people are claiming there’s a lot of evidence out there to prove the existence of “straight” people but if I’m being totally honest with you it’s a crackpot theory. and trust me, I know about crackpot theories. I’m the KING of crackpot theories, and I was coronated, and you can trust me on that.
so this is a thing people have been saying for a really long time, that realistically, these “straight” people would have been around since basically the beginning of time—we’re talking since the FIRST coherent human being, as we know them today. that within this kind of first iteration of human existence, we could have seen a really strong percentage of people who came out genetically “straight”
but we’re basing this off of theory, completely. these people who are, and this is controversial but whatever, who I am saying are essentially conspiracy theorists are claiming that it’s been proven based on analysis of this ancient DNA found in the early humans who were preserved in ice. but that’s just not true.
scientifically, there is precedent to say—definitively—that there was never any such thing as straight people. what you’re seeing when you look at this ancient genetic code is actually the degradation of DNA—we’re looking at these specimens preserved only by time and luck. so this genetic sequence has actually kind of gone through a sort of decomposition, even though it’s fairly preserved.
what these people are claiming is proof of “straight” people is actually just damaged, broken DNA. if these specimens had existed in that exact condition in life, they would not have survived. so what I’m saying definitively is that there is no such thing as “straight” people, outside of massively damaged and degraded genetic sequences that are too ancient to reconstruct.
there has never been a living “straight” person and there never will be.
hi—an actual expert here. i’ve completed my first year of my phd course in straight theory. i think the above summary is brief and doesn’t touch on what we know about the heterosexuals. essentially: almost everything here is incorrect and taken from conspiracy theories the internet has allowed to run rampant.
we do have examples of heterosexual existence dating back to older societies. admittedly, noteworthy academics have believed these examples to be decontextualised from their original performative cultural significance.
but heterosexuality is inherently performative. it is reactionary. the argument is barely biological and this is an oversimplification. especially given the events this post speaks of never happened! if you’d fact checked OP, you’d know that this “genetics” and “first humans” argument originated from a viral post on reddit.
heterosexuals MIGHT have existed, but we still don’t know whether this was due to their biology. at this time the only arguments we can propose are entirely psychological, historical or societal.
don’t believe everything you read on tumblr dot com.
oh goodness, okay. I guess you need me to clarify I’ve been working in straight theory for three years & have completed my PhD in anthropology. this is the field I actually work in, and have been doing research on early heterosexual concept since you were in high school.
we’re talking about the existence of straight people in the sense of actual, decisive evidence. whether or not people were made to act as “straight” for some reason or another, a performance or a try at social activity is not actually the same as a straight person existing. this theory you’re talking about is weak and honestly was created by some really determined hopefuls in the community. we can talk all day about how some people may have acted as if they were tigers, but that doesn’t mean they were actually tigers.
I understand your reasons for not citing any sources, given that you have none, but you have to understand that the work on this has been going on for several years and we have found no evidence to support the existence of a heterosexual human being in history or currently.
also, the argument is not from reddit. it’s based on an actual piece of scientific research which has since then shown up in many papers on the matter. just an example of one of them from the University of Edinburgh:
next time, how about you check your facts before you’re contrary? thank you! x
fucking thought provoking. let me begin with this: you have cited an outdated text by another extremist.
like you, fialovā suffers from oversimplification. her work as a whole references several untrustworthy sources, notably romanyuk. romanyuk was a politically charged man and held extremist beliefs. if you’ll remember, he was arrested in 2001 due to his compliance in a program primarily experimenting “with” (on) children. he was searching for psychic ability.
during his career he claimed to have contact with extraterrestrials and mathematically predict the coming of christ. should romanyuk uncharacteristically not have bullshitted his research, he would still be unreliable.
with him removed from our picture, who are we left with? from 1980-1998: taylor, davies and nowak. these three attended the same university, partnered often and based the groundwork of their research off neanderthals.
when nowak later (much later) analysed the dna of preserved early humans, he thought he’d discovered biological heterosexuality. the conclusion he came to was degradation of dna, yes—but one of the founding fathers of anti-heterosexual academia changed his mind. post-1998 he refused to rule out the possibility of ancient heterosexuals due to.. genetic variability, perhaps? migration of early humans? degradation of dna itself presenting a poor argument? nowak suspected a heterosexual mutation to have existed within pockets of early nomadic humans.
(on another nitpicky note: fialovā combats the anthropologist david müller, and repeatedly shows herself to be revisionist.)
but heterosexuality is displayed plainly in greek society through both art and writing. performative among the wealthy, the argument can be made that among them were hiding true heterosexuals. this would align with nowak’s migration theory, placing the group with the mutated gene in the right place and time period. a well documented example is the greek poetess anat of tegea. she wrote of romantic interest in men, and is thought to have taken male lovers before the practice became fashionable.
but anyway, thank you for reminding me we have years before the pretentious attitudes clear from our unfortunately shared field. 🙂
by the way—from the information you provided me and a skim of your blogs archives, it was easy to puzzle you out. unsurprisingly, you primarily source fialovā in your academic work and venture into even more unorthodox theory in your private life. unsurprising that you should use social capital to claim credibility. your misinformation relies on taking advantage of the impressionable through a cult of personality.
🍓🧀 (archive) 