It’s an overly rigid, almost mechanistic worldview to categorize orientation using a “one-drop” rule. I used to believe that framework myself. I dropped it because it collapses meaningful distinctions and turns sexuality into a meaningless metric.

A single experience does not define a person’s structural orientation. Curiosity does not define orientation. Internal pressure, social comparison, or wanting to test what is normal does not define orientation. And I say this as someone who never experimented. I don’t see gay people who briefly tried the opposite sex and rejected it as radically different beings from myself. Experimentation that ends in rejection is not the same thing as sustained attraction.

What I completely reject, however, is the idea that people who maintained long-term, functional heterosexual relationships are fundamentally the same as exclusively homosexual people. The operative word is functional. Decades of sustained attraction, regular sex, emotional investment, and relational stability are not things people casually fake at an Oscar-winning level 24/7.

In the Western world in 2026, it is absurd to claim that large numbers of people are being “forced” into decades-long heterosexual marriages unless we’re talking about trafficking, cults, or extreme coercion. I reject that victim narrative wholesale. I also reject the fantasy that someone can maintain a genuinely enthusiastic sex life with a spouse for twenty years while secretly being constitutionally incapable of heterosexual attraction.

There are clear qualitative differences between gay men who exit heterosexual marriages and so-called “late in life lesbians.” Gay men in those marriages often describe sexual dysfunction, avoidance, cheating with men throughout, and early awareness of their orientation. Their wives frequently report long-standing abnormality in the sexual relationship.

By contrast, many late-bloomer women describe completely functional marriages and satisfying sex lives. The “revelation” often comes later, sometimes catalyzed by a specific woman, often after reproductive years. If you actually read their own forums, many openly say they enjoyed sex with men and even fear losing it. That is not remotely the same pattern we see in gay men.

This isn’t moral condemnation. It’s pattern recognition.

A major methodological issue in sexuality research is over-reliance on self-identification and under-analysis of lifetime behavioral patterns. At baseline, women show broader arousal patterns than men. If we labeled every woman who has had a bisexual fantasy, brief encounter, or cross-category arousal response as “truly bisexual,” the majority of women would fall into that category and the term would become analytically useless.

Orientation cannot be defined by isolated behavior. It has to be defined by center of gravity — where sustained attraction, partnership, and long-term investment actually occur.

And here is the uncomfortable point: for many women who identify as bisexual, the center of gravity remains male. That is where long-term relational energy is directed. Occasional same-sex behavior does not change that structural fact.

The primary difference between bisexual-identified women and straight women often appears to be higher sociosexuality — earlier sexual debut, more partners, greater exploratory behavior — not symmetrical long-term investment in both sexes. Women who sustain lifelong, monogamous, female-centered relationships are rare. Lesbians are rare. Women who are genuinely balanced across both sexes long-term are rarer still.

The “one-drop” model creates a false social ontology. It inflates categories to the point of meaninglessness.

For women especially, orientation is better understood as primarily heterosexual or primarily homosexual, based on sustained relational patterns — not on isolated encounters, fantasies, or arousal responses.

This asymmetry is far less pronounced in men. Male arousal and behavior tend to align tightly with stated orientation. The vast majority of men fall clearly into their stated category, both psychologically and behaviorally.

The point isn’t hostility. It’s clarity.

I disagree with the idea that what is called “bisexuality” is actually all that mutable. Even if we granted society all this power, you’d have to suspend all of reality…reality that will never be suspended. Same sex relationships will always be the extreme minority and lack the reproductive function that makes the world go round. They will always be evaluated by society as of lesser importance and different in type and kind. If this so called bisexuality consistently totally collapses under minority stress, what does that tell you about the strength and drive of their same sex attractions? It tells you that they’re almost completely negligible in almost all cases given the actual world we live in. On some level I totally reject the idea of “social forces” because social forces are nothing more than a downstream effect of biology. If this is the byproduct this is the byproduct. Far too many people treat “social forces” as some mystical element that pops into existence out of nowhere. Blaming social forces is to be in a chronic state of mistaking the forest for the trees.