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....

Watching The Hours

A Twitter friend named Paula has asked for folks to submit ideas for a blog-a-thon about what we think will be the classic films of the future. In other words, what relatively recent movies (namely, from the 21st century), do we think will be considered classics in the decades to come, possibly airing on such venerable stations as Turner Classic Movies ? While a number of films come to mind for such a category, one in particular stood out from the rest, and thus is my entry for Paula's blog-a-thon.

She's Madonna

Today we're going to talk about something very important. We're going to talk about Madonna. "Madge," as she's affectionately known around the gay scene, has been making music for over thirty years. I grew up with her songs, many of them pop classics. In recent years, it can be arguably said that her popularity has waned a bit. During the past decade, Madonna has put out seventeen singles. Of those, three have charted in the US Top 40. Ten Failed to chart at all on the Billboard Hot 100. We now have at least one possibility offered as to why Madge's chart power is waning: Ageism. At least, that's what Diplo (just, Diplo), a producer of some of the tracks off her latest album, thinks . I know it's difficult to be objective about something you've worked on -- whether you were the producer or the artist -- but, as a listener/fan, I have to say that Madonna's most recent work has simply not been that good. Still, we'll hear what ...