General human sexual tendencies

I don't agree with the assumptions that uphold your model.

Like race, heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs, you have assumed they can function as objective and material categories, even though you happen to reject that any person could fit either of them 100 percent.

And once more, although modern genetics has shown that "white" and "black" are not exclusive categories and they blend to such a degree that it eliminates and objective differentiation between them, racism still persists.

As social constructs, these categories give groups power. Look at race historically: one group might be perceived as less "white" than another, but even the "less white" group will still use their relative whiteness against those who are less "white" than they. This is probably best personified in American History by Nordics vs. Irish vs. African Ameircans. Thus, even if Americans were to accept this notion, sexuality would still function as an axis of power.

And like race, because these are simple social constructs, asking whether they can blend doesn't seem to be asking much, because its really up to you. As a result, it makes no material difference in the world we live in where one sets the parameters of these constructs.

Excellent!  So if 'sexuality' is defined as a social construct, much like 'race,' than is it true that my model is completely ridiculous and unnecessary?  Do we need to go beyond the names and look at the causes of intolence within society instead?

A note: As originally stated, somewhat vaguely, my model only works for the individual, completely isolated from the system of society.  As you have pointed out, applying it to a larger scale introduces questions that it was not necessarily intended to address.

1. I've seen this model numerous times, and I *generally* agree. I have observed many heterosexuals that had behaviors that can only be described as, how you say, sexually ambiguous. In a homosexual example, one of my high school buddies came out of the closet a few years ago, but even years later, he is still very intimate with his female friends, both emotionally and physically. He sometimes complains of lack of intimacy with other men, but clearly enjoys the company of women in close quarters.

2. Morality is relative, essentially manufactured by culture. This model can be accepted by anyone of any belief (I explain below).

3. No to your question, because there are many people who view homosexuality and bisexuality as a mental illness (or abomination), so even if this model was accepted, they need only proclaim that anyone that isn't on the maximum point of heterosexuality is "wrong," immoral, mistaken, and so on. In fact, a general homophobe can rewrite this model as such:

(remember, I don't believe this:)  Disturbed----------------------------Confused----------------------------------Correct
 

4. Humanity without fear, hate, and intolerance is a contradiction... by which I mean, intolerance will unfortunately never cease. And I don't mean just sexual intolerance.

5. With all that said, sexuality simple cannot be simplified into a linear diagram, nor could it accurately illustrate the identity of a person on the model. There are countless causes and results of sexual tendencies and preferences. For instance, if I select two females that fall exactly between homosexual and bisexual, one could generally conceive that these two women have similar social and sexual behaviors, but one could live a very promiscuous lifestyle while the other is generally reserved and monogomous. You may disagree with my suspicion, but I believe that this is a drawback of the model.

I have no alternative model to offer, but what this model does is illustrate the belief that there are not 3 set sexualities but variations within, so it is still useful.

Great questions. Human sexuality is never a dull topic.

 My thoughts:

1) I dont believe that everyone is at least to some degree Bi. I never have thoughts like that myself.

2) Since I do look at acceptance of homosexuality like acceptance of other races in the past, or religious beliefs of others. I think that we can all accept a homosexual as... i dunno, a person who is themsevles? i dunno, just like a buddhist or islamic or jewish oor chiristain might believe something different from me or one another. But thats not the argument. #1 is so yea.... :p

There are a lot of problems with this discussion. First of which is that you're not defining what you mean by "homosexual", "heterosexual", and "bisexual". While it may sound stupid for me to bring that up, have you clearly defined what you mean? Are you saying all people, to some degree, would voluntarily enjoy sexual contact with people of both genders? Are you saying all people can appreciate the sexuality and attractiveness of both genders? When you make a bold statement like "all people are bisexual" you cannot, in any way, be ambiguous.

Second is that the argument results in a logical trap. You say "all people are bisexual" and if anyone stands up saying "I'm not" then you can simply reply "oh you're just not comfortable with your sexuality" or "you're too shy to admit it" or whatever non-logical counterargument you wish to discredit the evidence without actually arguing against it.

Third is that you're looking at sexuality in cultural terms and then arguing about the meaning about those terms in culture. Basically you're bringing up the idea of *blah*-sexual, recognizing it as a social construct, and then trying to analyze the social construct rather than the concept itself. That's not an analasis of sexuality, but one of society. If you wanted to discuss the nature of sexuality we must do so within the terms of our culture. If you want to discuss acceptance of bisexuality or homosexuality in our culture, then you cannot make assumptions or hypotheses about cultural sexuality. A discussion about sexuality being all shades of gray is a great one that can be argued, but you can't make a statement like "all people are bisexual" and then half-assume it's true to continue on with another discussion.

Now, I have no problem discussing the original thesis, as it's an original one that I have an interesting personal testimonial to offer, and like with any proofs it only takes one counterexample to disprove the theory. I myself would have absolutely no problem, were I attracted, having a homosexual relationship, encounter... whatever you want to call it. I don't have any problem with it. I'm simply not attracted to men. I'm just not interested in men sexually, so I'd be at the heterosexual end of your spectrum not because I have a problem with homosexuality, but because I'm simply not attracted to men. So, does the fact that I'd have no problem if I had a sexual attraction to men mean that I'd be bisexual? Or does the fact that I'm not attracted to men mean I'm strictly heterosexual?

While this is an intersting idea didn't Alfred Kinsey come up with a very similar model (the Kinsey Scale) and end up arguing the same thing? Very few people fall into strictly homo or hetero sexual, for most its a gradient of sexual preference. The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid builds on this and looks at sexuality over time. 

Well I must say that the person two blocks above dose make a good point about how this argument is a logical mind trap and the manner in which this person gave reasons; very nice, very formal.
 

For my Personal view I like the idea of thinking of everyone having this bisexual mentality and I do believe that if you took one person and they were completely objective to their own views and thoughts that they could land somewhere between the heterosexual and Homosexual side.
 

However as this other person previous stated, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Heterosexuality are not ratified in this argument thus leaving them slightly vague, ambiguous and up to anyone’s interpretation. So I think to make this a better argument you should clearly state what you mean by each.
 

Ignoring those facts though, I do think that for the most part this is a good model and having tried to be very objective towards my thoughts and those of others I would say I have had these related thoughts towards the Bisexuality/Homosexuality side of the scale, but I only enjoy the physical company of women.
 

Morality I think is a social construct that is completely cultural and based on a person's beliefs I do not think that you can factor in that concept to keep this argument valid or to even think that all people could accept this model. Our society creates too many variations about what is "good moral" that it all conflicts too much with everything around us.
 

Once again I think that the idea of everybody believe one idea totally contradicts this argument and people are not made this way. Somebody has to disagree; it is human nature to cause conflict and to be more right than others.
As somebody else in this topic said Intolerance is another factor of human nature and cannot, as depressing as the thought is, be completely rid of us.
 

I think for this particular model there isn't a lot that you can do to it, aside from ratifying what you mean by Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Heterosexuality.
 

Very good argument, I am glad somebody started this, I have never posted anything up here worthwhile yet and I think that this is. Keep the good arguments coming.

Once again I think that the idea of everybody believe one idea totally contradics this argument and people are not made this way. Somebody has to disagree, it is human nature to cause conflict and to be more right than others.

As somebody else in this topic said Intolerance is another factor of human nature and cannot, as depressing as the thought is, be completely rid of us.

I think for this particular model there isn't alot that you can do to it, aside from ratifing what you mean by Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Heterosexuality.

Very good argument, I am glad somebody started this, I have never posted anything up here worth while yet and I think that this is. Keep the good arguments coming.

I agree with the fact that individuals can change model according to thieir views.  Also, I believe that those who appose the other would see this as the "expectations" of ones sexuality and whether it is right or wrong.  I see where the idea of this modle is coming into play because in reality as human beings in this society we just have a "preference" in who we want to have a relationship with... but people who would put morality into the picture who shoo away the idea of preference and replace it with immoraity  to not choose one thing that wasn't hterosexuality.  It's unfortunate that we live in this type of society but I got some hope with issues on this subject from the movie "So The Church Told Me So", you should check it out.

In response to the post by Dolly:

Yes; in fact many researchers within the field of psychology hold to this model [cited from my old psych textbook, I can give a proper citaion if requested].

In response to the post presented by Flieder:

Brilliant!

To take some of the abiguity out of the original statement, as requested multiple times, here are formal definitions of the terms used in context:

Sexuality: Sexual Orientation- Refers to one's emotional and erotic preference for partners of a particular sex (1).

Homosexual: Purely Homosexual- Someone who is (by their own definition) disgusted or repulsed by the mere thought of sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.

Heterosexual: Purely Heterosexual- Someone who is (by their own definition) disgusted or repulsed by the mere thought of sexual contact with members of the same sex.

Bisexual:  Someone who is precisely between these two extremes; i.e., equally comfortable with sexual contact with both members of the same sex and members of the opposite sex.

Now, for yet more clarification:  please consider my careful symantics- I intend only to communicate my opinion on the subject and not to argue for it's correctness.

To attempt to answer your question satisfactorally within the bounds of the model:

Since you say that you do not have a problem with homosexual activity although you yourself don't consider yourself interested in the same, I would say that your interest in said behaviour is very low indeed.  Nothing more can be said (if I stick with the original model, of course).

Do you (or anyone else) think that the two extremes should then be included with the model?

(1) this definition was cited from an old psychology textbook:  I can procide the actual citation if so requested.

Is this a good model?
No.

Why?
"my model only works for the individual, completely isolated from the system of society"

Google "feral children" for more information.

Whether it's a convincing metaphor for people this decade is another question, though.  And whether it's better than either the "yer apple is in one of the two bins" model or the "god sez no matter what you are, you poke this there" model is an even simpler question.  Yes and yes.

What about morality?
Whose morality?  IMHO, morality is a group agreement that abiding by certain rules produces a sort of society that most of the group wants to live in, and all, or virtually all, support enough to join and bend it their way rather than oppose it. So... which group?  BTW globalism makes this question much more complicated.

Who would accept this model?
People who want to practice bisexuality are primary candidates.  On the other hand, people who don't want to be but are bisexual might also value it.  And people whose appearance causes sexuality/gender based reactions in others, regardless of their own values or  orientation.  A certain kind of categorical liberal or progressive may value it as diversity, with no personal interest.  Or some may value it just because it allows for more wierd.  People of any sort whatsoever may value it because of a purely personal desire.  Surely there are others.  Who would REJECT the model is a different question...

Why?
As many reasons as there are people.  There's even bad reasons if one digs hard enough.

If more people believed this, how would it change the typical American view of homosexuality and bisexuality? 
It wouldn't necessarily change it at all.   Unless it turns out that the "typical" view is actually binary rather than more like the model you're proposing - but if  the question is asked fairly, (and especially if people were allowed to answer "but not me, of course") I would guess that about 2/3 hold this model already.

Separate from what might change the opinions of the profoundly intolerant and the haters, I think what would change the typical American view the most is a change in who gets to FRAME the "typical American view" and decide what kind of actions ought to arise from it.

Could intolerance in this country cease?
It's doubtful, at least as long as we continue to act like primates.  Nearly everybody is ALREADY tolerant of others who believe and act the same as they do - unless there's too many of them, then they will find some distinction, no matter how trivial, and discriminate based on it.

On the other hand, intolerance can be kept out of most public arenas, to the limit of our ability to enforce the law (a whole separate discussion). 

But it's my own impression that Americans are currently far too individualistic, abrasive, and offensive to get together and agree on a public culture.  This would involve a consistent, respectful obedience to rules, and conversely a fast-moving, flexible, friendly, subservient system of rule-making.  Obedient citizens and serviceful bureaucrats.  Right. This is so much more believable here on campus than anywhere else in the world.

And then we all get together and agree not to do certain things because the group as a whole, or a majority, or some complicated mammalian political alliance, finds them offensive, and the losers, the ones who want to do things the majority finds offensive and/or don't want to do or be exposed to the things the majority finds attractive, take it gracefully, continuing to participate in society, allowing their children to be formed by the things they disapprove of.

Are there any other ideas or models?
Yes, but nothing simple enough to draw a sketch of. 

Imagine dozens of neuronal subsystems, some relatively new, some dating back before mammalhood, each working in its own way, influenced by most systems around it, influencing most systems around it.  Now imagine the environment they work in changing radically on a regular basis, on a large number of different time scales, based on development, hormones, food, pollution, daily and other cycles, etc. A bunch of these systems are involved in connecting biological sexual desire, the specifics of perception, imagination, desire, and the will to act.  Now which of those system vary in which ways to produce the kinds of variation in sexual proclivities that show up in reality?  And what factors affect them?  And what kind of outside data affects those systems?

Okay - that's your hypothetical individual.  Now embed really absurd numbers of them in complicated, layered, social systems that relate in many different ways as social content affects different individuals similarly but not identically.  Make everything that happens to each individual, whether nutritionally or emotionally, affect them, often permanently, so they react to the same stimuli differently than their neighbors, develop layers upon layers of systems to manage the ideas, experiences, and feelings one is supposed to have to make one a member of this society.  Now develop some way of mapping how an idea travels through this matrix...

Or try graphing these...

For as many points on the hetero-homosexual scale as make sense to you, note the following:
How much of your time do you spend here?
How strong are the forces holding you here?
How strong are the forces moving you away from here?
How do you feel about being here?

Or...

For each significant sexual event of your life, note the following:
Where on the scale was the event?
How loose or tight was the scale when it happened?
How much of an effect did it have on your sense of sexuality?
How long did this effect last?
How do you feel about the event and its consequences?

Or, for that matter, you could just add Sexual/Asexual (or Sexual/Asexual/Antisexual) as a second axis to the first one, and Emotional/Unemotional as the third axis, and Limbed/Tentacled as the fourth, and so on...  more than three axes get difficulty to visualize, though.

Surely, there must be more opinions out there, am I right?

I agree that there are, but a lot of people don't really read the forum sadly.

I noticed that.  I suppose that if intelligent converstation is going to flourish, those who do read the forum will have to keep up a stream of new and controversial topics such as this.

Honestly I didn't read every single post in this forum thread, just the first five or six, and the last three or four.  But here's my opinion as it pertains to what I read:

The original model, which places bisexuality in the center, with extremes on the ends of homosexuality and heterosexuality, is misportrayed according to population (I believe).  Bisexuality in the center implies that bisexuality is the "norm" (please bear with me as I use the word "norm" for lack of better word) and that hetero and homosexuality are extremes and, therefore, less common or less "normal" (do forgive me for using this word again).  It is my understanding that heterosexuality is predominant, even the extreme hetero who does not have thoughts of attraction to the same sex (or even have a concept of what is attractive within the same sex), and that bisexuality and homosexuality is rare, on the percentage of 7-9% of American society (being forgiving to those who still dwell "in closet," we might say that as much as 12% can be bi- or homo-sexual, but likely not more).

Secondly, the "feelings" that define the "strength" of homo and bi-sexuality (as it would apply to your scale) are far too ... fluid? ... to be defined for use on your scale.  The chemistry of the brain changes according to what we feed it (both in food and in habitual practice).  Studies on homosexuality have shown that the intensity of same-sex attraction can be alleviated by non-sexual same sex affirmation, breakage of thinking patterns and habits (which affect the structure of our brain), and paternal and maternal intervention (much more than "intervention:" this includes love, forgiveness, compassion, intimacy).

Now, I only mention these things in order to argue that homosexual and bisexual feelings of attraction are too fluid to pin down into a graph or scale.

Finally, racism, sexism, and discrimination according to sexual practice will always be pervalent in human society, unfortunately.  Even if we were all white, or all straight, or all brown-haired, or all homosexual, it wouldn't change: human nature seeks to find something to compare itself against to give the "self" a feeling of betterment.  I call this the "judgment complex."  Judeo-Christian mythology, Buddhist spirituality, and even Shinto beliefs point to the human psyche as being "out of sync" and the cause of this is our self-proclaimed ability to "judge."  Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that it's impossible to correct our society or make things better for those who are oppressed.  I'm just pointing out where in our human nature - yours as well as mine - this discrimination stems from (hopefully, when you see it, you can combat it within yourself and love and forgive your human brothers and sisters!).

In order to judge over something, one must have a position above it (either real or in one's own mind).  A judge in a court is above the plaintiff, bailiff, jury, and everyone else involved in the case, because presumably the judge can see all sides of the case.  If I judge something, it's because I presume that I'm more correct, more better, or more qualified than whatever it is I'm judging.  It's a self-given power.  If I judge that Mountain Dew tastes like dung, than I am proclaiming that I am above Mountain Dew.  If I judge that the woman walking past the fountain in Red Square is beautiful, than I am proclaiming that I am superior to her in order to pass a judgment on her, in order to say that my opinion has value (regardless of what she thinks of herself or what she thinks of me).

This is the fundamental flaw in the human psyche.  This is why in Judeo-Christian mythology Adam and Eve immediately noticed their own nudity when they bit into the apple: they then had the ability to judge each other.  And they caused each other shame. (you don't have to believe in this story; it merely reflects that the ancient writer from thousands of years ago realized the same thing I'm telling you).

Anywho, I better get off my soap box now.  I hope you enjoyed this speech, in the least (because if you didn't like it, than you judged against it, judging that your information and opinion is superior to mine :-P ).

That's all I have to say.  I'm probably wrong in some aspect, but I'm humble enough to listen to what awesome things you will say to me now.

I'm all ears! READYSETGO!

Your analogy of judging another person based upon their attactiveness.  Perhaps it's a semantic thing, but the idea that assessing that Mountain Dew tastes like crap is predicated on the belief that I am above it seems a little...well...faulty.

I can believe someone (or something) is beautiful or ugly, clean or dirty, tasty or not tasty can based on objective (or subjective) sampling without the need to assign a status.  Whether my opinion is of value or not really depends upon the recipient of that opinion.  Conclusions can be arrived at without (necessarily) conscious or subconscoius belief of being above something.  I can believe a person is smart without the belief that I'm above them enough to assess it.

What I think is more accurate to say is when we (or whoever) attempt to assign good and bad, or right and wrong, then we presume that we (they) are above a thing.  Ironically enough we usually aren't.  In your analogy of a judge/jury weighing the merits of a plantiff and defendant is good, but it misses the point.

As an individual, you may believe that you are more right and therefore superior in a situation, it doesn't necessarily mean you are.  When passing judgement (right/wrong, bad/good) the most important trait is objectivity.  The status we grant an arbiter, judge or jury, elevates them with the intent of granting them objectivity, not superior station.

In a discussion such as this, there is very little in the way of objectivity.  Those who argue strongly against bi/homosexuality find their arguments often rooted in their own moral code.  I would also argue those who argue strongly for it, have much the same reasons for doing so.

If, say, we discovered that homosexuality could be traced to a reproducable series of genetic predisposition and/or socio or psychological conditions, we might find a portion of the populace who would view it as 'fixable'.  If instead we find that it exists everywhere in nature, then another community will likely proclaim it as perfectly normal.

Personally, I think the topic is far to complex and the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle, there may be a portion of the populace who have biological, psychological, or sociological reasons why they are homosexual.  On the other side, I know that a homosexual behaviors that exist in other areas of the animal kingdom, including primates.  It is therefore normal and expected that homosexuality would exist in our species as well.

Either way, judgement of right or wrong should be reserved for those who are truly objective.  Frankly, I don't think there really are any, so we should just stop attempting to analyze 'sexuality' in terms of right and wrong.  At least for others.

If you want to judge someone, start with yourself.

It seems you're more discussing homophobia rather than sexuality. There's a *huge* difference between being open-minded and being a willing participant. If your definition of bisexual is "not disgusted or repulsed by either homosexual or heterosexual activity" (a corrolary of your definitions of hetero- and homosexual) then anyone who isn't absolutely homophobic (or heterophobic) will fit into the bisexual category.

However, as I stated there's a huge difference between open-mindedness and participation. Using the same logic from your definitions: I've entertained the idea of running a marathon - thought about what it'd be like, the training involved, etcetera - but I know I'm really not at all interested or even physically able to run one. Just because I've been open to considering the idea of doing that doesn't make me a marathon runner.

So, it seems your discussion really isn't about sexuality, but rather homo/heterophobia... in which case I'd completely agree that I don't think anyone is truly 100% homophobic or heterophobic, and everyone falls between the two on a scale of open-mindedness.

Another topic brought up in this thread is about bigotry in general. For that, you need only to look at human tendencies to realize that bigotry will always exist. If everyone had the same skin tone, bigoted people would simply start persecuting people with the "wrong" hair color. If everyone had the same skin tone and hair color, bigots would shift their hatred to people with the "wrong" eye color. The focus of the bigoted behavior is irrelevant; all that's relevant is that some people have the innate desire to single out and ridicule others, and no matter what there will always be something you can pick out to separate a person or group so that you can hate that group. What's truly sad isn't the descriminatory behavior, because it's just a result of the human condition. What's really sad is the fact that some people truly need to be able to hate someone to live their life.

Druid8's original premise supposed that devoid of personal beliefs and cultural influences there will be some level of sexual interest with people of both genders, no matter who you are.  It also discussed intolerance and morality influencing acceptance of his model.  Since it is intrinsic in his premise, discussion of homophobics or homophilics is precisely what the discussion of sexuality is about.  'Sexuality' isn't specifically the same as -phobia and -philia.  They are however, unavoidably, related to both the topic and analysis of the topic analysis.

If you want a clinical discussion of sexuality, you must first be able to leave your morality at the door, no matter which end of the continuum you reside.  Then you must start with data.  Samples, surveys, tests, experiments, etc.  This, if I might be so bold, is where the difficulty really exists.  We cannot create a model (I'd prefer theory) of human sexuality, without first applying data.  The thoery, hopefully, would then be proposed to explain the data, not the other way around.

By proposing a model prior to any inclusion of empirical data merely provides us with this person's (no offense) subjective conjecture on the matter.  A model essentially devoid of reasons why that model is presented.  Again, I don't mean to offend, but it's hard to say if it's a 'good' model or not, since there's really no information by which to assess the accuracy of the model.  That leaves us with our own subjective gut reactions as the only litmus by which to

Your Marathon analogy is a good one, except that it is very easy to be clinical about it, since there is really very little room for any kind of 'moral'  shifts to affect your analysis of it.  There might be, but it's a much cleaner subject to analyze than something like sexuality, faith or racism, where there are genuinely opposing beliefs on the the issue.

As a lazy person I can, hopefully, find merit in an analysis of marathon running without being influenced by my laziness.  I can probably look at a 'model' and be unaffected by the fact that I am lazy.  Heck, I could even gather data and write my own model for it, and it would likely still be unaffected by my lazy 'moral' values on the matter.

When you (flieder) talk about what someone's 'idea' of bisexuality is, you immediately imply subjectivity in the definitiion.  The original poster didn't provide definitions for his/her ends or the middle.  Does the fully hetero male have no male associations whatsoever?  Does a Bisexual feel equally attracted to both men and women?  What about those who have no attraction to either sex?  Or those born with both male and female attributes?

It's even more complicated that that, since the whole topic of sexuality is far too subjective to analyze easily.  What about intimacy?  What about friendship?  What about attraction? How can you account for an individual persons personal comfort or discomfort with a true examination of themselves?  The data is too unreliable largely because of social taboos, psychological constructs, sociological constructs, and the individuals involved.  There are far too many undefinable lines.  That is EXACTLY where subjectivity corrupts an otherwise potentially clinical examination of the topic.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I just think that any kind of 'backyard' analysis is unlikely to create a defensible model.

All we would need is one case in which an individual cannot be made to be sexually aroused by homosexual thought and the theory is busted.  Certainly that individual is entirely heterosexual by any account.  Consider the proposition "Seth is a heterosexual."  It is, in virtue of its being a proposition, either true or false.  It cannot, furthermore, be both true and false.  If Seth were bisexual, then it would be false.  If, however, we know that Seth cannot be made to be sexually aroused by homosexual thought, then we have our one example that breaks the spectrum kind of view of sexuality.

Now I will simply say, with confidence and control over my devices, that I, Seth, cannot be made to be sexually aroused by homosexual thought.  That makes me neither homosexual nor bisexual.  I can come to know, by my own lights and with a priori certainty, that my heterosexuality has a positive correlation with reality.

Where does that leave the spectrum??

There may be some vagueness as to the concept of "sexuality," but there cannot be such vagueness or ambiguity as to e.g. X is a heterosexual.  The former is a concept or idea, the latter is a proposition.  They are importantly different.

This is the sort of argument that falls afoul of semantic questions. How do you define each of the terms you use, preferably in some quantifyable way. Differentiating the types of sexual arousal is its own problem. Culture also plays a massive role in inculcating controls on what we perceive ourselves to be allowed to be aroused by. Taking a 'base nature' outlook on sexual arousal is hard to study, and ferral children are about our only real subjects. Primate studies of our nearest evolutionary kin can suggest things, but won't be truly enlightening.

At our base nature? Humans are sexual beings. We will find a way to get off. If that means doing it ourselves or getting outside help, it will happen. Unlike our nearest primate kin, we have hidden estrus so it is not known if any given female is fertile or not. Best have sex a lot, then! With that kind of sex drive, it is completely unsurprising that we can find non-reproductive sex fun to some extent.

We like having our bits played with, and we show a marked preference for who we'd like to be doing that sort of thing with. To some, the playing with the bits trumps who is doing the playing, which I suggest may be called the true bissexuals.

Stepping away from an essentialist point of view and introducing cultural factors into the environment blows things to hell. Society does a good job of inculcating our children into who they should be attracted to, and to a large extent it works. Just as important, it inculcates who they should not be attracted to. A boy with slight homosexual leanings, meaning he finds some men attractive even if he doesn't use that specific word, gets taught from an early age that boy/boy sex is all kinds of wrong can quickly build up a lot of outright revulsion at the idea. Sufficient revulsion to override any actual attraction. Thus you have your Kinsey 0, the perfect heterosexual.

As a tangent, this is how 'repairative' therapy works. Teach the subject that same-sex attraction is wrong, and given enough time they'll have enough negative associations with the idea to negate the base attraction that's still there. Whether or not this is a healthy state of mind is a topic for another thread.

Going back to the original argument, if you reduce the question to just nature, are all humans bisexual to some degree at their base. I'd say that is mostly true, in that most humans are capable of deriving fun from homosexual acts in their natural state. This is not terribly useful, as socialization plays such a massive role that it can't be discounted. Some societies classify different acts as sex; mutual masturbation may just be masturbation for one society, but a taboo sex-act in another. Morality, which is a sub-set of Culture or Society, is something that all functioning members of society have to some extent.

Other models require a closer examination of the nature of gender. There have been a number of ways over the years of exempting people from an in-place gender binary.

I'm not certain that this is what you were claiming, so I will inquire: is revulsion a necessary condition for full-blown heterosexuality?

If so, there are two problems:

1. Full-blown homosexuals [presumably] don't share that revulsion for heterosexuality if the revulsion stems from cultural tendencies, so what causes them to be full-blown homosexuals?
2. I am in no way revulsed at homosexuality.  I realize that there is the obvious objection to this that there are deeply planted cultural preconceptions regarding sexuality that might sway me, but then my a priori knowledge that I am only arroused by heterosexual states of affairs ought to precede even that preconception, yes? The question then becomes whether my a priori knowledge is both reliable and necessarily true.  To both I answer yes, but there could be some debate to be had there.

I agree with most of what is being said here. This issue is really too complex to define for everyone. After all, if reality equals perception and perception is not universal, then reality is not universal.

But here's my take on it..

Sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual expression are all separate continuums upon which individuals travel to form personal attributes.

It is when all of these continuums are arranged that an indivudal can begin formulating these attributes as complex "social identites." These identites then play into culture through power-and-privilege relationships.

For instance, if someone identifies as a man (which is a majority, power group), expresses himself as masculine (which, when combined with the identity of "man," becomes a power group), and identifies with a sexual orientation of gay (which is not a power group), the social dynamic, as percieved by that individual, is inherently different from someone who identifies as a man, expresses himself masculinely, and identitfies as straight. Thus, subtle alterations along any of the continuums alter personal perceptions of power dynamics.

Now, do I agree that everyone is "bisexual?" No, because that is assuming that bisexuality is a standard upon which other identities can be formed. It also assumes that only two genders exists, which I know not to be true.

This concept also allows us to examine the more intricate sublties of identity, such as butch, fem, top, bottom, versatile, lipstick, pansexual, aggressive, dominant, MTF transgender, FTM transgender, trasnsexual, transvestite, etc. All of these identites add richness and (in my opinion) beauty to the social condition.

This is all just my opinion and I welcome any respectful dialogue on the issue.

Hmm... again, are we talking about sexuality or culture? Honestly I think you can speak specifically about sexuality but need to couch it in terms of preference rather than repulsion. I think the average heterosexual person who's comfortable in their sexuality would have little or no problem pursuing a homosexual relationship if they had the attraction... problem is that their preference means they'd have very little likelihood of finding a person of the same gender that they're attracted to. It's not that they're homophobic or completely repulsed by homosexuality, but that they have a simple preference for heterosexual relationships.

Interesting points, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on one of them.

You really cannot talk about sexuality without talking about culture. Sexuality is entirely defined by culture: What's acceptable, what's normal, what we can and cannot say, do ,or really even think in public, etc. That's not to say that we, as human beings with free will and individual identities (as I stated above) are not driven by our own urges, but rather that those urges are often supressed, otherized, marginalized, and/or hedonized to the point that acting on them becomes a dangerous concept. That is why culture and sexuality are so closely linked.

The other point you address is the idea that a heterosexual person would willing adopt a homosexual relationship if s/he were to ever develop a homosexual urge. This is an interesting idea and it's widely accepted as a way to explain how sexuality can change over time (with certain caviats). I agree with you that sexual identity is fluid, meaninig that it can change over time and with the introduction of new experiences. However, I have to again address the social stigmas that have been placed on homosexual relationships and how these cultural factors can influence a person's sexual expression.

It's not a matter of repulsion (an idea I find terribly offensive, honestly), but rather a matter of an individual's ability to overcome social expectations in order to perform in a way that matches his/her identities.

In terms of your use of the term homophobia, you're right. When a person identifies as heterosexual and has never had a homosexual urge, then why would they be in a homosexual relationship? It's equally as unjust as asking a homosexual to be in a heterosexual relationship when he/she has never had a heterosexual urge. However, what we often find is that, because heterosexuals are a power group, they can ask (or rather tell) homosexuals that they should be in heterosexual relationships. That is homophobia and it is real.

No, but it is a method that society/culture can use to control behavior. The example I cited was the case where someone with some homosexual leanings never actually expresses them due to learned behavior. However, this doesn't address someone who has zero homosexual leanings. In that case, societal controls are not needed to enforce compliance. They may still have the revulsion anyway, if homosexuality is taboo then the behavior is to be shunned; they have to do their own part in enforcing cultural norms. 

I addressed point 1 above, point 2 stems from my earlier argument that it is impossible to really separate 'true attraction' from the society the person grew up in. Reading back on it, I see that I didn't phrase my argument as well as I could. I attempted to refute the statement that all humans are bisexual at their base, and that true single gender attraction bias exists. I think where people got lost was when I went into how society gently nudges people with multi/wrong-gender leanings onto the "true" path. Oops.

I've been pleasantly surprised with the ongoing activity on this thread.  I say to all posters: I commend you!

Perhaps a new model can be formulated from the ongoing discussion, in an attempt to understand the complexities of the sexuality of the human animal (a very libidinous animal indeed!) in simplest terms.  It should include the multidimensional nature of the information, such as multiple genders, degrees of individual libido, cultural acceptance of behaviours, plus a new attractiveness scale upon which any human could fairly place themselves depending on their own perspective.  As I posted the original model, I wish to issue a challenge:  could any one devise such a model?

We may be on to something here.

Chad,

We differ in that I don't believe in such a thing as objectivity, which is foundational in a discussion such as this.  But we could get into deep, insightful philsophical discussions about objectivity and the nature of perception and never get to the subject at hand, which is sexuality.  Sooo... how can we approach this...?  I should probably just read all the posts written in this thread since then...

Coming from my perception of objectivity, it would be natural to conclude that when you say that "if you want to judge someone, start with yourself," is completely innane (it has no meaning).  If someone has the capacity for judgment, they would have to assume that they are correct in order to find someone else incorrect, for that is the nature of judgment.  We would have nothing to judge if we assumed that everyone/everything in existence held the same opinions as our own.  So if I were to "start with myself" in judgment, I would find myself to be correct.  Make sense?