If we lived in a society that held bisexual relationships up as the norm in sexual relations, would people who only prefer sex with one partner of either the same or opposite sex be treated as badly as homosexuals are in our heterosexual culture?
I don’t know if that is even a debate, to me it is an obvious ‘yes’. I would assume in that culture religious figures would pick & choose biblical quotes to justify bisexualism and condemn single sex preferences as evil, immoral and against God’s will and the NIMH would consider single sex preference to be a sign of mental illness or genetic defects and recommend treating it with hormone therapy or cognitive therapy.
To me its obvious that it would be like that, does anyone have differing opinions?
I don’t see any reason it would HAVE to be like that, any more than a predominately heterosexual society HAS to be homo- and biphobic. It’s all up to the specific culture of the society and what they choose to regard as abnormal. A liberal bisexual society might see one-sex attraction as a mere quirk.
Ah. A tolerant bisexual culture would, so I guess that is what it comes down to. Its not the mainstream sexual preference, just how mainstread tolerance is.
We’ve seen cultures that do mark sexuality much differently than we do. For example classical Greece and Rome. While not really “bisexual” in the modern sense, they might be calle dthat by a casual observer. There’s a complicated code that’s more about who’s on top than which genders are involved.
The reality is, the demands of human reproduction, and the social importance of inheritance, means that heterosexual marriage will still be the dominant pair bond. As long as you provide your heir, no one cares what you’re doing on the side (for the men, at least).
Exclusive homosexuals will be seen as twisted hedonists. Exclusive heterosexuals are a bit prudish, at worse.
It would depend (gee ain’t that a surprise…); after all our own civilization’s traditional societal norm of what is “deviant” sexuality did not spring full-blown off the top of the head of Calvin or Augustine, it evolved through a whole series of complex layerings going all the way back even before “culture” to the behavior patterns of hominid primates. We did not just one day decide heterosexual mating is the norm – it WAS the norm and then social constructs of law and mores and taboos were built around that.
Even the degree of influence-of and/or reference-to religious orthodoxy in addressing issues of social morality is itself historically contingent. Not every religion on Earth shares the J-C-I inclination towards behavioral or doctrinal legalism, and even then, major World Religions tend to be very much (small-c)catholic, as in, they incorporate a lot of the established taboos and mores and syncretize them into the religion.
Oddly enough, the OP is exactly the premise of one whole particularly lame episode of the earlier seasons of Star Trek: TNG (and I mean particularly lame even for the earlier seasons of STTNG).
Homosexuality was quite common in Rome or Greece. It is also common in several forms of life aside from humans, so the idea that heterosexuality is the norm is not true, it does have a biological purpose but it is also a side effect of socialization.
And there are no lame episodes of STTNG. There are just varying degrees of brilliant from life changing to merely entertaining.
Cite. Or better yet, please clarify if you mean “homosexuality” or “having sex with males on occasion.”
The fact that an alternative exists doesn’t mean heterosexuality isn’t the norm. That’s like saying righthandedness isn’t the norm because some people are lefties. Unless you are trying to get at something about sexual orientations being a social construct, as opposed to just sexual behavior, I think you’re wrong here.
Heterosexuality is the norm, I’m not denying that and I meant to imply that ‘intolerance to homosexuality it not the norm’ in my post. Heterosexuality has a biological compontent that homosexuality doesn’t have. But JRDelirious’s post seemed to imply that an intolerance of homosexuality was more ingrained than it really is.
If you ended up, say, married to one person, that person is going to be (am I opening a can of worms here?) male or female. Since I think many people tend toward serial monogamy, it seems that society would have a tough time maintaining any condemnation of it.
Though monosexists might be looked at a bit like vegetarians or anyone else who voluntarily refuses some aspect of pleasure that is readily available to them.
The first doesn’t answer the question I asked - it just says “male homosexuality was common in Ancient Greece” - and the second says things like “In ancient Rome homosexuality is thought to be just an option” and “I do not believe viri made the distinction we do today about homosexuality.” That makes me think they are not talking about an orientation, just the behavior. Homosexual sex, not homosexuality, if you will. Men had sex with men regularly, but did a lot of them go exclusively with men? Doesn’t seem like it. I realize this sounds like a nitpick, I’m just trying to be accurate.
Wrong, the point was that the development of a pattern of intolerance for divergence from the norm is more complicated that what your OP “seemed to imply”. In that OP in fact YOU predict religiously-justified intolerance for monosexuals in a bisexual society, under the apparent premise of a culture exactly like ours, even right down to the attitudes towards “the different”, except that the norm is bisexuality – but my point is there’s a problem with that, since by the time you get to the point bisexuality is the norm, so many of the steps taken in the past will have had to change that it would *not be * a culture exactly like ours, even extending to its religious attitudes so the prediction is unreliable. As you yourself have pointed out, even right here and now there are different cultures with different attitudes.
And please, the only redeeming quality of the first 2 seasons was Q.
In our own society, many a “normal” heterosexual is attracted to, not every member of the opposite sex, but only certain types—say, people of a particular race or body type. Such people would be considered, at worst, prejudiced, but hardly evil or mentally ill. Given that, I find it hard to imagine a scociety in which a preference for a particular sex would be looked down upon.
Being turned on by something that other people consider oogy tends to be condemned far more than not being turned on by something.
I have met bisexuals who had that opinion in this set of cultures. I am not personally willing to extrapolate to whether they would dominate in a culture that defaulted to bi, as I suspect that a good deal of that, for many of them, is coming from a lot of hostility to bisexuals for being queer and also for not fitting into a tidy categorisation.
Being bisexual, I can honestly say, a part of me will never understand people that are straight or gay. It doesn’t click for me. I don’t truly understand, regardless of how many times they tells me, why my boyfriend isn’t attracted to men or my female roommates wouldn’t want to have sexual/romantic relationships with women. But to me, whatever floats their boats, it’s not any of my business. However, I’m a pretty easy going person. In a society where most people where bisexual, not everyone would be as open minded as I am, I have to assume. I’m not sure if non-bisexuals would be seen as sick, but definately as prudes. And I’m sure that some people would see them as sick, as to some people, being different is all it takes to be evil.
If things were different, would they be different? Yes. Probably.
In a culture where (open)bisexuality was the norm, exclusive heterosexuality might just be regarded as just a fetish or obsession.
In a culture where (open)bisexuality was the norm, and observance of this was backed up by religious tradition and dogma, to which groups of people were fervently subscribed, yeah, of course exclusive heterosexuality would be picked on.