Okay first off I don't really buy all that much into the Kinsey scale. I consider it useful only as one possible paradigm that categorizes the range of how people socialize and how they sexualize, but that's all. It's not a hard science or a binding gospel, it's one theoretical framework. It's used way too often as some kind of hard rulebook or science in LGBT discussions to prove whatever kind of point the person in question wants to. "Look, see, everyone/the majority is bi." "Look, see, no straight person EVER would do ANYTHING, it would put them somewhere else on the Kinsey scale."
I'm far more interested in two things, what can be visually observed, and what people themselves tell you about their own tendencies and experiences. There have been arguments made, even here at JUB, that go all over the place and it's all based on the Kinsey scale as if the Kinsey scale by itself proves anything or shapes reality. In my reality, the overwhelming majority of people are straight to such an extent that those who have same-sex encounters of any kind will do it only in a "very special set of circumstances" category. And gay people, a relatively small minority of the total population, work just the same in reverse, excluding people who grew up in times, places or communities that required forced heterosexual activity for the purposes of survival. Yet this chart is routinely abused to claim humanity all neatly falls along a bell curve or similar type of shape with both gay and straight being virtually equally rare, with most people in a huge hump of bisexual in the middle. That doesn't match what I can see in real life and I'm also not really sure that's even what the Kinsey scale ever really meant to imply, either.
Or, in short *whoosh* that's the sound of the chart going out the window. I don't shape my views around it.
My position is not contradictory. My position is that if someone pursues one gender even to the point of complete exclusivity, I'm not sure where either the bisexual identity, or the insistence on asserting it, has a clear motivation other than avoidance of a homosexual label. I don't buy the tiny handful of scenarios people offered up like they'd somehow be castigated or stared at strangely for ever looking at a woman while they go about a life otherwise 99.9% geared towards same-sex. I'm a gay person and no one treats me like a leper or even notices if I look at a woman or even say something nice about her appearance, or call her attractive.
Hopefully that's clear enough.
The Kinsey scale is so often quoted because it reflects a wide spectrum of human sexuality based on observational studies. It isn't absolutive in nature for the simple reason that it doesn't reflect how people feel or perceive themselves and their actions, but merely how they act in relation to their attractions and desires, as you have very aptly pointed out. The truth is that it is mentioned so often because it is the most effective framework that we can utilize at the moment of presenting a picture of how far-ranging and complex sexuality can be, and its misuse comes from the fact that people view it as a collection of numbers which reflect their own experiences and prejudices, rather than an attempt to explain what people do, and why. Still, Kinsey only attempted to reflect sexuality in a non-binding way; which is to say, he wanted to establish that there isn't just one single form of sexuality and that sexual expression outside of hetero-normative principles isn't in essence deviant or abnormal. In that regard, I believe that the Kinsey scale is extremely useful, because it does establish very broad, general guidelines under which we can study and understand sexual orientation. It never attempted to say "if you are in 1, you will never do what the people in 5 do!". That is, as you have also pointed out, merely a reflection of the scale user's own biases. In that regard, we can both agree.
However, it is useful in determining how things are beyond social dogma and ideological impositions. Statistical analysis shows that people are more willing to admit both engaging in behaviours which deviate from the so-called norm, and their strong negative responses to those same behaviours, if they believe that they will not be identified and thus, will not suffer any reprisals. The truth is that the incidence of bisexuality in function is higher than is reported, because many people are unwilling to admit it. Thus, is the majority of the population bisexual? There is no way of knowing due to social bias, especially because anecdotic analysis of one's own experiences doesn't reveal much beyond what those around us want to share, and it is also conditioned by how they want to share it. I, for instance, have been in several situations in which so-called straight men have been both aggressively and intimidatingly sexual towards me (which was good up to a certain extent, because now I know how painful and offensive it is for women). In addition, I know people who claim to only sleep with heterosexual men, and they are certainly not short on sexual partners/lovers. Based on that assumption, would it be safe for me to say that, in
my reality, many people are bisexual or gay but negativize it to such an extent that they can only express their desires in ways that are immoral and/or degrading to others? Certainly not, because my experiences and the experiences of some of the men I know, do not reflect the reality of other people’s lives (such as in your case). I think that approaching a rational analysis on sexuality based on what we see every day, taken at face value, is very dangerous.
Moreover, regarding your comment about situational homosexuality, I don’t think that environments like prison, where sexual violence and enslavement are used to show dominance over other inmates, is a reflection of a “potential” conditioning factor towards selective same sex acts, and the same is applicable to boarding schools or the army. With the exclusion of prison, where violence is prevalent, many people find themselves in single-gender environments and never engage in any same sex activity. Those who do so, are acting on their desires, even if their perception of themselves is detached from whatever negative view anyone has of those acts. As for genuinely heterosexual men who seek out same sex partners, they only do so in VERY extreme and anomalous conditions – prostitutes, abuse victims and Narcissists would be three almost exclusive cases.
Finally, I’d like to say something: there is a tendency in nature for most populations to congregate in the middle of two extremes. Bisexual and homosexual behaviour has been found in many species, and it is only normal to assume that humanity would fall somewhere in the middle regarding sexuality as well. Just as most people lie in the 90-110 range in IQ tests, or most populations tend to fall in average ranges of physical development depending on their available sources of nourishment. Why would assume the same about sexuality be so outlandish? Social conditioning doesn’t necessarily reflect the reality about people’s behaviour, does it?
As for finding women attractive, I would imagine that anyone reacts to beauty. However, appreciation and actual romantic interest/desire are two VERY different things. Still, if you do feel an interest for women beyond the realm of what is merely aesthetic, I would say that you, or anybody else in your situation, is an incidentally bisexual person – which is nothing negative in itself, and does contradict your initial point. We are free to label ourselves, but semantic games based on our aspirations, emotional needs and perceptions do not change our objective reality.
