Kinsey and Bisexuality
 

I continue to be fascinated with Kinsey and his reasearh from the 40's. At the time Kinsey considered us all inherently bisexual, with our actual orientation being somewhere on a seven point continuum (0-6) from exclusively heterosexual(0) to exclusively homosexual(6).

Now from what I gather in his initial research he was focused on reported behavior and not necessarily with what "orientation" his subjects identified with.

It seems this notion has fallen by the wayside as contemporary cutlture on both ends of the continuum, prefer that people idenify as either exclusively gay or straight. Granted, seeing things in balck and white is much simpler than dealing with shades of grey, but what do you think of Kinsey's notion that we are intrinsicly bisexual?

I think it is totally possible. Me myself? Totally gay. :shrug:
I was amazed by the movie as well. It made me think that we, Americans, are really uptight about sex and sexuality and that we should all just accept that people's sexuality isn't just black or white. Lots of grey. So, therefore, we should just get over hangups we have about people's sex lives.
(The movie did skip the part where Kinsey apparently circumsized himself. :eek: I was wondering how they were going to pull that off. No pun intended.)
Sometimes bisexuality confuses me, but I accept people who say they are bisexual. At times, I think 'well you have to lean stronger to one end and therefore you should be x.' But both sides can pull pretty strongly if you're bi. Sometimes I wish I was bi to see what it's like. But, feh, the urge isn't that strong.
There were a number of women in my past that I could have slept with, but I didn't want to break their hearts nor mess with their minds. Nor mine, I didn't want to delude myself into thinking I was straight or bi. That's just not the case. On the Kinsey scale, I think I'm a strong 6. :)

I'm a grey believer and I totally get and understand it. Nuff said.

My best friend since 2nd grade is bi and though she's been with a woman for the past few years....she is getting married to a man this summer. I'm flabbergasted. I didn't think she would get married, period. I'm fairly certain they'll have an open relationship at some point....I just can't see her being with a man forever.....that's just not the Laura I know. I guess it's the monogamous stuff I have a hard time picturing....Laura with one person forever.

I'd put her on the gay side of the spectrum at a 1.5ish....would be further over if she wasn't sooo gaga with her guy.

I'm really happy for her....I want to meet him before they get married. We're working on the logistics. Her daughter adores him and he's six years away from retiring from the Coast Guard (our dads were Coasties) and is totally wanting to travel with her and support her midwifing in Third World countries dreams....so I love him already. :)

My point? It's grey to me. I'm grey.

Uh, I think that was included in the version I saw...Bleeding...Sitting on the edge of the bathtub...

Anyway, while I think it's clear that most of us seem to have preference, Kinsey's conclusions came from reported bahaviors - so that even those who would consider themselves straight had some homosexual activity reported in theri sex histories and vice-versa.

Not to get gross or derail further, but he said he pierced his foreskin in the movie. In real life, he cut his foreskin off with a pocketknife. All the way around...
:eek:

That is making my skin crawl

Somewhere in the world, Bornieo shudders...

Yeah, that part got left on the cutting room floor.

Ew.

Oh yeah...and I like boobies. I'd prolly be a solid 0 on that scale.

I don't know, that "ass hat" stuff doesn't sound to straight to me - and then there are those guys you kissed...

Again, to KInsey it wasn't how you identify, but rather how you act ;)

Not to mention the wallpaper on his computer

I believe in the greyness of sexuality.

While I identify myself as being heterosexual, I could see myself falling in love with a woman, or at least I couldn't imagine turning myself off from the possibilities.

I'm silly, though, and haven't seen the movie yet. Perhaps it will be a jaunt for today, if I can find somewhere local to catch it.

Kinsey
 

So does Todd...

I don't think that Kinsey's point was that we are all intrinsically bisexual, but rather, that there are different shades of that gray. I think that there are probably just as many 0s and 6s out there as there are 1s through 5s.

I always thought I was about a 1. I love gender studies and seeing gender lines crossed. I think women are terrifically attractive; watching "Secretary" I'll be equally turned on by Spader and Gyllenhaal. I freely admit that boobs are cool. But if Kinsey's judging only on behavior and not identification... I guess I'd have to place myself at a 0 or an 0.5. When it comes down to it, although I register attraction, I simply haven't ever fallen in love with a woman or felt the same yearning I have felt for men. Still, I wouldn't rule it out. If the man I'm in love with was, hypothetically, a woman, I think I'd probably swing that way.

As for the film, I saw Kinsey soonafter it came out, and though I found it intellectually stimulating, I didn't feel as much emotional resonance as I wanted from it.

the fore or aft skin?


as for the kinsey scale, without knowing too much in depth about it, I could see myself as a 3...
I know I am not a 1 or 6...

Must've been the director's cut.

hehehehe. He said cut. teeheehee

I've bought the "varying degrees of bisexuality" argument from the very beginnings of my accepting of my own gayness. I like guys, I've been with girls. If I was required to repopulate the planet, I could. But I like guys. The only combo that doesn't actually float my boat is girls with girls.
Oh, I haven't seen the movie.

Funny...when you put the wallpaper on my computer...reports are that it took you less than 10 seconds to find the images you wanted. Frequent the gay porn sites a bit much?

Seamoney - Ass hats are totally not gay....Most of the guys that did them are typical midwest homophobes.

uh-huh...

I agree that there's a scale. I don't think I'm on either end.

I'd absolutley say there's a scale. Honetly, I believe there's a scale for all things behavioral. Up for constant debate, however, are the related questions 1) Is your position on the scale inate and 2) assuming there is at least a hard-wired component, can socialization actually change your position on the scale, or does it simply cause you to deny/ignore/repress your position on the scale?

Myself, I'm firmly (hehe) on the straight end. I suppose I'd probably not be a solid zero because I'm not the "eww gross" type, but males hold zero attraction for me. I have no idea what women see in us, but hey, I thank you ladies for seeing whatever it is ;)

Me? I do like women. I admit it. I'm definitely not down-the-middle bi. I don't see myself able to have as deep an emotional relationship with a woman. And I really enjoy what men have to offer. ;) But I could definitely have fun with a woman without hang-ups.

My very subjective view is that sex is sex, and that if you blindfold anyone and stimulate them they'll enjoy themselves, no matter if the giver is male or female. Certain acts are going to be a matter of personal preference, of course. But I'm able to look at a female and be ok with the fact that we could get each other off. Don't know why men in this country are ingrained with such taboos against their own kind.

Yeah, weird, huh? There are many many societal taboos that I've divested myself of, and I'm hardly the stereotypical machismo-driven male. But that's just one that I don't see myself getting past, it is just distasteful to me (and to be clear, it's not distasteful that other people enjoy it, it's just not what I'd enjoy). Of course, it's entirely possible that in my case, it's NOT a social pressure thing, that I'm just on that end of the scale. But is there really a way to know? Considering the disparity, from my observation, between the number of straight-identified women who say they'd be willing to experiment and the number of straight-identified men who say they'd be willing, there's definitely some sort of external influence. But even in a perfect world where that isn't there, there will still be (based on the Kinsey model, and my own beliefs) a certain percentage who are simply on one end of the scale or the other.

I am fascinated with Kinsey, his life, his studies and how his finding effected our society. From a sociological point of view, it is fascinating!

Personally, I am not quite sure where I would stand on the scale. I am much pickier about who I am attracted to now that I am older. My "A List" for men I actually know has even gotten shorter. I look for the elusive "chemestry" as well as physical attraction. It's the same with women, and much harder to find the chemestry I require.

Basing on actual experience, I'm probably a 2 or, unlikely, a 3. But, most of that experience is long ago when I was a lot more "free" about my sex life. Today, if I were to add people into my "sexual pantheon" they'd all be men. I do love men. ;)

I think there are gray areas for sexuality. There are grey areas for just about everything. I rarely find anything that is either black or white. The Kinsey scale is a good theory, but, based on practice only, I think it leaves out a lot.

I do remember thinking, the first time I was attracted sexually to a woman, OH NO I'M GAY! I didn't think you could be somewhere in the gray area. Ahhhhh, thank God for knowledge.

I would have to put myself somewhere between a 4 and 5 on the Kinsey Scale. On rare occasion, I do find myself attracted to someone of the opposite sex. I don't believe that I would be able to remain content though, were I to pursue it. In my 20's, I had a relationship with a woman that I was very attracted to emotionally and physically, but deep down, I knew that my overall preference was predominantly male.

And with that, I knew that a long-term monogamous relationship with a woman was not going to be fulfilling. My stimulation and desires were too strong in the opposite direction and, long-term, that just wasn't going to work. Later, when I fell in love with someone of the same-sex, I was able to find a relationship that felt far more genuine and fulfilling.

So the attraction to both sides remains, but emotionally, I know where I'm supposed to be.

In general, I think there is a lot more grey area in life than we would sometimes like to admit, especially regarding sexuality. I question whether women are more likely to have bisexual feelings then men. I simply feel that women are more comfortable being honest with themselves and have fewer hang-ups. I don't question that there are many people like GD who just don't have any attraction for the same-sex and I don't think we really have any ability to change who we are attracted to, at least not in a healthy way. Still, I think that there are many many males, who have thought about a same-sex encounter, who would never reveal it to anyone in a million years.

I watched the classic "On The Town" yesterday. There was a line when they meet up with Ann Miller in the museum where someone references Dr. Kinsey. I giggled and thought of this thread. :)

I'm reading Kerouac's On the Road (for obvious research purposes), and it mentions a bar that Kinsey used to frequent for his interviews, claiming that his friends were part of his studies. It all comes back around, baby...

An interesting tidbit...
C.A. Tripp, who was a research assistant for Kinsey, just came out with a book, 'The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln' that aledges that Lincoln was a bisexual. The book was finished days before he died. I have the book, but have not finished it yet. He makes an interesting case for his belief about Lincoln.

Hmmm, there's a way to spice up 'Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln'... ;)




(By the way, I wasn't sure if LoT had an MPesque policy against resurrecting threads, so I just did it anyway... :) )

My feeling is that there's no problem resurrecting old threads, so long as the info is relevant, and interesting.

You fit both.

:)

after carefully reading each and every word in this thread, i am confused.

i know i prefer a Ford, then i saw a Chevy commercial and i was like, UH! i'm attracted to Chevy's.

i believe i was born a six, then after circumcision became a four or three:(

in college, i think i managed to "understand" each level of the scale. (of course, it was all for research).:D


grey indeed.
however, what happens on the Matterhorn, stays on the Matterhorn:birdy:

Coolness. :)
Nice! lol! :D

both NM and GD deserve honorary toasters just for participating in this thoughtful thread. both classy guys i consider good friends.


two :snap: up and a:birdy: !

Has this site even been up long enough to have threads that can be resurrected?

For some reason, as I read this, I keep thinking about a scene from The World According to Garp

I don't know. I never really understood their definition of 'old thread' either...

I totally agree....but where's the praise from straight guys for me saying I'd sleep with a chick? Hello? ;)

You'll get plenty of praise once you stop talking about it and start doing it. :eek:

Anyone got some wine and a waterbed? :eek:

I got a video camera

I'm a vote for the grey scale, and I really think it's a highly personalized scale.

If there were no societal constraints, I think that scale may be a lot less personalized, and sexuality a lot more fluid than it sometimes seems to be.

As for my own personal attractions, I like roosters more than meow-meows. And when I find myself fancying a bit of the meow-meow-meow she's usually a boyish looking punk chick. Or quite the opposite, an opulent, fleshy odalesque type. Burlesque fetish, I guess. I've also found myself attracted to transgendered women. Women who have become men. I find whatever 'mones they're giving off to be a strangely honey-esque comfort. Perhpas it's the attraction to the outward male appearance, but there's something about a woman's company that often puts me at ease, so...nice mix, I guess.

But that's just attraction. I'm easily attracted. I've got broad tastes and interests and I like all kinds of kind...to a point. But I definitely prefer men. And if I fell in love with a woman (which happened once before when I was seventeen and never went very far; I was much too timid), I think I'd still crave a man's company. I'm pretty sure I'd leave her eventually, which just seems unkind to do if you know that going in.

But I do find that when it comes down to a lot of touch, it's really the touch that matters, and not the form of the person I'm touching.

Then again, I'm the first to admit that I really do like a pleasant ****-a-doodle-doo-ing. It's in me to make that a priority. Ah, well.

This exchange, and your signature, is now amusing me.

Heh.

Oh my lord, but did I ever get caught checking out the wrong transgendered women in line for the Matterhorn last night. OMG, I wish I could say more about this bizarro encounter, but in this case I must stick to the dictum of what happens on the Matterhorn stays on the Matterhorn.

I'll respect your quiet tongue, but I'm not liking it.

So it's a date then? ;)

Well, my first girlfriend was a lesbian...

I never really saw myself having a long-term relationship with a woman. But I don't know what really drives my preference -- if it's because I'm internally wired to prefer men, or because it's socially easier/expected for me to be married to a guy.

I had the only serious crush I ever had on a woman while I was in my 30s and unhappily married. Nothing happened, but the creepy thing is, I realized recently that the woman LOOKED like me, ACTED like me, had the same INTERESTS as me...

So instead of being a trip around the desire scale...it looks like I had a brief erotic obsession with...MYSELF! :rolleyes:

Hm. That's probably the most intimate thing I've ever trucked out onto the information superhighway. But also self-deprecatingly funny. Okay.

Heehee. Actually, the women that I have found myself attracted to have basically the same physique as me. Interesting, that.

Funny you should ask...

Well there are only two on this board. One is your husband, and the other...well I just havn't seen this thread in a while so didn't see your post.

:cool:

*laughing at myself 'cuz I actually stopped to take count*

I need more hobbies.

Untrue, babe, untrue. How could you forget our Anarchist King?

And, um, I think that's it. :p

I'm always up for voyueristic intrigue - and to continue with the outing of the straight men - I shall name Flubber, as someone else with demonstrable heterosexual tendancies.

This is quite a revealing night for heterosexuals. All coming out of the closet at once.

Scaeagles, Sac, GD

Cha Bucci, Cha cha cha Bucci, ROLL CALL!

Now I feel bad for forgetting all my hetero guy friends.

Add Kevy and we've got 7.

Kevy!?!?!?


Pffft, might as well add me, then.

Is that all?


I've got quite a few non-gay husbands.

Not so fast, there. I believe all your straight husbands have already been accounted for.

Not his holeyness.

Alrightie then. Yeah, don't forget Husband #3.

Suddenly this is the "Out the guys that are attracted to women" thread.

GD
NM
€
Flub
Sac
scaeagles
Kevy
iSm
ubergeek

Who else? Step up! Don't worry - no hetero bashing here. ;)

Yes, but speaking of No. 3, I believe it was husband #3 who declared himself a Kinsey-scale 3 in this very thread!

(or was that husband No. 4? It's so hard to keep track - - but there's one thing I know; 3 is how many straight ones there are ... unless there have been some recent weddings I've not been invited to)

But Kinsey 3s are still attracted to women

Ah but the original question I believe was about how many were straight, not bi. So that would rule out iSm and kevy for that matter (you should see the things he looks at on other peoples computers).

:)

I would think Kinsey 3's would be as rare, being right smack dab in the middle, as being a 6 or a 0.


Anyway, if a dabble of youthful experimentation puts a current 6 as a permanent 3 in Kinsey's book, I think Kinsey's methodology is a little too skewed.

:iSm:

Blah blah blah. This all about who would be pleased at the idea of me having sex with another woman. A woman with a body similar to mine (see my post above). Raise your hands! :p

For the record, the "he" in that last sentence refers to Kevy, not to me.


Lest anyone think I'm a perv.







Ok, lest anyone think I'm as big a perv as Kevy.


:iSm:

Skewed indeed. And that also kind of illustrates the flaw of Kinsey's "reported behavior" criteria. Sure, based on behavior on a recent time scale, you're a 6, but that shift in behavior comes more from your relationship status than an actual shift in preference.

So, for the purposes of classifying Not Afraid's husband's, what are we to make of this?

Does the geek know enough about the kinsey scale to know he'd be a 3 based on some youthful indiscretions long since forgotten, or is the mid-range self-rating something less purely Kinseyan?


Whichever way it turns out, I find it much more interesting if NA's hubbies have a variety of sexual desires.

And why should you think otherwise? ;)

You know, most people go through an experimental stage of their life. You do drugs, try all types of sex, just explore other possabilities that wern't presented to you in the past. I think with boys, as they grow up, their early sexual experiences are all of the homosexual variety because, that's what's available. I would say the same types of things happens with girls as well. In High School or College, a lot of new things are put on the table to be checked out. Add alcohol or drugs in there a person looses many inhibitions.

So, to say that what I am today is based on what I've done in the past does not really make sense. I think, for me, I did any experimentation I did to figure out what I preferred over what I didn't prefer. I probably would be classified as a Kinsey 3 based on my experiences, but, in reality. I'm more like a Kinsey 1. The old "been there, done that adage works for me". I don't need to keep trying new things because, I've done most of them already. At this point in time, I know what I like and know how to get it. ;)

Count me in, babe.

Rrrraaaaowwh! ;) :p ;) :p ;)

[quote=Prudence]Well, my first girlfriend was a lesbian...


QUOTE]

i'm not gay, but my boyfriend is:D

I have been fascinated watching others discuss my sexuality.

Couldn't argue with any of the comments.

and i hope you noticed not a peep from me about us on the Matterhorn. remember, mums the word.

zip it!;)

I think I disagree. But it's very difficult to know how most folks feel about the issue because so few are willing to truly discuss their feelings honestly. Well, other than folks posting in this thread. ;)

I gotta be honest and say I don't understand bisexuality at all. I accept it, but I don't "get" it.

Kinsey would definitely rank me a 6. I have never had a sexual fantasy involving a woman, never been sexually attracted to a woman, nor had physical relations with a woman. From a very early age, I knew I was gay. So when I try to imagine a guy being attracted to a woman (to any degree), I have no personal point of reference—the concept is totally foreign to me.

In addition, I don't define sexuality the way Kinsey did. To me, a person's orientation is defined by which gender they are able to form romantic/emotional bonds with, i.e., love. If you're a woman who only falls in love with men but occasionally "does it" with chicks, you're not bisexual—you're a straight woman who likes to play with ladies. But if you're a woman who does fall in love with both chicks and dudes, you are indeed bisexual. (Again, this is just my personal definition. I don't expect others to adopt it.)

Years ago I used to think that anyone who called themselves bisexual was either a straight person who wanted to sound chic or a gay person who couldn't quite drag themselves all the way out of the closet. I have since become enlightened. While I still think some of the aforementioned types exist, I have come to learn that there truly are folks who dig both the chicks and the dudes. And if that works for you, more power to you!

And, as Woody Allen once said, "You have twice as much chance of being turned down for a date on Saturday night."