Do you agree with the Kinsey scale of human sexuality?

[greendaze5]

Has Kinsey’s research been updated? Being that he did his studies some 50 years, would more straight people admit to having bi/gay tendencies if asked today (in a 'generally more tolerant and accepting time)?

Was watching the Ted and Gayle Haggard interviews with Larry King and Oprah last week. Ted is now a self confessed ‘straight male with homosexual tendencies’ and is apparently more or less finally ‘cured’ to being exclusively hetero now.

If he’s happy with his life that’s great, but I can’t help but think he’s still a repressed bi/gay man, and wish he would just openly embrace that other part of himself. But coming from his strong religious background, that he’s married, and that he associates his former life with negative behaviour and events (the lying, the drug use, and alleged sexual abuse as a kid), that just doesn’t seem possible.

In one of the interviews, Ted Haggard didn’t say it out right (though his wife sort of did) but it sounds like he’s still in that ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ frame of mind.

Roland

[jaycee]

I'll just offer some evolutionary biology I'm familiar with. Of course, being a physics student, I'm not a specialist, so I'll avoid conjecture where possible.
Obviously the purpose of sexual attraction is that it leads to procreation. After all, animals without desire to procreate won't produce offspring, thus removing asexuality from the gene pool (although that's not to say it never appears, as many asexual humans will testify... anyway, perhaps genes promoting asexuality reappear through a mutation?)
Homosexuality is an occurrence of genes "misfiring" - genes promoting a behaviour that won't actually promote the survival of the individual's genes. So in that sense it should be clear cut heterosexuality or homosexuality, as you (presumably) won't have genes that promote behaviour somewhere in between (although there could perhaps be genes that basically say "be attracted to any member of your species").
Now, for nature vs. nurture... the best way to understand this is to say that genes "react" to the environment they are in. Or, put another way, some genes "turn on" and others "turn off" depending on how we're treated and what we experience while we're growing up and well into our adult life. So ultimately "nature" puts all the bits in place, and "nuture" influences which bits are used and which aren't (needless to say the majority of bits are used).
As I said in my brief disclaimer, I'm not a biologist, so I'm not the best person to ask. The best options are to read the likes of Richard Dawkins or ask other evolutionary biologists, particularly sexual selectionists (i.e. specialists in things such as gender roles in animals).
The most important thing to remember is that all variation ultimately comes back to genes (I mean, the existence of life must necessarily come before any culture, and it's the genetic variation across the various geographic regions that gives rise to said culture), whether or not they are influenced by their environment.
Anyway, I hope what little I said was at least somewhat insightful...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by jaycee

Homosexuality is an occurrence of genes "misfiring" - genes promoting a behaviour that won't actually promote the survival of the individual's genes. So in that sense it should be clear cut heterosexuality or homosexuality, as you (presumably) won't have genes that promote behaviour somewhere in between (although there could perhaps be genes that basically say "be attracted to any member of your species").

But not all genes are inherited as discrete units (e.g. blue vs brown eyes) but instead exist on a spectrum. The most common example of this is height. There is no single gene where allele A stands for "tall" and allele B for "short." (And how would you define "short" and "tall" anyway?) You don't end up with either a short or tall kid or even one with the average of the parents' heights. Instead height exists on a continuous spectrum, with over 50 genes contributing to its outcome, a very complex process that is still little understood. You could, factoring in outliers, have a child of basically any height. And while environment can influence height, the role it plays varies greatly. For example, 2 boys (not identical twins) born from the same parents, raised in the same environment, fed the same diet, could still grow up with great differences in height.

I say all that to say...perhaps human sexuality functions the same way as height. It's probably not a matter of A or B like eye color. Instead of a "gay gene," multiple genes may contribute varying degrees of influence into a person's final sexuality. And it's what type of information from one gene and how it interacts with the information from all the other genes that ultimately determines the final outcome, and perhaps that is how you end up with varying degrees of bisexuality. And if that is the case, then perhaps as in the example of height, environment actually plays a much smaller role than we may have once thought.

Eh, just my 2 cents on a Sunday morning.

Brad

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by Brad

But not all genes are inherited as discrete units (e.g. blue vs brown eyes) but instead exist on a spectrum. The most common example of this is height. There is no single gene where allele A stands for "tall" and allele B for "short." (And how would you define "short" and "tall" anyway?) You don't end up with either a short or tall kid or even one with the average of the parents' heights. Instead height exists on a continuous spectrum, with over 50 genes contributing to its outcome, a very complex process that is still little understood. You could, factoring in outliers, have a child of basically any height. And while environment can influence height, the role it plays varies greatly. For example, 2 boys (not identical twins) born from the same parents, raised in the same environment, fed the same diet, could still grow up with great differences in height.

I say all that to say...perhaps human sexuality functions the same way as height. It's probably not a matter of A or B like eye color. Instead of a "gay gene," multiple genes may contribute varying degrees of influence into a person's final sexuality. And it's what type of information from one gene and how it interacts with the information from all the other genes that ultimately determines the final outcome, and perhaps that is how you end up with varying degrees of bisexuality. And if that is the case, then perhaps as in the example of height, environment actually plays a much smaller role than we may have once thought.

Eh, just my 2 cents on a Sunday morning.

Brad

You've raised a good point which I often forget to mention (although my last post was already very long anyway) - different genes can give different phenotypes, but that doesn't mean that gene alone is responsible for the outcome. Think of it like a cake recipe - you can substitute yeast with salt, for example, which will result in a very different cake, but that doesn't mean the salt alone will generate the different cake! Only in the presence of the other ingredients can it produce a flat salty cake! So it's only meaningful to talk about phenotypic differences.
As for height and sexual orientation being analogous... I wouldn't favour this view so much, as with height it's seems embryologically easier to have various height differences. Basically height differences can be attributed to genes saying "this much of more of the same here" (it's more intuitive with, say, discrete sections of a millipede, where you could have genes saying "100 copies of the same here" in one millipede, and different genes saying "110 copies of the same here", but it's basically the same thing). To my knowledge there doesn't seem to be anything like genes saying "this much heterosexuality here" and "this much homosexuality there".
Of course you'll have to forgive my potential for being wrong about the second paragraph - as I keep disclaiming, I'm not a biologist. I just have a keen interest in evolutionary biology.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by jaycee

To my knowledge there doesn't seem to be anything like genes saying "this much heterosexuality here" and "this much homosexuality there".
Of course you'll have to forgive my potential for being wrong about the second paragraph - as I keep disclaiming, I'm not a biologist. I just have a keen interest in evolutionary biology.

Yeah, I really have no idea. I was just throwing it out there as a possibility, but I have nothing to support the hypothesis at all. Interesting discussion nonetheless.

And I was a biology major, but that was 8 years ago when I graduated, and I have since moved into a more specialized field of practice. So I'd certainly never claim to be a biologist either!

Brad

[seekerj]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

Liam, I'm curious, do you believe bisexuality is a societal construct? If so, do you believe the majority of those who identify as bisexual are born straight or gay?

Doesn't the fact that animals engage in this behavior rule out the possibility that it has something to do with human society?

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by seekerj

Doesn't the fact that animals engage in this behavior rule out the possibility that it has something to do with human society?

What animals engage in bisexual behavior? I'm curious. I didn't say that I believed in bisexuality as a construct, though, I asked Liam if he did.

[seekerj]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

What animals engage in bisexual behavior? I'm curious. I didn't say that I believed in bisexuality as a construct, though, I asked Liam if he did.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to address that part of it, and I know you were asking Liam specifically; what I wrote was just a thought I had as I read your question to Liam. It really was just a thought, nothing more.

There are many species who randomly, or out of boredom, or for whatever reason, practice this behavior. There are too many to list. It might be easier to list those that do not.

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

What animals engage in bisexual behavior? I'm curious. I didn't say that I believed in bisexuality as a construct, though, I asked Liam if he did.

I know Bonobos, an ape species, regularly engage in various sexual practices, including bisexuality and, of all things, paedophilia. To quote the primatologist Frans de Waal:
"Paedophilia is not a hang-up with bonobos; all kinds of philia seem fine to them."
"The Ancestor's Tale", Richard Dawkins, pg. 110.
Beyond advising humans not to suddenly start behaving like bonobos (I doubt most people would want to anyway...), I don't know what to say...

[ButterCookie]

I'm not sure wether I agree with the scaleor not, but I'm straight, and I find Debbie Harry attractive in more than a 'she's pretty' way. But I know I'm not Bi

There's another user who I know feels the same way but I think she's too Chicken **** to post it

[DefDumbandBlond]

Georgie are you talking about us debsexuals?

[ButterCookie]

Originally Posted by DefDumbandBlond

Georgie are you talking about us debsexuals?

You know I am

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by ButterCookie

I'm not sure wether I agree with the scaleor not, but I'm straight, and I find Debbie Harry attractive in more than a 'she's pretty' way. But I know I'm not Bi

There's another user who I know feels the same way but I think she's too Chicken **** to post it

The question on everyone's minds now is "Do you want to kiss 'Debbie'?"

[ButterCookie]

Originally Posted by jaycee

The question on everyone's minds now is "Do you want to kiss 'Debbie'?"

I'd do more than kiss her

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by ButterCookie

I'd do more than kiss her

Fair enough.
In any case...

Do I get a kiss now?