Posted by giveawayboy on March 30, 2005 at 01:53:21:
In Reply to: old research, new news human sexuality posted by cav on March 29, 2005 at 19:43:54:
: Have any of you heard of the Kinsey sexuality continuum? I just learned about it. It was the result of research in the mid-20th century. Sociologists have been using it and similar developments from it to map human sexuality, sexual preference, and sexual identity for a long time. It is based on real research with no predetermined point to prove.
: Just briefly it asks people to rank how they feel on various issues regarding their sexuality with totally no attraction to the same sex, to totally homosexual in every facet. The scale is broken into points with bisexual, equal preference for either and equal gender identity, in the dead middle, but it is a continuum so people can fall anywhere. The research found that only 4% of the population fell at either pole. Further, subjects were likely to change their rankings throughout their life given circumstances.
: This basically blows our current gay/straight politics out of the water. There's no such thing. It's like the myth of race, which scientists have been able to prove doesn't really exist.
: What I'd like to know is why the Christian community hasn't jumped onto this...oh right, legalistic fear...but I think it is an excellent development. It eliminates the need for people to have to "decide" what they are. To have to fear coming out. To have to fear their own feelings. While the Bible is explicit about homosexuality, it is no worse than any other sin, and if someone struggling with this on either side of the issue (the straight Christian or the Christian with homosexual tendencies) can see that it isn't an either/or it opens a whole lot more room. There is nothing wrong with close same sex relationships and we don't have to fear that it means we are on the other pole. We are free to move along the continuum throughout our lives. This is normal. Christianity simply requires that sex remain in its rightful place. Basically we are all human and we all crave intimacy and affection, and we all have flaws and persistent struggles. If we can eliminate such false classifications our world would be better. I'd love to see a church preach this publically, that there was no gay or straight, only human. And there is sociological research to back it up!
: While I'm pretty sure where Falwell would stand on this, I wonder what Dobson would say? He's far too "moral politics" for my tastes, but he's at least a little more reasonable than Falwell.
: Interestlingly, I also saw an article in a mainline interdenominational evangelical magazine about how Christians should handle the whole "gays in the church" thing. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that they handled it in muchthe way I just described. Wow, I have hope for the future of mankind. Maybe our modern darkages are finally drawing to a close! I may have to revise my entire worldview! I'll let you know after I see the World Expo here in Japan. (Nature's Wisdom is the theme.)
John, I agree with you about the fluid nature of human sexuality and the so-called need to separate into straight and gay cultures. I don't like things that unnaturally divide the human race. And you can pretty much sit back and watch sexuality polarize people. For instance you have a world divided into homo sapiens and homo sexual. I know that sounds funny, but it's true. And I don't think the gay world helps itself much by trying to push the idea of fixed sexual identities onto people. I do feel that our orientation is more or less leaning in certain directions and therefore I'm hugely opposed to ex-gay ministries, which I feel do more harm than good. Still, an orientation is simply that. It's not a definition or an identity. It's an orientation. An attraction is not who we are.
Years ago, men were more homosexually oriented did not label themselves as 'gay' and live in a separate part of town and cultivate a whole alternate life from other men. Usually, whether or not they were sexually active with other men, they just lived with and had friendships w other men. Also, in the past and in other cultures, men were much closer w other men than they are in many cases in today's America. Much of what is linked to 'gay life' now was part and parcel of the friendships of men in general: affection, emotional intimacy, devotion and physicality.
Personally, although I might push toward the 6 side of the Kinsey scale, I do not feel that Kinsey's findings can ultimately define a person or their sexual behaviours. For instance, I know many people who are predominantly same sex attracted who are married to a member of the opposite sex. Such marriages are usually problematic, but love is a choice and often such marriages last, problems and all, for many years. I know so-called straight men who were sexually active with other men on occasion, but who really are attracted to women. Does the fact that they had sexual relations with a man suddenly de-straighten them? I also know gay men and women who, for moral or religious reasons, remain sexually inactive for life. These are not cranky people. They are just people making a choice. They aren't trying to NOT BE gay, but they are also not trying TO BE gay. They are just trying to be humans living by their convictions and worldviews. In my case, I feel that a single way of living will be a good route for me, though I'm not ruling out one day marrying a woman (I'm Catholic go figure), though, I don't feel that I will. Too problematic.
One thing that always got me was hearing people so open when it came to race or culture, or even gender, suddenly freaking out when you insist on fluidity in terms of sexual attraction. It seems like they wanted endless possibilities and permutations unless it might mean that they weren't either straight or gay.
I'm suprised you didn't know about Kinsey. Recently there was a movie about him but I didn't see it.