I've had no formal education in either psychology, biochemistry, or genetics (Well, aside from those Criminal Psychology courses), so this is really just conjecture. I'm holding my own experiences against examples I've witnessed of similar human behavior and hypothesizing. This hypothesis is based on examination of postmodern western society.

Our genes determine who we are - even getting past our physical attributes - and while they may not encompass our entire identities, they certainly determine our dispositions, including, many scientists argue - sexual preference. They probably know far more than I do about this, being experts, but I'm here to present the argument that orientation can be learned.

Chemically (Or genetically), sexual preference is straightforward and simple. You're either primarily turned on by males or you're primarily turned on by females. The estimated ratio of people who are primarily heterosexual to primarily homosexual is about 50:1. However, this doesn't mean that there's no middle ground - It's a contiuum. I'd be willing to go so far as to make the claim that, if every human being was completely in tune with his or her emotions, and honest to him or herself about their sexuality, the vast majority of the population would identify as bisexual or - more likely - bicurious at the very least. Very, very few people would either be completely straight or completely gay. People who do like the opposite sex even a little bit often identify as straight because it's still not completely socially acceptable to be bisexual or gay.

I'm certain that many of you have heard the old stereotype - that women are more likely to be bisexual than men. In truth, this is because Western society allows women to be more openly emotional - and as such, their emotional maturity develops at a quicker rate than it does for males - who are, for much of their lives, emotionally repressed. If males and females both experienced similar emotional development, as many males as females would admit they were bisexual.

One often hears of men who married and had children before they had the revelation that they preferred males - it had been something suppressed, and they had been ashamed because of old social stigmas, as well as religious and systemic discrimination and demonization.

If one strips away society's fetters, however, and in social environments that are more accepting of the LGB demographic, one finds that there seem to be more lesbians, gays, and bisexual people. This is not only because there are more who 'come out of the closet' in such an environment, but also because there are more people who examine their own sexual preferences without fear and realize that they too are not entirely heterosexual.

I myself was once what could be described as homophobic, having been raised in the Middle East as a member of a traditional Catholic family. That changed when, at the age of seventeen (after coming to Canada), the girl I'd been dating admitted to me that she was bisexual. It didn't lower my opinion of her one bit, and it got me to question what I thought I'd believed. I started speaking out against discrimination based on orientation. It was still four or five years before I turned my scrutiny on myself. At 21 now, I've come to the conclusion that I definitely prefer women - but under the right circumstances, I'd still sleep with a male.

I believe (And I've had this conviction strengthened by many supposedly straight friends I've discussed the topic with) that every male and female goes through a phase in his or her life when he or she is curious about the same sex. At the end of this phase, they either decide they're straight, gay, or somewhere in between.

But these are things that many of you already know. What I wrote this piece to talk about was the argument that 'sexual orientation' may even be a limiting term that fails to take into account all the variables involved. When one has decided, following introspection, that sexuality is not a matter of absolutes, one's eyes are opened to other possibilities. Consider this: Most monogamous sexual relationships consist of one person who is sexually dominant, and one who is sexually submissive. This, again, is on a continuum. Some will be more dominant than submissive, and some more submissive than dominant. Some can switch.

Hypothesis: Sexual attraction, while primarily a result of the 'genetic imperative' (or the drive to reproduce), gains many more important dimensions with sapient sexual species such as humans. I think that because of the way humans are 'socialized', a person's Dom/Sub disposition (or any sexual kink!) may have more to do in the long run with sexual orientation than genes.

For example, all other things being equal, males who are disposed toward being more submissive are more likely to identify themselves as 'gay' and be attracted to other males, because men are expected to be dominant by society, and there are many more dominant males than submissive ones.

On the other hand, females who are dominant may prefer submissive partners, and possibly preferring women to men, identify themselves as lesbian because there are more submissive women than dominant ones in western society.

Occasionally there are men and women closer to the center of the continuum who are equally comfortable with dominant or submissive partners, and these are more likely than most to consider themselves bisexual with no preference for either sex.

I'm only truly physically attracted to women - but since I'm sexually dominant, and submissiveness turns me on - I found that it was still possible to be sexually interested in submissive members of my own sex, even if I wasn't really physically attracted to males. Pleasure, after all, is pleasure. And one's sexual kinks can make sexual attraction as psychological as it is physical.

Quite a few members here seem to have studied behavioral psychology in greater depth, and I'm curious to know what they think of my conclusions. Do tell.