Viva logo


'Cause the evolutionary way of 'doing it' is much too mainstream for some. But if you spice it up with some ideology—ta-da, sexuality is a choice.

By Maura DudasPublished 6 years ago 6 min read
Original Artwork by @Morcika96

Hold up and onto your pantyhose, because this has blown away mine.

Rumour has it women are hardwired to be gay...and heterosexuality is a choice. And all feminists or those who are serious about being proclaimed feminists should defy the penis God and pray to the vagina God ONLY. Out of choice.

Outlandish as it is, this idea is not new. A group called revolutionary feminists have coined the notion that men are the enemy during the sixties when the movement of sexual liberation was booming. The ideological basis of this great idea lies upon the fact that every part of the heterosexual relationship benefits the man and through that the patriarchy and male supremacy. From penetration to simply being with a man violates the natural existence of women as humans. They even argue that sexuality has no genetic determinants.

Not only does this completely diminish the idea that sexuality is not to be chosen but is predetermined, which was a fact blared by the gay community for obvious reasons; but it makes little sense to vilify men just because there are some whose behaviour is far from female-friendly or because women as heterosexuals had less liberties back in the day.

Revolutionary feminism saw men as the evil oppressors and women who did not defy their own heterosexuality as allies in enabling male toxic behaviour. Setting off from this mind-bending logistical maneuver they themselves have given up on their own love of men and willingly reinforced the lines of lesbians. It begs the question whether this helps anyone's cause but that of the individual or of a small minority.

I doubt that gay people were happy that what they struggled to accept and what they tried to convince the general public of their whole life some people just took up as a hobby out of having been disappointed in the opposite sex. This clearly stated that 'real' gayness is not a thing, but depends on one's whim. I doubt it did any good to the women who simply wanted a decent man to have sworn (essentially) celibacy, either. I also have qualms about this being the optimal way to navigate the world of men instead of trying to understand it and dismantle it from within.

According to their motto 'All women can be lesbians'—sexuality was as fluid as it gets. I concur women are more liberal towards trying novel sexual experiences with people of the same sex than men in general may be but that does not necessarily convert them from being heterosexual. This is why conversion therapy is bs. For example, surface level conformity can happen, it isn't unprecedented, but that does not change the innermost sexual preference of a person. To call this 'choice' converting is probably not a fitting term since had they been presented with a prime member of the opposite sex, they would probably feel sexual attraction towards men again. Superficially claiming to agree with RF ideas makes their commitment equal to celibacy, their choice more conformity than a real decision

I fail to see, especially in light of the series of atrocities some openly gay people put up with, why someone would disgrace their effort by willingly resenting dicks—male genitalia, not the people with trash for personality, for which or for the opposite of which gay people were persecuted for.

Revolutionary feminists deemed P in V sex 'mainstream' and with a teenage girl's angst rebelled against the box that most people belonged to. What they forgot is that those people residing in the box labelled 'hetero' were put there for evolutionary reasons: to procreate. Hurt as it might, every lesbian was a product, in some way or another, of heterosexual copulation.

This simple fact, that the male and female representatives of a species are necessary for the creation of offspring is clearly observable in nature. While in a way being gay goes against ensuring long-term reproductive success, it is not abnormal or unnatural—especially for humans. There are individuals in other species too who, to curb overpopulation, will no longer mate with opposite sex members. This can be caused by drastically limited resources where bringing more mouths to feed into the world would not serve anyone's benefit. Simple. Straightforward. Homosexuality actually fits into evolution very nicely and has various explanations for its existence other than to be economic.

Even in the animal kingdom it is demonstrated that sexual acts, including homosexual ones, do not always serve the single purpose of procreation. It is also used to achieve a higher position in a colony, establish bonds, or gain favours as well as obviously to receive pleasure. Most of these species temporarily choose same sex connections for their advantage, but when a chance presents itself would then engage in heterosexual behaviour. The only two species to have been found to maintain homosexuality, even in an abundance of opposite sex individuals, are humans and sheep.

And here's the essence of the argument; gay sheep have brains that are structured slightly differently. Therefore their lifelong preference for the dongs, since in this case we're talking about male-on-male pairs, is derived of a genetic or at least neurological factor.

As we observed these species engaged in same sex behaviour as a compromise to win a favour. However, they do not defy their own genetically determined sexuality for the sake of nonsensical ideologies. After all, what can be the advantage of being a lesbian if you don't even get any?

I can see where they are coming from. The experiences some of them want to run from, however, are not bound to a sexuality. Fleeing a mediocre life as a housewife has never been more easy since we can access education. We can, if we want to, rise above men in academic achievements. It may still be a men's world but it is becoming less so. It isn't because masses have sworn celibacy and projected all of their problems onto men. It is because we have a voice now that we achieved without having to lose our integrity. This generation takes this for granted and I can't seem to fathom how in the sixties, in the midst of flower power, in the midst of preaching acceptance and belongingness, this hateful movement survived and how greater problems of the era seemed not to enjoy prevalence for these people.

I also understand that it seems thwarted at best to spend your time fighting for women out of the love for your own gender but that does not have to mean you have to deny yourself fulfillment as a sexual being or that sleeping with man in any case weakens your faith in your cause or your integrity to be an advocate for women's rights and freedom.

To me, somehow, these radical ideologies always horseshoe back in on themselves. Revolutionary feminists fighting for liberation from the male sex end up oppressing themselves by adopting a dogmatic ideology. Men will sleep with women who are not pretend-lesbians anyway so the whole movement is just a bunch of mostly bitter heteros, suffering in celibacy, chanting their own Vs over Ps hymns, trying to convince each other, the world, and mostly themselves that they don't need that peen.

I have a barrel full of better ideas that might've been more productive in actually aiding women's freedom instead of political lesbianism. For example, actually helping women who are being raped by their husbands, strangers, friends on the street, whose bodies are truly violated by the males; helping child brides not marry their own father and prevent these girls from ever having to compete with their own mother for his favour; standing up for the women who get sentenced to death because they stabbed a man who forced themselves on them while her own family watched and held her down so she couldn't fight back.

The sixties was not exempt from issues of sexism or racism or other worldly struggles. I'm quite convinced that had these self-proclaimed political lesbians spent a little less time feeling sorry for themselves for not being successful as heterosexuals, more could've been done for the liberation and support of other women all around the world.

Who suffered because they couldn't be themselves as homosexuals or because they truly lived in a patriarchy...


About the Creator

Maura Dudas

Studying Psychology, getting angry about issues on the web, addressing social conundrums concerning humans that surround me. And just pointing out my subjective majestic opinion. :) Film buff, artsy, reader - I do art too @morcika96

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights


There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.