The Kinsey Theory

[CriticalThought]

Kinsey's methods were far from the best, but one theory of his has always stood out to me. He argued that human sexuality stretched across a spectrum and that some people were truly gay and some people were truly straight but most people would be bisexual. In essence, his theory looks something like this...

But modern representative samples show a different picture. They show that most people identify as gay or straight and very few people identify as bisexual. A result that looks more like this shape.

I'm wondering if bisexuality is suppressed by culture. I wonder if perhaps most people are bisexual, hence why you have such adamant opposition from some people against gay rights and adamant support from others. Perhaps many people secretly relate to gays and either secretly support or despise them because of it. Perhaps those bisexuals that despise them think that a gay man or women's sexuality is just as much a choice as their sexuality is.

It's all just speculation but I do wonder from time to time.

 

[katiegrrl0]

For there to be any choice as to our orientation we would all have to be bisexual. But there is no choice involved in our orientation. We are what we are. I would say that only a few are bisexual. Probably around the same 3% as gay and lesbians. Just a guess though.

 

[Renae]

Kinsey was a quack...

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Hard to say. I'm a fairly open-minded person and I've given some thought to this within myself.

While this is purely anecdotal, this is where I got to with it.

I am genuinely not capable of the same depth of attraction to women as I am to men. I can, and have, had attractions to women beyond platonic friends. But it's not the same. It's missing a dimension that my attraction to men has. I am fairly sure I am free enough of homophobia that this isn't just some latent fear talking.

In short, saying I am absolutely totally 100% straight is wrong. But I'm not bisexual. My attractions to men are more frequent, deeper, more lasting, and more sexually gratifying.

What I suspect is that the hardware for any sexual attraction is there for all of us. It makes sense - sex can be a form of bonding, and sex with a non-preferred gender is pretty common in mammals, if the preferred gender is not available for whatever reason (wrong time in the mating cycle, pregnancy, scarcity, etc) to help blow off some steam and improve group dynamics.

But the preferred mode of attraction is pretty set. At least it is for me.

But is it possible a lot of homophobia is a result of repressed homosexuality/bisexuality? I think it's beyond doubt. Look at all the anti-gay preachers and politicians getting caught with gay hookers and soliciting sex in bathrooms. It's practically expected. A denial of something within oneself can cause someone to try to force others to deny it.

But I don't necessarily think this means most people have a large degree of denial about their sexuality.

 

[Your Star]

I believe his theory on human sexual orientation is right on the money.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I've always suspected that there was some general truth to Kinsey's notion that sexuality occurs along a spectrum, but the idea that it would fall out in a bell curve with bisexuality represented in the middle just doesn't make sense. If it were true, even with bisexual erasure and societal pressure to choose one sex or the other, the number of bisexuals (and homosexuals) would be far higher than any study has ever indicated. I might be inclined to believe that 1s and 5s were more common than 0s and 6s, but all the evidence seems to suggest that numbers 2-4 are rare as Hell.

 

[DemonMyst]

I've always suspected that there was some general truth to Kinsey's notion that sexuality occurs along a spectrum, but the idea that it would fall out in a bell curve with bisexuality represented in the middle just doesn't make sense. If it were true, even with bisexual erasure and societal pressure to choose one sex or the other, the number of bisexuals (and homosexuals) would be far higher than any study has ever indicated. I might be inclined to believe that 1s and 5s were more common than 0s and 6s, but all the evidence seems to suggest that numbers 2-4 are rare as Hell.

Bisexuality would have to be in the middle.. Straight is one end of the spectrum.. Homosexual is the other end.. When those two meet in the middle you get Bisexual..

I have often believed that everyone is to one form or another Bisexual.. I doubt there isn't a single person here that hasn't looked at someone of the same sex and appreciated how they looked or some aspect of them.. That doesn't mean you want to have sex with them.. But just the simple appreciation of someone of the same sex is evidence of what the OP is saying..

 

[maquiscat]

For there to be any choice as to our orientation we would all have to be bisexual. But there is no choice involved in our orientation. We are what we are. I would say that only a few are bisexual. Probably around the same 3% as gay and lesbians. Just a guess though.

But the OP isn't talking about choice. Nowhere does choice enter into the discussion at the point of your post.

Bisexuality would have to be in the middle.. Straight is one end of the spectrum.. Homosexual is the other end.. When those two meet in the middle you get Bisexual..

So where does asexual fall on the scale? I know of at least 2 or 3 asexual people (not due to trauma) so I find it hard to believe that there are not more out there who have no real sexual desires or attractions in either direction.

I have often believed that everyone is to one form or another Bisexual.. I doubt there isn't a single person here that hasn't looked at someone of the same sex and appreciated how they looked or some aspect of them.. That doesn't mean you want to have sex with them.. But just the simple appreciation of someone of the same sex is evidence of what the OP is saying..

I can't say that it's the same thing. I know I can look at a guy and go "that's hot" (Sean Connery!) and I can see that would be a bisexual crossover thing. But to look at a guy and think "he looks nice today" isn't the same thing as the sexual attraction, no matter how minimal, that a small about of bisexuality would imply.

 

[TodaysTime]

Look at all the anti-gay preachers and politicians getting caught with gay hookers and soliciting sex in bathrooms.

I only know of few - do you have stats on these two demographics?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I only know of few - do you have stats on these two demographics?

Nope. But it's not really an issue of stats. It's an issue of irony and hypocrisy. Even if it's just a few, it's weird that some of the loudest and proudest homophobes turn out to be gay. When someone *isn't* a homophobe, it's a non-issue if they turn out to be gay.

 

[Temporal]

You have to keep in mind Kinsey's definition of bisexual when taking into account his studies. The minimal requirement is that someone has had sexual contact with a member of the same sex within their lifetime. That definition fits a lot of people. He also operates within the duality of gay and straight, and everything else falls in between that; but I don't find that very realistic.

I like queer theory because it basically tosses out all of these definitions and just relegates it to people doing what they want to do. For instance, if a person is into having sex with only the same sex, you wouldn't call them gay. The problem with labels is that they exclude other potentials and future possibilities. Someone having to be gay is just as rigid as someone having to be straight - it doesn't provide for or acknowledge the relative fluidity of human sexuality.

It's cultural norming and values that determine how willing a person is to look at their sexual fluidity. This discussion though is not what a lot of modern people are ready for, especially given we are still caught in the straight/gay duality.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Like race, this really isn't something that should be categorized and enshrined into the law. It should be quietly acknowledged and then just ignored.

 

[Paschendale]

I do think we are all bisexual, but certainly not 50/50. Any range from 99/1 to 51/49 would mean that a person would prefer one gender over the other, but still have the capacity for attraction to either gender. And since nearly everyone will have a preference, it's entirely possible that most people only act on the stronger of the two desires. They're both there, but one eclipses the other.

 

[Hicup]

Problem with all of this, including Kinsey, is that there isn't a shred of evidence to back him up. In my experience bi-sexuals are even more rare than gays.


Tim-

 

[CriticalThought]

You have to keep in mind Kinsey's definition of bisexual when taking into account his studies. The minimal requirement is that someone has had sexual contact with a member of the same sex within their lifetime. That definition fits a lot of people. He also operates within the duality of gay and straight, and everything else falls in between that; but I don't find that very realistic.

I like queer theory because it basically tosses out all of these definitions and just relegates it to people doing what they want to do. For instance, if a person is into having sex with only the same sex, you wouldn't call them gay. The problem with labels is that they exclude other potentials and future possibilities. Someone having to be gay is just as rigid as someone having to be straight - it doesn't provide for or acknowledge the relative fluidity of human sexuality.

It's cultural norming and values that determine how willing a person is to look at their sexual fluidity. This discussion though is not what a lot of modern people are ready for, especially given we are still caught in the straight/gay duality.

You are assuming that sexuality is malleable for everyone?

That is my point. While I recognize that sexuality is malleable for a lot of people, I don't think it is for everyone. I think for those who have a malleable sexuality, they simply assume that everyone else has a sexuality that is just as malleable as their own.

 

[CriticalThought]

Problem with all of this, including Kinsey, is that there isn't a shred of evidence to back him up. In my experience bi-sexuals are even more rare than gays.


Tim-

That is what I said in the OP. That is also the purpose of this thread. The whole point is to question whether sexual malleability is the norm and only a small percentage of people have a fixed sexuality. Perhaps, by far, most people with a malleable sexuality, choose to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. Whereas those with a fixed sexuality are delegated to either homosexuality or heterosexuality.

My question is based on what I observe with prisoners and prostitutes. Given a different culture, a lot of people exhibit great sexual malleability. However, not everyone exhibits that sexual malleability. And I think a lot of people assume that other people's sexuality is just as malleable as their own.

I would say that as much as 40-60% have a malleable sexuality and 10-30% have a fixed sexuality (strictly straight or gay).

 

[Alyssa]

Almost any human behavior has a variability of change including sexuality. I think it's natural to be aroused by actions which seem "off limits." I guess it depends on how one defines bisexual.

 

[CriticalThought]

Almost any human behavior has a variability of change including sexuality. I think it's natural to be aroused by actions which seem "off limits." I guess it depends on how one defines bisexual.

I'm not talking about behavior, I'm talking about sexual attractions.

The purpose of this thread is to determine how malleable those sexual attractions are for everyone. It would seem that some people have very malleable sexual attractions and others have fixed sexual attractions.

 

[Alyssa]

I'm not talking about behavior, I'm talking about sexual attractions.

The purpose of this thread is to determine how malleable those sexual attractions are for everyone. It would seem that some people have very malleable sexual attractions and others have fixed sexual attractions.

Overall, with the exception of the most deviant, most people's fantasies aren't likely so different, but mainly the individual's own reluctance to accept his or her own attractions.

 

[maquiscat]

My question is based on what I observe with prisoners and prostitutes. Given a different culture, a lot of people exhibit great sexual malleability. However, not everyone exhibits that sexual malleability. And I think a lot of people assume that other people's sexuality is just as malleable as their own.

OK now we're heading into a different area from what I got the OP to be. One's sexuality and what what is willing to do to survive or relieve sexual frustration or even wield power over another is quite different. A prostitute may be willing to have sex with a person of their own gender because they are getting paid to do so and need that money to survive. That doesn't mean that they are gay or bi. The physical act is separate from the sexuality although it is often the logical extension. Otherwise the rape of a lesbian by a male would throw her into the Bisexual category, and that simply is not realistic.

 

[Alyssa]

Do prisoners who rape other prisoners have homosexual tendencies? I think they must, or how else could they bring themselves to have anal sex with another man? (Not be be crude here).

 

[Temporal]

You are assuming that sexuality is malleable for everyone?

That is my point. While I recognize that sexuality is malleable for a lot of people, I don't think it is for everyone. I think for those who have a malleable sexuality, they simply assume that everyone else has a sexuality that is just as malleable as their own.

Whether or not it's malleable for someone has zero relationship to the need to label it with constraining definitions.

Think about calling someone gay. The word "gay" has all sorts of semantic and ideological attachments to it. Why can't you just be with the same sex without all of the identity culture around it? That's my main beef with Kinsey's approach when he employs the polarized spectrum.

Gay and straight aren't real. They're just words we invented. Human behaviour goes beyond constraining variables.

 

[Alyssa]

Whether or not it's malleable for someone has zero relationship to the need to label it with constraining definitions.

Think about calling someone gay. The word "gay" has all sorts of semantic and ideological attachments to it. Why can't you just be with the same sex without all of the identity culture around it? That's my main beef with Kinsey's approach when he employs the polarized spectrum.

Gay and straight aren't real. They're just words we invented. Human behaviour goes beyond constraining variables.

In order to be a language based society, things, actions, people, et cetera must have labels.

 

[CriticalThought]

Whether or not it's malleable for someone has zero relationship to the need to label it with constraining definitions.

It has absolutely everything to do with it. Is it anymore fair for you to call people "queer" with the connotation their sexuality is malleable if in fact their sexuality is fixed and cannot be changed?

What is wrong with people having a choice with how they identify themselves? People can choose to identify as either gay or queer depending upon how malleable they feel their sexuality is. Who are you to decide that on behalf of someone else?

Do you believe that sexuality is malleable for everyone?

 

[Temporal]

In order to be a language based society, things, actions, people, et cetera must have labels.

Not everything we think, feel, or do has a label; and sometimes the labels we use are not adequate to describe the experience we are having.

I acknowledge that we are a language-based society. I even acknowledge that labels are necessary for us to communicate with one another. What I'm suggesting is that we not be too attached to those labels, so that other ideas can be permitted to flourish which may even challenge them.

A conscious culture is one that is always engaged in trying to understand why and how its values are formed instead of just taking taking labels at face value. Without this self-inquiry, culture stagnates and does not evolve.