If you search "non-reproductive sex” on Google Scholar, you’ll see that there’s been a lot of research on how the environment, prosperous or impoverished, affects our bodies’ reproductive/sexual and chemical make-up.
Poorer communities, such as some in Appalachia tend to have more children, so as to increase the chances of survival in an environment of limited resources. More affluent societies, such as Japan, experience the opposite. Time and energy are freed up for non-reproductive/non-survival pursuits. As a consequence, physiology and psychology both adapt to accommodate the environment.
We have a sexual drive. We have a social-interactive-interpersonal relationship drive. The benefits of a gender exclusive sexual drive lessen when a society becomes prosperous, and able to maintain its numbers with less effort. The benefits of a widened social-interactive-inerpersonal relationship drive remain, and even sharpen with a possible increase in population, due to a decrease in mortality. The inclusion of the sexual aspect is reasonable for the interpersonal drive, in such societies.
This is why I’m of the opinion that both exclusively straight, and exclusively gay sexual orientations will diminish with prosperity, and most people will eventually be bisexual.
This is, of course, dependent on an overall maintenance or upswing in prosperity.
I also don’t think this will happen within individuals, but more so on a generational level. Although simply anecdotal, I’ve witnessed that the current younger generation is already much more physically/sensually interactive without consideration to gender than the one before mine. It seems that in a couple more generations, sexual orientation will become laxer still.
No comments:
Post a Comment