Why choose between homo or hetero ?

He’s not heterosexual, so he’s gay. He’s not gay, He’s not heterosexual, so he’s gay. He’s not gay, so he’s straight like everyone else. What can I get you: red or white?.

A whole host of closed choices lock us into a thought system we are barely aware of. A or B, but not A and B, and in no case neither A nor B …

Why should people turn out to be either homosexual or heterosexual? Why are bisexuals so rare? There could be something much more complex behind this bipartition than one imagines. Just like a certain traditional conviviality dictates: you cannot refuse the glass of wine that is offered to you, it would hurt your host. Your only freedom is the choice between red and white. You would be taken for a Martian if you asked for a glass of hydrogen dioxide (H²O), yet the only natural drink … In essence, your refusal would expose the embarrassing fact that our entire society is addicted to alcohol.

Freud considered bisexuality to be a fundamental property, innate in every individual and destined to polarize with growth in the conventional sense, obviously that of heterosexuality. Although preaching amorality, that is, freedom of thought from the norm, he saw homosexuality as the exception to the rule. Many other psychoanalysts, like psychiatry until the 1970s and 1980s saw it as an abomination, a pathology, a perversion … Then a paraphilia, so as not to stick any of these attributes to it today and classify it in the simple concept of sexual orientation.

The standard has therefore dropped ballast. But she hasn’t disappeared. We find it misplaced in the dichotomy: either homosexual, or heterosexual, with a few bisexual exceptions to confirm the rule. Unisexuality seems to us to be taken for granted, so it is indeed this that is normative today.

Psychoanalysis attempts to explain the shift of infantile bisexuality into one or the other of the adult orientations by the weight of paternal or maternal images. Roughly speaking, a castrating maternal image would push the boy to fix his sexuality on something which does not resemble it (a very different man or woman, even a similar woman in order to dominate it); a fatherly image that is too interdictive would leave no other hope of love than in the female sex. As most fathers represent the most severe family pole, most young males thus end up with the reputedly normal model.

This type of explanation fits perfectly into the reproductive model: one would expect the laws of evolution to have predicted that every adult of reproductive age is heterosexual. But it could well cover a more complex reality. It does not take into account the metapsychic function of love. How should we rethink it from the moment we accept the metasexual postulate and the relational model based on the triangular constellation?

This would mean a priori that, to be able to experience PIM, which involves a circulation of energy between the three partners, one must be open to a partner of the same sex. Here we find Freud’s fundamental bisexuality: insofar as the PIM is innate and must be experienced at any age, the adult must maintain both orientations, that is to say, be capable of feeling love. for a different-sex partner as well as for a same-sex partner.

Seen from the angle of the exchange of energy: we can expect that it is not the sex of the Other that counts (therefore his gender), but what his Being represents as a source of psychic energy. We must be able to feel in the partner, whether man or woman, young or old, this mysterious promise of happiness which opens the way to the transcendent relationship and which we feel in the form of love magic, without being inhibited. by a restrictive sexual orientation.

This operating model takes us back to psychosexual structuring, that is to say to all the learning that the individual does about his own impulses and his social environment. If bisexuality is not just a matter of infantile sexuality, but must be maintained throughout life, any unisexual orientation must be considered as a mishap, a fixation which certainly corresponds to the norm, but which would in itself be unnatural.so he’s straight like everyone else." “What can I get you: red or white?”. A whole host of closed choices lock us into a thought system we are barely aware of. A or B, but not A and B, and in no case neither A nor B …

You would be taken for a Martian if you asked for a glass of hydrogen dioxide (H2O), yet the only natural drink … In essence, your refusal would expose the embarrassing fact that our entire society is addicted to alcohol. Freud considered bisexuality to be a fundamental property, innate in every individual and destined to polarize with growth in the conventional sense, obviously that of heterosexuality.

Although preaching amorality, that is, freedom of thought from the norm, he saw homosexuality as the exception to the rule. Many other psychoanalysts, like psychiatry until the 1970s and 1980s saw it as an abomination, a pathology, a perversion … Then a paraphilia, so as not to stick any of these attributes to it today and classify it in the simple concept of sexual orientation. The standard has therefore dropped ballast. But she hasn’t disappeared. We find it misplaced in the dichotomy: either homosexual, or heterosexual, with a few bisexual exceptions to confirm the rule. Unisexuality seems to us to be taken for granted, so it is indeed this that is normative today. Psychoanalysis attempts to explain the shift of infantile bisexuality into one or the other of the adult orientations by the weight of paternal or maternal images.

Roughly speaking, a castrating maternal image would push the boy to fix his sexuality on something which does not resemble it (a very different man or woman, even a similar woman in order to dominate it); a fatherly image that is too interdictive would leave no other hope of love than in the female sex. As most fathers represent the most severe family pole, most young males thus end up with the reputedly normal model. This type of explanation fits perfectly into the reproductive model: one would expect the laws of evolution to have predicted that every adult of reproductive age is heterosexual. But it could well cover a more complex reality. It does not take into account the metapsychic function of love. How should we rethink it from the moment we accept the metasexual postulate and the relational model based on the triangular constellation?

If we postulate, as experience seems to show, that the triangular constellation is the basic cell of the PIM (the simplest relationship model allowing the operation of the metasexual instinctual program), we are automatically referred to the following corollary: in any triangular relationship, there is at least one homosexual relationship and at most three. This would mean a priori that, to be able to experience PIM, which involves a circulation of energy between the three partners, one must be open to a partner of the same sex.

Here we find Freud’s fundamental bisexuality: insofar as the PIM is innate and must be experienced at any age, the adult must maintain both orientations, that is to say, be capable of feeling love. for a different-sex partner as well as for a same-sex partner. Seen from the angle of the exchange of energy: we can expect that it is not the sex of the Other that counts (therefore his gender), but what his Being represents as a source of psychic energy.

We must be able to feel in the partner, whether man or woman, young or old, this mysterious promise of happiness which opens the way to the transcendent relationship and which we feel in the form of love magic, without being inhibited. by a restrictive sexual orientation. This operating model takes us back to psychosexual structuring, that is to say to all the learning that the individual does about his own impulses and his social environment.

If bisexuality is not just a matter of infantile sexuality, but must be maintained throughout life, any unisexual orientation must be considered as a mishap, a fixation which certainly corresponds to the norm, but which would in itself be unnatural.

So how can we explain the universality of this unisexual fixation? The answer is quite simple: the primary sexual drive (PSD) is repressed from early childhood, either by sexual prohibitions opposed to early drives, or by the fact that the child experiences adult relationships as incompatible with the subtle dimension to which they unconsciously aspire. In either case, the drives end up being repressed into the unconscious, and the PSD is abandoned. This idea corresponds to the notion of latency: if we are to believe Freud, the intensity of early drives gives way to a relative indifference, which persists until maturity (See Essay on Metapsychoanalysis, page 104).

When puberty arrives, with its brand-new reproductive drives (PRD), the barriers of repression do not withstand the biological imperative, so that the adolescent ends up having certain sexual experiences. The partner is either fantasized or chosen in accordance with the least destructive parental images. The experiences are particularly intense because they are invested not only by the libido specific to the PIR (Personal Instinctual Relation), but also by the repressed energy associated with the PIM (Personal Instinctual Relation). Thus, the first pleasures or orgasms fix the psyche very definitively on a single sex.

Unisexuality therefore appears as the result of an explosion of drives that remained confined to the unconscious under the pressure of prohibitions during the latency period. The fixation occurs based on lived experience, which is generally unilateral (with rare exceptions) and conforms to the prevailing model (heterosexual, except in specific parental images). The power of the fixation is explained by the importance of metasexual drives (containing so-called infantile drives), by the accumulation of drive energy due to their repression, and by the psychoaffective climax produced by their sudden release. Puberty being a particularly sensitive period, conditioning becomes irreversibly ingrained, leading the individual to become unisexual. For millennia, culture has incorporated individual feelings, establishing the norm as either heterosexuality (as early as the time of Moses…) or, more recently, unisexuality.

This situation ultimately proves unnatural. It manifests itself in all sorts of contradictions, for example, the inability of the fight against discrimination to silence popular hatred of homosexuals, who unconsciously play the role of intolerable witnesses to the widespread sexual deviance inherent in unisexuality. Or the inconsistency between each individual’s aspiration for sexual fulfillment and the aggression directed at the sexual fulfillment of others. Or again, the intense attraction to adulterous relationships and the hatred directed at the adulterous partner, and so on.

The natural functioning model would simply be the fulfillment of all genetic potentialities, therefore the absence of any repression of innate drives, and the absence of neurosis (which is nothing other than deviations from repressed drives). The rule would be the capacity to experience the PIM (Personal Instinctual Movement) and the triangular constellation in the harmony to which each person aspires deep within, far from the inhibitions, jealousies, and suffering ordinarily associated with this type of situation. It would also include the absence of discrimination and sexual hatred, each person knowing themselves to be both heterosexual and homosexual—although this heterosexuality and homosexuality would be of a far more subtle nature than so-called normative behaviors.