A Short Answer: 2 Possibilities Sketched

Want to find out the boring way, or the fun way? Ha!  Seriously, though, this question has been one that I have been asked numerous times — and one that I have discussed with various other mistresses. Here’s the long and short of it, as I see it.

There will be a continuum of possible answers. But, here are two opposite poles. (Pun intended.) If you think that sexual orientations are fixed, then you would resist the idea that anyone can be “turned” from their natural inclinations. On the other hand, if you think that human sexuality is plastic, then you’ll probably be sympathetic to the idea that, even though a person may lean one way or another at first, this initial disposition can be altered or otherwise redirected. 

If you have the stomach for a longer discussion, then read on. If you don’t, then just click on some of the porn scattered around the rest of the site 😉

A Longer Answer: 2 Possibilities Probed More Deeply (another pun)

Possibility 1: Sexual Orientations Are Immutable; Therefore, Forced Bi Cannot Alter Them

The Argument, Briefly Stated

This subheading is really an enthymeme. The argument, unpacked, might go something like this.

1. If sexual orientations are fixed, then they are immutable (i.e., unable to be changed).
2. If sexual orientations are immutable, then nothing can alter them.
3. If nothing can alter sexual orientations, then forced bi encounters cannot alter them.
4. Sexual orientations are fixed. (Or, so says a believer in this position.)
5. Therefore, forced bi encounters cannot alter sexual orientations.

Frankly, I think that premises 1-3 are fairly uncontroversial. It seems intuitive that to be “fixed” in the relevant sense just is to be “immutable.” So, Premise 1 is a tautology. (It’s similar to saying that: “if sexual orientations are fixed, then they’re fixed.” Remember, these are just hypotheticals: “if…, then…”)

Premise 2 is analytically true, since “immutable” means “unable to be altered or changed.”

And Premise 3 seems undeniable as well. If nothing can change X (whatever X is), then there isn’t anything that can change X. Regardless of what we name, it will be a thing that can’t change X. Forced bi isn’t special; it’s just one of the things (along with everything) that can’t change X, because X can’t be changed by anything.

So, the argument seems to stand or fall on the basis of Premise 4. If Premise 4 is granted, then the conclusion seems to follow.

However, Premise 4 is neither indubitable nor obvious. We need to think about it a little more.

The Metaphysics: A Look Into Premise 4

Some people may believe that a person’s sexual orientation is fixed.  There are any of a number of positions that might fall underneath this umbrella. And I do not think that the two Possibilities (to our titular question) fall neatly along the so-called “nature-nurture” lines.

For instance, it may be argued that a person’s sexual inclinations might be fixed because they have been established from birth, or because they are otherwise innate. So, right here, a person could believe in something like a human “essence” or “nature” (in the philosophical sense).

Philosophically speaking, an “essence” (what used to be termed a “quiddity”) is the the “what-ness” of a thing. It’s what the thing is, generally — it’s kind, if you like. This may be cashed out as a property or a set or properties without which the thing in question wouldn’t exist (at least not as it is).

As an aside, medieval philosophers used to talk of an “individual essence” (or “haeceity”). Whereas the essence is what a thing is, generally, the individual essence is what a specific thing is, particularly. It’s its particularity; it’s “this-ness.”

Theoretically, I suppose that sexual orientation could be grounded in either essences or individual essences.

But a believer in fixed sexual orientations need not endorse essences of any sort. For a person could perhaps also ground sexual orientations in something like genetics. True, a person could perhaps identify genetics and essence. But this does not seem to me to be required.

And these do not seem to me to be the only options. A person could believe in the fixity of sexual inclinations wholly apart from talk of essences or genetics. I think a person could even believe in fixed orientations and land more on the “nurture” side of the nature-nurture debate.

One way this might occur would be if you thought that humans were born without any relevant “natures” (that they are blank slates, sexually), but had their sexual orientations shaped and permanently programmed through early experience, learning, or upbringing.

So, on this way of thinking, once a sexual orientation has been programmed, it’s there to stay.

I’m not saying that any (or all) of these views is plausible. But they’re floating around out there in logical space.

The strength of the first argument is that it only has one premise in need of support. If you endorse Premise 4, then you’ll probably go all the way to the conclusion.

You will probably also believe that “forced bi” situations do something other than alter a person’s sexuality. The most commonly expressed alternative opinion seems to be that what such encounters do instead is reveal a latent or repressed homosexual nature.

On this view, then, the sort of guy who engages in “forced bi” is the sort of guy who — underneath it all — is really and truly gay to begin with. The Mistress and the forced-bi scene are just so much window dressing. What’s going on is that the gay male craves a situation in which he feels he has “permission” to act upon his pent-up and hidden homosexual urges.

Nothing about the male is “changed” essentially. Rather, it’s only that his previous psychological limitations have been removed. He’s now “free” to be the gay male that he always was.

(Parenthetically, it might also be possible for a naturally “straight” male to allow himself to engage in homosexual behavior as a means of being emasculated, humiliated, or made subservient to his Mistress’s desires. But, even here, the view would be that if the guy is — by nature — actually heterosexual, then the forced bi still doesn’t change anything about him. Except, in this case, instead of being freed from gay impediments, we might say that he has been saddled with heterosexual obstructions. The forced bi acts like the psycho-sexual equivalent of a “penis cage.”)

But this isn’t the only perspective on what (if anything) is going on during a forced-bi session.

Possibility 2: Sexual Orientations Are Plastic; Therefore, Forced Bi May Alter Them

The Argument, Briefly Stated

From what I can gather, this one will take a little more unpacking.

1. If sexual orientations are plastic, then they are (in principle) moldable.
2. If sexual orientations are (in principle) moldable, then (in principle) they can be reshaped.
3. Sexual orientations are plastic.
4. Therefore, (in principle) sexual orientations can be reshaped.
5. If there are sexual-reshaping tools, then they are able to reshape sexual orientations (in practice).
6. Forced bi is a sexual reshaping tool.
7. Therefore, there are sexual-reshaping tools.
8. Therefore, sexual-reshaping tools are able to reshape sexual orientations (in practice).
9. Therefore, forced bi is are able to reshape sexual orientations (in practice).

As with the previous argument, I think the first few premises are straightforward — just based on commonly accepted definitions.

So, it seems that “plastic” just means “to be moldable.” And to be “moldable” just is “being able to be molded or shaped.” Hence, Premises 1 and 2 of this second argument are unproblematic.

But, Premise 3 is, like Premise 4 of the first argument, in need of support.

However, it seems to me that this argument also requires support for Premise 6. Conceivably, you could believe that human sexual orientations were plastic, but also hold that there are no sexual-reshaping tools — and, thus, believe that there was no way (in practice) to actually alter sexual inclinations.

This may be somewhat of an awkward view to hold. But, it seems possible to hold it.

Metaphysics (Again): A Look Into Premise 3

People who deny that sexual orientations are fixed may find themselves endorsing the position that they are instead plastic. This might be the case if, for instance, there is no sexual “essence” or “nature” and if sexual inclinations are instead the result of environmental or “nurturing” factors.

However, on the plasticity version of the nurture hypothesis, a person would hold that sexual orientations, once instilled, are prone to alteration, modification, variation, etc. In a word, they can change.

So, roughly stated, a person can be brought up, taught, trained, or otherwise moved to be either homosexual or heterosexual. However — and this is the twist — a person who has been brought up, taught, trained, or otherwise moved to be heterosexual can be retaught, retrained, or other moved to become homosexual.

This, anyway, is the idea.

There can be all sorts of variations that I will not fully explore. For example, “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” may both come in degrees or grades, such that different people could be “heterosexual to [n] extent” or “homosexual to [m] extent,” and so on. But, I will let this pass.

It is worth pointing out, though, that if a person is open to the idea of changing someone’s sexuality from heterosexual to homosexual, then it is difficult to resist the corollary idea: namely, that it ought to be possible to change a sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. (Again, it is noted that these concepts might be graded.)

There is a caveat to this. But I will address it in the following section.

Even MORE Metaphysics: A Look Into Premise 6

Now here is where things get a bit more interesting.

After all, it is perfectly possible that human sexuality is — in principle — plastic, but still practically impossible to actually modify it — in the “real world.” This would be the case if there were currently no methods available for reshaping sexuality.

(To give an analogy: If the metaphysics is favorable for it, it might be theoretically possible — in principle — to send a person back in time. But, even if the necessary metaphysical principles do hold for our world, it might be practically impossible to actually send a person back in time because, as things stand, we lack the mechanisms for doing so.)

However, some people might think that our evidence for the plasticity of human sexuality just is the observation that people’s sexual inclinations can be made to change. But if evidence of this sort is available, then it is plausible to hold that sexuality-reshaping “tools” (of one kind or other) presently exist.

Of these, a prime candidate seems to be the idea of the “forced-bi encounter.” I’ll call it an FBE.

Now, there are (again, in theory) numerous variations for FBE’s — depending on who is orchestrating, or “presiding” over, it; and depending on who the participants are. But in what seems to be the typical FBE (at least, the ones that are the focus for this website), the participants are both male and the “president” is female.

For more on these variations, see the previous article: “What Is Forced-Bi?”

The president’s role is to coerce, entice, persuade, or otherwise “force” (hence the name) the male participates to engage in some form of homosexual activity. Keeping with the idea of changing a man’s sexual orientation, one aspect of the presiding female’s role in FBE is to keep the men aroused. Mistress T has many videos that illustrate this approach.

She displays her bare skin, breasts, and pussy in order to sexually stimulate the male participants.

Once stimulated, several things arguably occur. Number one, their brains “check out” as the blood flow is redirected to their cocks. Number two, their arousal weakens their resistance to homosexual activity. Number three, their brains associate the gay sex with the (mediated) stimulation in such a way that the hope-for result is that they are programmed for future encounters in which the male-on-male sex will stimulate them immediately and directly.

The activities are also prone to considerable variation.

It may be that one male performs oral sex on the other with no “reciprocation.”  Or, there could be mutual oral sex — either one at a time, or simultaneously (as in a “69”). It may be that only one male anally penetrates the other. Alternatively, it may be that the two males “flip” and take turns penetrating each other. (I even saw one video where they manage to fuck each other at the same time. I’ll have to look for that one!)

Again, to explore these variations in greater detail, see HERE.

For the present, let’s just say that, if Premise 6 is true, then an FBE must be able to reshape a male’s sexuality. Assuming that the male is antecedently heterosexual, the most direct way to understand this would be that the FBE literally reprograms the male to be (in some sense and at some level) homosexual.

And, indeed, some Mistresses seem to believe that — or at least they speak as though — they can “turn” a straight guy, well…gay.

We could think that the FBE then transforms an antecedently heterosexual or “straight” male into either a total homosexual or a “bi male” — that is, one who is now a composite of heterosexual and homosexual (to one degree or other).

If this is the case, then, firstly, human sexuality is plastic. And, secondly, the FBE is indeed a sexuality-reshaping tool.

The Caveat From Earlier

Above, we put a little something on hold. And I’d like to address it now.

We said that if it is really possible to change or reshape a person’s sexual orientation, then it doesn’t seem quite right to think that it only works when going from heterosexual to homosexual, but not the other way around.

However, you will recall that we already stated that something (like time travel) might be possible in a theoretical sense, but impossible in a practical sense, if the underlying theory is true but we lack the means, mechanisms, methods, or tools to actually implement the theory.

Now, we also said that few people would be tempted to the view that human sexuality is plastic if there were nothing that seemed to count as evidence for it. This led us to at least entertain the notion that the apparent sexuality-changing success of things like FBEs  might plausibly be thought to count as the evidence that leads some to think that human sexuality is plastic.

But it may be that there simply are no methods readily available for changing a person from homosexual to heterosexual — even if it is theoretically possible to do so.

What makes this somewhat plausible is a meditation on the psychology and power underlying an FBE.

Somewhere the British blogger and journalist Milo Yiannopoulos (born Milo Hanrahan) stated that, in his opinion, homosexuality was “transgressive.” The dictionary definition of “transgressive” — viewable as of this writing as a Google “snippet” — states that the word has to do with something that is or involves “a violation of accepted or imposed boundaries, especially those of social acceptability”.

So, if Milo is on to something (and he may not be) one aspect of the psychological punch of an FBE is that a person ends up doing something that is exciting partly because it breaks a longstanding societal taboo. And this sort of thing can be very addictive.

Additionally, even if more strangely, it is possible that the physical act of anal penetration activates (what, in some strands of Hindu tradition, is called) the Muladhara or “base/root” Chakra — or something like it. A “chakra,” in the relevant Eastern tradition, is believed to be a “[center] of spiritual power in the human body… .” (Thanks to Google, again!)

This is highly speculative — but, then again, the rest of this article is, too! — but it may be that during an FBE, the passive partner (or “bottom”) who is the recipient of the anal penetration has his root chakra engaged in some way that helps to solidify the psycho-sexual changes.

My point, presently, is that there may be no widely known method for homosexual-to-heterosexual change that has the psychological (or spiritual!) impact that the FBE has for heterosexual-to-homosexual change.

Of course, there is also the fact that males are generally highly visually-stimulated. This, it seems, is the role played by the presiding female.

She gets the males whipped up into sexual frenzy by behaving in a sexual manner, displaying her body, uttering arousing words, etc. Once the males are sexually aroused by her, she then commands, instructs, requests, or otherwise “gets” (by, ahem… “FORCE”) the guys to cavort with each other.

The changes might begin to “stick” through a sort of stimulus-response process. On this view, in other words, the males are systemically conditioned or programmed to sexually respond to homosexual stimulation, in part, by marrying it closely with the peripheral — by highly sexually charged — involvement of a female.

And, just perhaps, the whole thing is — well, let’s just say “punctuated” — with a poke at the old root chakra (which just so happens to be near the prostate).

For more on these ideas, read my provocative (if I do say so myself) article “Does the ‘Forced-Bi’ Fetish Have Its Origins in Mythology?” I discuss many interesting things, such as the alchemical rebis and the notion that the male penis can be used as a sexuality-changing “magic wand” — especially when used to impale some bottom’s rectum.

So… By now you’re asking, in hushed and academic tones: What, after all, is taking place?” (Okay, actually, you’re literally yelling at the screen: “REALLY?!? What the FUCK did I just read??)

Hell if I know! To paraphrase “The Dude’s” timely reminder: “Like, this is just my opinion, …man.”

But, if you’re male… then I can say: if you’d like to trade thinking about it for fantasizing about it, then click HERE, HERE, HERE, or HERE (among other places) and put all this this cerebral and overly dense shit out of your mind by rubbing one out to the thought of being coerced in sucking dick or taking it up your tailpipe.

And if you want to give up fantasizing about it for actually DOING it, then click HERE or HERE and contact the Mistress of your choice. Unless, that is, you’re too scared. Then content yourself to be wanna-be bitch. I’m not concerned with it. I’ve got something else to do.

Just a reminder to Forced-Bi fans, we now have a Subreddit (Reddit.com/EnforcedBi) devoted to our brand of deviance as well as a few weeks-old Twitter account (Twitter.com/forcedbisexual)! Find us in either corner of the web — or both places! — and say “hi”!