yes, I'm pretty certain straight men don't realise they are targeted by lesbians.  Any more than we women realised we were being targeted by gays.

It is a deception.  I was naive enough to think no one would lie about such an important thing when it came to a relationship.

I think with my ex there wasn't anything scary about coming out of the closet, he's just like a hermit crab - would you ask a hermit crab to do without a shell to live in?  Closet comes first.  I never saw him grieving over a lost boyfriend, I don't think.

Ordinary guy wrote:

I think the best way to explain it is like this.

It is possible for people to be attracted sexually to a person as an individual.
It is possible for people to be emotionally attracted to another person irrespective of sex.
It Is possible for people to be sexually attracted to the same sex, but emotionally attracted to opposite sex only.
It is possible for people to be emotionally and sexually attracted to anyone and everyone.
It Is possible for people to have no sexual attraction to anyone.
It is possible for people to lie about, and to themselves for their own reasons.

The key thing to understand is the last point.

Elle 👍
 

Last edited by Ellexoh_nz (July 2, 2024 8:29 pm)

lily wrote:

Hi Ordinary guy,  nice to see you posting again.  hope things are going well for you.
No, not really. But, I do very much appreciate your asking.

There is an important statement to make which is a fundamental truth. It applies to all answers to all questions posed in terms of human sexual and romantic behaviour. 
“Nothing can exist to persist in evolutionary terms, that is not of a benefit to the survival of a species”.

Yes, understanding that people lie about their sexuality would have helped me a lot - I had no idea anybody would lie about something so important to their own happiness let alone yours.
People will very much lie to pursue and maintain their own happiness. If the person in question believes that something about them makes them socially unacceptable, or possibly even an outcast, then lying to mask this issue is entirely acceptable to them and their social survival. They will actually be more inclined to partner with someone who is trusting and will be unlikely to become hostile to them should whatever truth they mask become clear at a later date. Often straight partners are highly empathetic and caring people in their own right. Your own happiness is of tertiary concern after their own. and that of their social circle.

Just not right is it.  
For you no, obviously not. For him in this question, yes.

My ex's big excuse was - 'I never asked to be born'.
This is a concern. This is something that those with NPD tend to use as a defence when their NPD is highly vulnerable and they are unable to frame themselves in any situation without donning the defence of victim status. The victim status is a very strong position to be in, as it means that any actions taken by them can be justified internally. They will feel little or no guilt if the actions are justifiable to themselves. It is always someone, or something’s fault why something occurred. Because this view of themselves is fixed in their neurology, they can never develop emotionally through learning from their own mistakes. It can be neurological due to trait psychopathy, or developmental occurring mainly in early childhood. As in, a child who is punished and admonished for making mistakes without receiving parental nurture to help them understand why and how. The fear of being wrong, and or, making mistakes at all becomes a part of their psychology with the overwhelming need to avoid punishment.

I think the key thing to recognise is that for a straight it's all lined up - you want to have babies, you want to have sex with the opposite sex, you want a lifelong monogamous partner.
The first two statements, while being true are actually synonymous with each other. The concept of human monogamy is an artificial and very recent concept in evolutionary terms. The idea of monogamy is based in the foundation that two people will care for each other and any offspring as a priority toward joint genetic survival. On one hand, you can have a sexual partner who you may seek to breed with, while having an emotional partner who will care for and provide for you as long as there is joint interest in this arrangement. It is possible for you to feel very strong sexual desire for a person, but this is tempered by the knowledge that it could mean the break-up of another, and potentially more important emotional bond. Which leads to the question “If they really loved me, then they would not have slept with ……. ?” Infidelity in itself is actually viewed slightly differently in relationships between men and women. Women fear an emotional affair more than a purely physical one. With men fearing the physical, for obvious reasons.

If you want to have babies, you want to have sex with the same sex, you want a lifelong monogamous partner - well something is going to have to give, isn't it.
I harsh terms, yes. It is you who has to give I am afraid.

 The writing is on the wall.  This has been going on for a long time.  The only way it could get to the situation we have nowadays where there are what looks to me like a preponderance of people with same sex attraction is because they have been making babies by having sex with the opposite sex.  something's got to give, hasn't it.
A long time indeed. Probably for many millions of years. The truth is that there would have been very many people in the past who had a same sex attraction but were not able to allow this to be known or practiced. It is only in very recent times where this has become more acceptable. There is no evidence to support the theory that homosexual attraction is genetic. It has more it seems, to do with the developmental environment and possibly birth order. The birth order theory does have validity in evolutionary terms regarding the survival rates of children in large extended families, where some siblings free from their own breeding concerns are available to help and assist in rearing and protecting family members. You have to bear in mind that what we regard as modern society from the agrarian revolution stage is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Most of human evolutionary development was driven by the need to work together in social groups to increase the chance of survival in a world full of environmental pathogens.

Biologically speaking, going back into the mists of time before there were any animals let alone humans, there weren't two sexes, it was bits of seaweed breaking off and becoming a new plant, stuff like that - cloning.  I wish some biologist would write a book explaining how it came to be two sexes, I will never forget the doves who I saw from when they first started their courtship.  It was when I lived in the rainforest - they were dancing on a big fan palm frond right by my office window.  All was going swimmingly, there must have been a nest with eggs in it somewhere close, and then the male died.  The female wandered around the courtyard calling for him for weeks and weeks and then I think she must have died too, anyway I didn't see her again.  It was heartbreaking listening to her cries.  If you just clone yourself it's pretty simple emotionally in that you can't lose your partner at all.

This is the harsh reality and beauty of evolution in action. The image of “cloning” you have is the simple act of simple life forms multiplying but not effectively reproducing. Effective reproduction happens when there is an increased chance of genetic mutation, or the selective reproduction of favourable genetic characteristics. A species who simply multiplies does not evolve until a mutation happens that results in an increased chance of that individual and hence the species of surviving. If a species evolves through mutation to the point where two sets of slightly differing genetic material are brought together, then the evolutionary development of that species increases exponentially. This is multiplied when the individuals of the species screen for such genetic opportunities. The doves you mention are a product of this evolutionary process. They are following a program that is built in to their DNA to seek a suitable genetic match to then breed in a way that increases their offspring’s chances of carrying their own genetic material forwards. The mating rituals of all animals are all geared to this end. To find and mate in a way that increases their own and their species’ chances of survival. There are traits and specialisms in their own niche evolution that require this. 
 For humans, the genetic trait that drove their development in evolutionary terms is one that seems so obvious, and is actually somehow incredibly niche. Intelligence. You see, this is what gave us an evolutionary advantage over organisms that are faster, stronger, more numerous, and far older In evolutionary terms to us. The starting point for this is probably linked to the moment where we jumped down from the trees into the grasslands. Stood on our hind legs and freed up our hands. With these hands, we could carry and manipulate objects. Fashion tools, and most importantly manipulate and master our environment rather than having to simply adapt to it. It is the female of the species that screens for intelligence for breeding purposes. There are character traits that she will look for in a potential mate which are by and large the same across the board. If the physical traits are present in a man’s attractiveness then the list goes like this usually. Sense of humour, kindness, strength, gentleness, caring, self control, honesty, fortitude and love. There are other traits individuals will screen for, but you get the idea. Women look for the perfect man for them. Men are less choosy I am afraid, being more visual in general with a desire to find maternal qualities in their mate. Most of the things on the list indicate, and point to two characteristics that seem to be important. Intellectual and emotional intelligence. There doesn’t seem to be any need to screen for homosexual or other form of same sex attraction. There is no evolutionary need to. 


 

Last edited by Ordinary guy (July 4, 2024 9:11 am)

lily wrote:

“Nothing can exist to persist in evolutionary terms, that is not of a benefit to the survival of a species”.

uh?  where do you stand on something like a cleft palate, for instance?  It might not be a serious problem but is it a benefit to the survival of our species?   bandy legs and knock knees can be extreme enough to really hamper a person.  Big noses - you know I reckon there are probably people who are attracted to big noses, but how many people get their noses surgically reduced?

If the genetic traits are of benefit to the survival of the individual and therefore the species then natural selection means that they have an increased chance of being passed on to the next generation. Minor defects that do not unduly affect the survival rate can be passed on to the next generation due to the fact that they are not hampering the individual’s capacity to survive and breed. You have to be in it, to win it. If bandy legs and knock knees gave our ancestors an advantage then this would become the norm for ourselves in time. We are talking about the effects seen over millions of years. If something was beneficial, it would exist and persist. If it was detrimental it would not.

Look I'm just scratching the surface here, evolution is pretty simple isn't it - it is about who has sex with who that makes the next generation.  And though plenty of it, like anti-bodies for the latest diseases, is good not everything that gets passed on is of benefit to the survival of the species.

I just don't think it's right to deceive someone into a sexual relationship.  sorry, just no.  Did it bring him happiness?  of course not.  He was living with a woman, and even worse he was sharing his life with a woman who loved him - in terms of bringing him happiness it was all wrong for him.  Just as much as it was for me.

Of course it isn’t right. But, it does happen as we well know. I don’t see how living with a woman who loved him would be detrimental to his happiness. Trust me, I would take that all day! 

 The concept of human monogamy is an artificial and very recent concept in evolutionary terms. 

So those doves I talked about are monogamous because they have an artificial concept?  

They don’t have a concept of human monogamy. They are doves. They pair bond as a result of evolution. By being in a pair bond, it increases their chances of successful breeding. Also, if one or both of them had a trait or defect that meant that they could not breed and raise young successfully, then the pair bond would result in this defect not being passed to future generations via different partners.
We have a set of emotions that support monogamy - jealousy being one of them.  If you have those monogamous emotions then if your partner forms a romantic or sexual relationship with someone else it hurts.  Essentially it means somethings gone wrong in the relationship so it is fix it or move on and however it was we got to it, that is the point where so many of us are when we arrive on this forum - hanging in the straps trying to get our deceptive spouse to come clean to us about who they are and how they feel, and getting a lot of smoke instead.

that was a nice long interesting post you wrote, OG, thank you. I enjoyed reading it but have to admit I ended up thinking a lot of your view is slanted towards being married lesbian friendly.

What part of my post is slanted to being married lesbian friendly Lily? I am willing to entertain any theory, it is how we learn, after all.






 

The point is about the possibilities associated with the identity of bisexuality Lily. A lesbian by definition is not. I do believe that many lesbians continue to live with men due to a variety of factors. This doesn’t make them bisexual. I am sure that a great many hetero married lesbians would be able to find flaws in their husbands. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Ultimately, they made a decision to either live, or continue to live a lie. If the husband believes that his lesbian wife is a valid life partner it is up to him in respect to what he needs from the relationship. To attach any blame on him for dissatisfaction in the relationship is a symptom of delusion or a plausible denial.
Trust me. Due to my experience of abuse, I am literally the last man on earth who would be lesbian friendly.