The Bisexual Identity
Changing Perspectives on Sexuality: Contributions of Kinsey and
Anthropologists
Jay Paul
In July 1938, an obscure Indiana University professor of zoology
whose prior research had been on gall wasps, began collecting sex
histories for what was to grow into a landmark project on human
sexuality. Alfred Kinsey and his associates interviewed 18,000 individuals,
with the data analyses in the companion volumes of Sexual Behavior
in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female
(1953) utilizing 5300 male and 5940 female cases. Despite the controversy
and criticism that immediately enveloped these works upon their
publication, they continue to be a valued source of information
on human sexuality decades later.
Kinsey and his associates were concerned that scientific opinion
about homosexuality and sexual variations were more reflective of
popular prejudice and myth than of reality. One of their study’s
intents, therefore, was to provide objective information on patterns
of homosexual activity as they relate to patterns of heterosexual
activity in the population as a whole. They pioneered in the use
of a continuum to describe the varying ratios of coexisting homosexual
and heterosexual response in their subjects’ sex histories
(a 7-point rating system popularly known as the Kinsey Scale).
Their findings exploded a host of assumptions about human sexuality,
and were the focus of bitter attacks by a variety of foes: moralists
and religious figures, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts. The Kinsey
group rejected the view that erotic reactions between members of
the same sex are rare and therefore abnormal, unnatural, or indicative
of psychopathology. They based their conclusions not only on the
incidence and frequency of homosexual response, but also “on
its coexistence with heterosexual (response) in the lives of a considerable
portion of the male population.”
Publicity and controversy followed the 10% figure representing
that portion of the male population with more or less exclusive
homosexual histories. Scant attention was paid to the finding that
fully of the male samples could be termed bisexual on the basis
of reported behavior, having had both “more than incidental”
heterosexual and homosexual “experiences or reactions.”
Findings for women show a similar ratio of “bisexual”
to “homosexual” histories, although the general incidence
of reported homosexual experiences is far lower than that of males.
The gender differences may be assumed to have diminished since that
time, given the changes in sexual mores (from a period that curtailed
both expression of and acknowledgement of non-marital female sexuality).
It is also possible that incidence rates were under-reported as
a consequence of differences in subjects candor, given the social
acceptability of discussing women’s sexuality in that period,
especially to male interviewers.
Kinsey’s group also noted that if sexual orientation in assessed
on the basis of an individual’s behavior, one may conclude
that sexual orientation changes markedly for many over the course
of a lifetime.
There are limitations to the conclusions we can draw from the Kinsey
research, particularly in terms of the issue of bisexuality and
bisexual identity. Kinsey ratings were made by interviewers to categorize
people by their sexual behavior over their lifetime, and does not
necessarily reflect the respondent’s current behavior nor
sense of self. We cannot tell whether a rating near the midpoint
reflects a person who has sexual feelings for both sexes at the
time of interview, who has alternated between relationships with
men and with women, who has related to members of both sexes but
with narrowly defined age and or situational constraints to sexual
behavior with one gender, or who appears to have made a clear shift
from exclusively eroticizing one gender to exclusively eroticizing
the other.
Not only is there tremendous variability in the sexual patterns
of those within any one category on the continuum, but there is
tremendous variability in the way the individual and society interpret
such behavior. The issues of self-definition and social labelling
are important parts of how anyone views her or his sexuality. Despite
research findings that disprove the simple heterosexual/homosexual
dichotomy, many scientists and society as a whole have clung to
the notion of two discrete and clearly distinguishable subsets of
the population known as heterosexuals and homosexuals. The effects
of this on those attracted to both genders will be discussed in
a later section of this paper. At this point, we will continue to
look at the data on the social implications of sexual orientation
in our society.
Anthropological data provide a useful comparison of our culture’s
basic assumptions of human sexuality to those of other societies,
especially in terms of our notions of what is normative or “natural.”
A classic work in this area by Ford and Beach, Patterns of Sexual
Behavior, came out in 1951. This cross-cultural analysis of
sexual behavior utilized the written observations of numerous anthropologists
(compiled into a data set known as the Human Relations Area Files).
This leaves the study open to the usual problems of research that
is based on secondary sources of information, but the authors support
their conclusions with observations of sexual behavior among other
species.
Ford and Beach found that homosexual behavior of one sort or another
was considered normal and socially acceptable for certain members
of the community in 64% of the 76 societies for which information
was available. They concluded: “When it is realized that 100
per cent of the males in certain societies engage in homosexual
as well as heterosexual alliances, and when it is understood that
many men and women in our society are equally capable of relations
with partners of the same or opposite sex, and finally, when it
is recognized that this same situation obtains in many species of
subhuman primates, then it should be clear that one cannot classify
homosexual tendencies as being mutually exclusive or even opposed
to each other.”
The authors concluded that cultural mores have a powerful influence
on what is eroticized and what is not: “Men and women who
are totally lacking in any conscious homosexual leanings are as
much a product of cultural conditioning as are the exclusive homosexuals
who find heterosexual relations distasteful and unsatisfying. Both
extremes represent movement away from the original, intermediate
condition which includes the capacity for both forms of sexual expression.
Support for the idea of the tremendous flexibility of human erotic
response comes from such anthropological studies as those of Herdt
in Melanesia, in societies where homosexual behavior is expected
of all males (based on a belief that this is how older males insure
the masculinity of the younger males.) Often anthropologists have
looked only at the symbolic justification for such behavior only,
and have failed to consider its erotic level. This comes from imposing
our own cultural assumptions about the nature of sexuality and sexual
orientation on other societies. Other societies have other means
of categorizing its population. Some cultures have no concept of
individuals being heterosexual or homosexual. Or their definition
of homosexuals may use other criteria. In most cases, societies
pay less attention to the person with whom one is sexual, and more
attention to the supposed masculinity or femininity of one’s
behavior. Those who take on the social role, dress, and activities
of the opposite sex receive special labels (i.e., berdache, bate,
sarombavy); all too often, anthropologists have referred to these
individuals as the ‘homosexuals’ of the society, reflecting
our common assumptions about the relationship between whom one goes
to bed with others of the same sex, but who maintain gender role-appropriate
behavior by their culture’s standards (i.e., males taking
the ‘active’ role in sex with other men)
Cross-cultural comparisons highlight not only the differences in
how sexuality is perceived, but the power of such constructs on
sexual behavior.
(CX5017)
Subject Headings
Contact Connexions
Donate to
Connexions
If you found this article valuable, please consider donating to Connexions.
Connexions exists to connect people working for justice with information, resources, groups, and with the memories and experiences of those who have worked for social justice over the years. We can only do it with your support.
|
|
