I’ve had this theory of human sexuality for some time now. I want to test and develop it here. I call it the Hungry Hippo Theory (just named it).
I called it the Hungry Hippo Theory, because I believe hunger gives a great analogy for it. Sexuality is fluid in my theory. That means there is nothing preventing me from being homosexual, etc., just like there is nothing preventing homosexuals from enjoying sexuality with the opposite sex. We may feel disgust or apprehension at the thought, but I don’t think those feelings are biological nor set in stone. I might feel disgust and apprehension towards Asian cuisines, but clearly the cause of that disgust isn’t a gene making me like Big Macs over Octopus. My taste in food is able to change.
Hunger is a biological need, much like sexuality. The foods we eat also have functionality. We can know how many calories we’re supposed to be eating; and what percentage of fats, proteins, and carbs those calories are supposed to consist of. However, that does not mean its impossible to binge eat, or become anorexic, or go on unhealthy diets. Some people eat things that are clearly not food, such as paint, or rocks. Some people eat food, but its clearly unhealthy. Other’s don't eat unhealthy, they just don’t eat the optimal.
Sexuality is the same. There is the functional aspect, which revolves around reproduction, and the desire to reproduce. However, the ways in which people can satisfy that desire is limited only by their imagination. Some people are sexually aroused by nonhuman things such as leather or animals. Others are attracted to humans, but in an unhealthy way, such as pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. Other’s are attracted to normal consenting adults, they just don’t happen to have the function of the opposite sex.
1. Genetics are redundant to the theory. We are built from genes, thus everything about us will always correlate with genes. Genes rarely gives us insight into causation. Far more efficient is to focus on neurological differences, if any exist, since it is the brain that more directly contributes to behavior.
2. The theory is not concerned with normal vs abnormal. To the theory, the only abnormal sex act is the one you can’t perform. However, it does distinguish between functional and nonfunctional acts and behaviors.
3. The theory builds a bridge between biology and behavior. It asks what the needs of biology are, and then asks what are the behaviors that satisfy it.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.