Political Crossfire Forums

[Melchior]

I would like to introduce an idea, that I personally do not see emphasized: Words, such as heterosexual and homosexual, are labels. Sexual orientation, in reality, is a spectrum: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html



Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist, (pp. 639, 656)

Kinsey, et al. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinsey Scale



0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual

(Kinsey 1948), p. 638

[Locke25]

so what's it saying? that almost everyone is a little homosexual/heterosexual or something...?

[Locke25]

soldierofchrist wrote: Locke25 wrote: so what's it saying? that almost everyone is a little homosexual/heterosexual or something...?
That's what I've always heard. That everyone is homosexual at least a little bit. Not sure I believe that though......

haha if thats what it's saying, then i don't agree with that. at all....

[d357r0y3r]

Melchior wrote: I would like to introduce an idea, that I personally do not see emphasized: Words, such as heterosexual and homosexual, are labels. Sexual orientation, in reality, is a spectrum: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html



Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist, (pp. 639, 656)

Kinsey, et al. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinsey Scale



0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual

(Kinsey 1948), p. 638

You know what? That actually makes a lot of sense. The idea of being exclusively homosexual has never made much sense to me.

[PrinceJunius]

d357r0y3r wrote:

You know what? That actually makes a lot of sense. The idea of being exclusively homosexual has never made much sense to me.

Nor has the idea of being exclusively heterosexual.

Maybe I am a little heterosexual, but my preference for males just outweighs any attraction I may feel towards women, so I just prefer to call myself homosexual, since I might as well be.

[John Galt]

Mechoir, this iswhere the 10% myth came from I wastalking about in another thread, this Kinsey fellow, who used pedophiles in his research (317 children were abused to be exact). Here we go...

"Table 34. Examples of multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males. Some instances of higher frequencies" (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948).



Wow, isn't that interesting? HOW'D YOU FIND THAT OUT YOU SICK BASTARD? Apparently there is a video on it: Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, The Children of Table 34.

Anyway, like I said, he alsocame upwith the 10% myth. Or, more accuratly, his research has been construed to come up with that myth.I will debunk it here for you, using an amicus curie filed in support of the plantiffs in Lawrence v. Texas (by 31 homosexual activist groups, including the Human Rights Campaign; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; and the People for the American Way Foundation):

"The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian."

Of course, its "4 million" men and "2 million women" only if you include the 60 million children in the country when you multiply the number by 2.8% and 1.4%, respectivley. So in reality its a small number.

Of course, if we are to belive Kinsey, children are homosexual too. Maybe even 5 month old infants, like he experimented upon. OK OK, he didn't do experiments on them. But he gathered data from pedophiles who used stopwatches.

Anyway, back to the scale. Kinsey again used questionable data. He interviewed people in prision.

Ever watch Oz? Yeah we know what happens in prision. Lemme guess, around37% of the males had homosexual experiences! That's what Kinsey found. But a random sample of the general populous (not people in prision) in 1994 by the U of Chicago found that 2.8% of males have had homosexual experiences... hmmmm...

Point is this Kinsey fellow has very questionable data and his conclusions should be heavily scrutinized if not immeditely thrown out. This means the scale and the 10% number.

Here's the brief... you need something like LexisNexis to read it though me thinks, I can't find it on free internet sites... its on page 16, footnote 42.....

Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Pride At Work AFL-CIO, People For the American Way Foundation, Anti-Defamation League, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Society of American Law Teachers, Soulforce, Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston, Equality Alabama, Equality Florida, S.A.V.E., Community Center of Idaho, Your Family, Friends and Neighbors, Kansas Unity and Pride Alliance, Louisiana Electorate of Gays and Lesbians, Equality Mississippi, Promo, North Carolina Gay and Lesbian Attorneys, Cimarron Foundation of Pride Movement, Alliance for Full Acceptance, Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Utah, and Equality Virginia. Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. Lawrence and Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003)

[Locke25]

:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

the 4 yr old!!!! 26???????

[PrinceJunius]

Locke25 wrote: :shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

the 4 yr old!!!! 26???????

And in an entire day. I'm impressed. That kid is the pimp.

[John Galt]

PrinceJunius wrote: Locke25 wrote: :shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

the 4 yr old!!!! 26???????

And in an entire day. I'm impressed. That kid is the pimp.

Yeah well he was molested by a pedophilein order for that to happen. Real "pimp."

[d357r0y3r]

That's f****d up.

[PrinceJunius]

John Galt wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Locke25 wrote: :shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

the 4 yr old!!!! 26???????

And in an entire day. I'm impressed. That kid is the pimp.

Yeah well he was molested by a pedophilein order for that to happen. Real "pimp."

Not that I'm crazy about this whole study or anything, but what makes you so certain that the kids had to have been molested in order to get this data? If the parents consented so that their kids could be used as research subjects for studies into child sexuality or whatever, it seems reasonable. Of course, back in Kinsey's day and age, psychology was a much more undeveloped field. With all the codes of ethics we have today in psychological research, no experiment of this kind could be done today, since it would be unethical (child can't consent and all that).

I remember an experiment about phobias where they successfully got some kid to be absolutely terrified of a bunny. They just conditioned the kid to be terrified of it. That's unethical, but that's sort of how they did experiments back then. Nowadays, with our fancy body-scanning technology, we don't need to go to such weird extents to get scientific results.

[David]

PrinceJunius wrote: John Galt wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Locke25 wrote: :shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

the 4 yr old!!!! 26???????

And in an entire day. I'm impressed. That kid is the pimp.

Yeah well he was molested by a pedophilein order for that to happen. Real "pimp."

Not that I'm crazy about this whole study or anything, but what makes you so certain that the kids had to have been molested in order to get this data? If the parents consented so that their kids could be used as research subjects for studies into child sexuality or whatever, it seems reasonable. Of course, back in Kinsey's day and age, psychology was a much more undeveloped field. With all the codes of ethics we have today in psychological research, no experiment of this kind could be done today, since it would be unethical (child can't consent and all that).

I remember an experiment about phobias where they successfully got some kid to be absolutely terrified of a bunny. They just conditioned the kid to be terrified of it. That's unethical, but that's sort of how they did experiments back then. Nowadays, with our fancy body-scanning technology, we don't need to go to such weird extents to get scientific results.


Read what you wrote.Whether the parents consented or not they were molested. :roll:

[Locke25]

PrinceJunius wrote: John Galt wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Locke25 wrote: :shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

the 4 yr old!!!! 26???????

And in an entire day. I'm impressed. That kid is the pimp.

Yeah well he was molested by a pedophilein order for that to happen. Real "pimp."

Not that I'm crazy about this whole study or anything, but what makes you so certain that the kids had to have been molested in order to get this data? If the parents consented so that their kids could be used as research subjects for studies into child sexuality or whatever, it seems reasonable. Of course, back in Kinsey's day and age, psychology was a much more undeveloped field. With all the codes of ethics we have today in psychological research, no experiment of this kind could be done today, since it would be unethical (child can't consent and all that).

I remember an experiment about phobias where they successfully got some kid to be absolutely terrified of a bunny. They just conditioned the kid to be terrified of it. That's unethical, but that's sort of how they did experiments back then. Nowadays, with our fancy body-scanning technology, we don't need to go to such weird extents to get scientific results.

:? it's still not "reasonable" even if the parents did consent...

[StrangerWitCandy]

John Galt wrote: Of course, if we are to belive Kinsey, children are homosexual too.

i knew i was gay when i was a child. i wasn't sexual, but i had crushes on boys. i knew

[John Galt]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course, if we are to belive Kinsey, children are homosexual too.

i knew i was gay when i was a child. i wasn't sexual, but i had crushes on boys. i knew

I had no crushes on girls when I was 5mo, 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 5 year, 6 year, 7 year, 8 year, 9 year, or 10 yearsold, at least. When's about 5th or6th grade? Yeah around then probabbly. Becky Brown, you were hot...

I'm talking about children. They cannot be included in a numberto state "This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian." That number is made by multipling the population by 2.8 and 1.4% of the whole pop. But children are not openly gay or identifiy themselves as lesbians.

[Jezebel]

PrinceJunius wrote: Not that I'm crazy about this whole study or anything, but what makes you so certain that the kids had to have been molested in order to get this data? If the parents consented so that their kids could be used as research subjects for studies into child sexuality or whatever, it seems reasonable. Of course, back in Kinsey's day and age, psychology was a much more undeveloped field. With all the codes of ethics we have today in psychological research, no experiment of this kind could be done today, since it would be unethical (child can't consent and all that).

The children who were molested were all molested by one man who had made detailed records. They were not molested specifically for Kinsey's research or under Kinsey's direction. They had already been molested when Kinsey came across this man and he was given permission to use his data. The only questionable ethics involved was not reporting this man to the authorities. At the time, he could have reported all the homosexuals he interviewed just as easily as he could report the pedophile.

[StrangerWitCandy]

John Galt wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course, if we are to belive Kinsey, children are homosexual too.

i knew i was gay when i was a child. i wasn't sexual, but i had crushes on boys. i knew

I had no crushes on girls when I was 5mo, 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 5 year, 6 year, 7 year, 8 year, 9 year, or 10 yearsold, at least. When's about 5th or6th grade? Yeah around then probabbly. Becky Brown, you were hot...

I'm talking about children. They cannot be included in a numberto state "This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian." That number is made by multipling the population by 2.8 and 1.4% of the whole pop. But children are not openly gay or identifiy themselves as lesbians.

the numbers may be wrong, i'm not defending kinsey's report or his methods. but i'm telling you from personal experience that i have been a homosexual since i can remember. i've always known it, even before i knew what homosexuality was, that i was different. and regardless of how you felt during your elementary years, i did have intense admirations or "crushes" on boys which later in life developed into sexual attractions.

[John Galt]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: John Galt wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course, if we are to belive Kinsey, children are homosexual too.

i knew i was gay when i was a child. i wasn't sexual, but i had crushes on boys. i knew

I had no crushes on girls when I was 5mo, 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 5 year, 6 year, 7 year, 8 year, 9 year, or 10 yearsold, at least. When's about 5th or6th grade? Yeah around then probabbly. Becky Brown, you were hot...

I'm talking about children. They cannot be included in a numberto state "This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian." That number is made by multipling the population by 2.8 and 1.4% of the whole pop. But children are not openly gay or identifiy themselves as lesbians.

the numbers may be wrong, i'm not defending kinsey's report or his methods. but i'm telling you from personal experience that i have been a homosexual since i can remember. i've always known it, even before i knew what homosexuality was, that i was different. and regardless of how you felt during your elementary years, i did have intense admirations or "crushes" on boys which later in life developed into sexual attractions.

Fair enough. And I was pointing out that I for one (and I assume many people are the same way) did not have crush on the opposite gender eventhough I am straight when I was younger; they had cooties.

[DarthDuncan]

That's interesting. The scale makes sense to me. Kinda like Gay Fantasy #3, if you've read Am I Blue, by Bruce Coville. The fantasy is that everyone who is gay turns blue so that they don't have to hide. And what's interesting is that there are different shades saying that there are alot of people who are unsure or have minor feelings towards the same sex. I realize that's a tad off topic but it supports the scale.

[John Galt]

DarthDuncan wrote: That's interesting. The scale makes sense to me. Kinda like Gay Fantasy #3, if you've read Am I Blue, by Bruce Coville. The fantasy is that everyone who is gay turns blue so that they don't have to hide. And what's interesting is that there are different shades saying that there are alot of people who are unsure or have minor feelings towards the same sex. I realize that's a tad off topic but it supports the scale.

A gay fantasy book supports the scale? That's exactly like saying "This is true because he said so." It's pointless and detracts from the discussion. What would be interesting if maybe a scientific study that did not invovle pedophiles or prisioners was used to come up with the scale, what would that result in? Well something quite different. Maybe the scale still exists but it does not exist to look like each section is equal. "Heterosexuals" make up 95% of the population and the scale is dividedin the remaining 5%. That's according to the studies I've sourced already here above, which were used to argue alongside the plantiffs in Lawrence v.Texas. PLANTIFFS.