexual. Most heterosexuals have, at one point, either experimented with, fantasized about or wondered about homosexuality. Many of the lesbians I have met (probably most) have had some traumatic sexual experience(s) involving men in their past (more often than not, during their early developmental stages). (this is MY personal experience. I am not purporting it to ring true for all or even most people) I am too tired to take this further right now. This could be a well established theory already that I have just not heard. Or I could be completely off my gourd and loopy from lack of sleep and too much time at the philosophy forum. Any thoughts on this?