The Sexual Orientation Spectrum: Alfred Kinsey's indication of the nature of humanity

[CrimsonBlaze]

I guess to sum up my post, I'll just quote Ron White: "I told him, "We're all gay, buddy. It's just to what extent are you gay." He says, "That's bullshit, man, I ain't gay at all!" I said, "Yes, you are and I'll prove it." He says, "Fine, prove it." I said to him, "All right- do you like porn?" He says, "Yeah, I love porn, you know that." I said, "Do you only watch two women together?" He said, "Naw, I watch a man and a woman make love." I said, "OK, do you want the guy to have a tiny, half-flaccid penis?" He said, "Naw, man, I like big, hard, throbbing co- (stunned pause) ...I did not know that about myself.""

Now you are saying that exposing basic fundamental elements to sexual activities is the key to unveiling one's inner homosexuality.

It's no different than someone who drives a car and says, "I honestly don't like cars." This does not imply that they are being hypocritical; it merely states that beyond the basic necessarily and service that a car provides the individual, they do not have any intetest in cars on a platonic or cosmetic spectrum. The reason some one would watch porn and claim to want the male to have a large instrument is because it is a fantasy. These individuals cannot immediately reenact the situations found in the pornos, so they watch it and satisfy their sexual desires by pretending that they are the male who is making love to the woman. Sure there is porn (particularly in animation) that would have the male completely taken out of the picture and all that is seen is the woman being pleasured, but to many it is not the same.

Anyway, defining that "men want to see other men screwing women" does not imply homosexual tendencies. It's like claiming that, "All men are slightly gay because they seek out male camaraderie than just woman camaraderie." Humans of the same gender typically get along because they share a common ground and do not feel pressured into impressing or behaving accordingly around the opposite sex.

 

[LilithSlave]

Even the Kinsey Scale seems incredibly flawed.

Sexual revolution? Too much? My foot we need another one.

 

[Gennadios]

What's wrong with every person just having a batch of physical features that they're attracted to and leaving it at that. I personally like slim and slightly muscular women with short hair, traditionally masculine traits.

The only thing I find particularly repugnant about the gay/straight/bi mythos is the cretin mouth breathers that think sleeping with a tranny that at the time they think is female and they were clearly attracted to at the time somehow makes them automatically "Gay" as if it's some sort of metaphysical mark on their soul.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

I disagree.

Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and asexual are your options- the different variations of asexuality counting as one iteration of this branch.

The latter is a physiological error in someone's code. I don't mean this to be offensive, but it is a defect in someone's makeup if they aren't attracted to either gender, or lack the desire to mate. If everyone was to immediately assume asexuality tomorrow - and ignoring alternative methods of conception (because they are artificial; circumstantial) - the human race would die out. A better example for those unable to ignore alternative conception; if all tigers were to assume asexuality they would be doomed.

I realise this can then extend to homosexual as well, but at least the core principle of desire for a mate remains.

I'm approaching this purely from a scientific standpoint, I couldn't care less what each individual chooses to do with the life that they have. The joy of a society is that even if sexualities were to suddenly take a polar switch, we still have means of continuing our existence. Looking at facts and basic laws of nature and progression however, arguably only heterosexual and by extension bisexual desires are 'correct'.

With this scale, it insinuates that everyone has homosexual tendencies anyway - by virtue of same sex friendships. To engage in a prolonged relationship with another one must find something 'attractive' in a target. To state this may be behaviour of a 'sexual' nature is a massive point of contention - and seems to be the cornerstone of this argument.

 

[Gennadios]

The latter is a physiological error in someone's code. I don't mean this to be offensive, but it is a defect in someone's makeup if they aren't attracted to either gender, or lack the desire to mate. If everyone was to immediately assume asexuality tomorrow - and ignoring alternative methods of conception (because they are artificial; circumstantial) - the human race would die out. A better example for those unable to ignore alternative conception; if all tigers were to assume asexuality they would be doomed.

I realise this can then extend to homosexual as well, but at least the core principle of desire for a mate remains.

In low resource environments it's actually beneficial to have a segment of the population that isn't dedicated to reproduction. On the one hand it adds extra hands to handle work and labor without running the risk of overpopulation and subsequent starvation, but it also allows for a safety net where homosexual/asexual family members can still raise the orphans.

And asexuality doesn't necessarily mean an aversion to sex so much as not enjoying it as much as the rest of us. I boned a chick that I'm pretty sure was asexual back in college. The sex sucked, but it can be done when survival is on the line.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

First off, welcome to the Escapist.

Secondly, good for you. Everyone is a bit too structured about this - mostly because that's what society teaches (even now) but it's nice to see some changes within my lifetime.

Thirdly, fair warning, there are a lot of people who ***** about Kinsey. He was a great man, but he was also the first in his field, and as such he made some mistakes. A lot of individuals (those who don't understand how the scientific method works) will say that because his theories have some flaws, or had flawed methodology, that they are invalid. Rest assured that those people are wrong. His work had flaws - just like ANY science has flaws, particularly when it's new. However, he did amazing things with a large pile or primary research, and as such deserves respect and admiration. Feel free to tell that to anyone who says his findings were 'wrong' because he had a limited interview pool.

Fourth - once again, welcome. Good luck with this thread.