Skip to main content

Love, Sex and Intelligence




Let's talk about sex. You know.... physical attraction, not necessarily the act, itself. But we can talk about that as well. What -- if anything -- influences our levels of attraction toward certain people? What inhibits them? Is it nature vs. nurture? A bit of both? And is it good or bad to assign labels to people's sexuality? Let's explore, shall we.

There are a lot of factors that shape our perceptions of what sexuality is, and those include (but are not limited to): culture, religion, age, environment and life experience. I have my own views of human sexuality. Yours may differ. That's ok. I wouldn't expect us to agree on every single point. Yet I think it's an interesting subject to discuss. The 'life experience' factor is a biggie, probably as influential as religion or culture. 


It's true that I've experienced things with guys (yes, more than one) who now have wives and kids. Do I consider them to be gay? No. Is that a controversial opinion? Perhaps. It's based upon observation and experience with the two guys in question. Generally speaking, some folks would never consider messing around with someone who didn't fit into their own sexual outlook (gay or straight). Some people might consider it, but wouldn't do it, due to cultural/societal and/or religious factors. Then, there are those who'd consider and/or act upon having some experiences that would fall outside their sexual norms. I place the two aforementioned guys in the last category.

Indeed, I like to consider everyone on a scale. Alfred Kinsey thought in a similar way. His scale went as follows:
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

This seems about right, and pretty much fits into my view on where most people's sexuality exists. Interestingly enough, my encounters with folks whose self-descriptions would put them in the # 3 category have, to-the-person, been more like # 2. Not sure what's up there. Perhaps this is what has led to a lot of folks refusing to believe that people can be truly bisexual, that they tend to basically favor one  gender over another?

Of course, believing in a scale makes one consider the viability of labels. I happen to be someone who thinks that labels are ok. I'm aware that there are those who hate them but, let's be practical here, we need ways to identify and relate to things. Looking at the above Kinsey scale, we could assign numbers 0-2 as being "straight," number 3 as "bisexual," and numbers 5-6 as "gay." Nothing really wrong with that. Except that some folks don't like being categorized, whether they be gay as straight, or straight as gay. Fair enough. But why should such assignations be so taboo?

We seem to think that we're to be just one thing or another. Why not feel comfortable admitting to belonging to a broader spectrum? I've never been with a woman, but have twice had the opportunity, and with women whom I found attractive. It wasn't enough. But the fact that I even found them attractive enough to consider having sex with puts me in a different placement on the scale than some of my gay brethren. But I'm still gay. Heck, even gay men who have been with women are still gay. And some men who've been with other men are straight.

Not black & white, is it?



Comments

  1. I think I fall somewhere on the order of a 4 on Kinsey's scale. Generally speaking, I describe myself as being 80/20 (gay/straight, respectively), which long confused my husband, who, up until recently, denied there being any mid-point on the scale. It's only been in more recent years that I've more openly identified as being bisexual, and it still seems to cause people trauma. I feel another post coming on...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting, Daniel. I'm intrigued now to read a post from you about this!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yesterday's Restaurants

The local newspaper has a feature from one of Champaign-Urbana's most legendary restaurateur's, John Katsinas, on what his favorite area restaurants were that have now since closed (or will soon be closing).  It's a nice little read, and has made me stop and think about the restaurants that have come and gone that have left an indelible (and edible) impression on me throughout the years. Here we go....

31 Days of Horror Movies: Thir13en Ghosts

While not a scholar or even a purist, I am somewhat of a film snob. Not a big fan of remakes, specifically when the originals don't need updating. It is therefore an unusual position I find myself in, preferring a remake to an original, and by leaps and bounds. Let's take a look at today's feature...

31 Days of Horror Movies: The Woman In Black

Yesterday, we had a lady in white, and today we have.... The Woman In Black Just as Nosferatu was our oldest horror film to be reviewed this month, The Woman In Black is our most recent. Released earlier this year, the film stars Daniel Radcliffe in a more adult role than previously seen in his Harry Potter career. He plays a young lawyer whose wife died in childbirth, so he has been raising their son (mostly) on his own. With money tight, and his job on the line, the young attorney takes an assignment in a remote village, much to his dismay. The small, closed community Radcliffe's character finds himself in is apparently haunted by a woman dressed in all black. When she is seen, a child dies. She is seen quite a lot during the course of the film. The locals get edgy with the attorney, making him feel most unwelcome. And when he is doing his work, sorting through the papers of a deceased elderly woman, he discovers the secret of the woman in black. It doesn't