joe@emacs.uucp (Joe Chapman) (09/02/85)
<> [ I'm replying to Alix Vasilatos's posting on Dr. Kinsey's scale, part of the recent discussion on Bisexuality. ] To me, the notion of a continuum of sexual preference is far better than the hetero/homo/bi sexual categories which hardly seem to be of any value. Nevertheless, I think that the notion of some sort of linear progression from Kinsey 0 to Kinsey 6 is still artificial, because of the things it doesn't take into account. The fantasy life of the mind, subconscious desire, romantic desire, and erotic desire are all distinct, (often achingly) real, and interconnected aspects of what we might consider to be the sexual being: how can these be combined into a single statistic? On top of this we might include a sort of political or social desire, to account for behavior ranging from a closeted gay teenager going out with someone of the opposite sex in order to pass the dreadful scrutiny of his or her peers to the practice of being outrageous for purposes of societal consciousness-raising. Moreover, there are intensities to be taken into account---consider Alexander the Great, for whom women were in the arithmetic majority, but for whom one man was unquestionably the erotic center of his life (according to some interpretations: the argument is psychological, not necessarily historical). I haven't thought a lot about this since I saw a man in a bar wearing a ``Kinsey 6'' T-shirt with his arm around a woman. Jeepers, what's the world coming to? -- -- Joseph Chapman decvax!cca!emacs!joe CCA Uniworks, Inc. emacs!joe@cca-unix.ARPA 20 William St. Wellesley, MA 02181 (617) 235-2600
alix@mit-hector.UUCP (Alix Vasilatos) (09/04/85)
From Joseph Chapman: >Nevertheless, I think that the notion of some sort of linear >progression from Kinsey 0 to Kinsey 6 is still artificial, because of >the things it doesn't take into account. The fantasy life of the mind, >subconscious desire, romantic desire, and erotic desire are all >distinct, (often achingly) real, and interconnected aspects of what we >might consider to be the sexual being: how can these be combined into a >single statistic? Of course I thought of this. I just felt that Kinsey shouldn't be left out in the beginnings of this sort of discussion. Actually, Anna Freud approached Kinsey's "linear progression" as something which should only be applied to one's fantasies. This has since been shown to be unsupportable, by the number of declared homosexuals who have fantasies about the opposite sex. Of course, declared heterosexuals who have fantasies about the same sex are still accused of suppressed homosexuality. I will always be in favor of allowing a person to be what she or he declares her or himself to be, especially if that choice is for being something which makes them a member of a minority group, brings them social grief, political grief, etc. I would even go so far as to applaud such a person. By a wild twist of fate, I am heterosexually married and gay. Both arrangements are quite happy, thank you. Alix Vasilatos
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (09/04/85)
It's nice seeing bisexuality discussed here, and in general talking about the complexities of sexuality. I'd just like to add that real tolerance of (diverse) sexuality means more than a personal response; it must include full institutional recognition, or conversely, the abandonment of the heterosexual norm in law, religion, assorted social institutions (families, for example), & even public opinion. Bisexuals, gays, & heterosexuals should unite & push for new marriage and family forms, and the massive overhaul of the law. Regards, Ron Rizzo