Alfred C. Kinsey, an Indiana University biologist, revolutionized the discussion surrounding sex with the introduction of a scale that sparked dialogue. In previous times, people typically kept their sexual orientation private and rarely shared it with others. Kinsey’s pioneering efforts prompted individuals to be more forthcoming about their sexuality, making him a prominent figure in this area. Additionally, his extensive research has greatly advanced our comprehension of human sexuality.
A study discovered that many people have engaged in sexual activities with both men and women, suggesting a range of diverse sexual behaviors. To help individuals determine their sexual orientation based on experiences with the same or opposite sex, a scale was created. Regardless of whether someone identifies as homosexual, asexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, their sexual orientation significantly influences their personal identity.
Despite its various advantages, the Kinsey Scale, also known as the “Kinsey Scale” or Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, has drawbacks. Although researchers and sexologists recognize its importance, society and the general public may not always accept it. Some individuals argue that due to the complex nature of sexuality, the Kinsey Scale oversimplifies it.
The Kinsey Scale has both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, it offers seven categories for individuals who may not fit into traditional classifications. However, a limitation of this scale is its exclusive emphasis on sexual behaviors rather than personal preferences. This can pose challenges for those identifying as transgendered, intersex, homosexual, or asexual since their actions may not always align with their interests.
The Kinsey Scale offers a way to represent one’s sexual behavior visually, rather than categorizing individuals strictly as gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual. For example, it can include those who display behaviors similar to heterosexual persons but without feeling any interest in the person they are experimenting with. This scale has the advantage of accommodating individuals who may change their sexual behaviors and attractions over time (Yarber, p. 47, 2009).
The scale provides individuals with more options for expressing their sexual behaviors, offering seven degrees of identification rather than just two discrete degrees. For instance, someone who has only had one sexual experience with the same sex but continues to engage in sexual activity with the opposite sex may identify themselves as straight. The scale allows for bi-curiosity without enough consistency to label someone as bisexual. This way, individuals can identify themselves as a “1” on the scale, indicating “incidental homosexual behavior” rather than strictly identifying as bisexual.
The flexibility of the Kinsey Scale allows individuals to easily navigate between different points on the scale. We have confidence in the validity of our argument because the scale offers numerous benefits. For instance, it aids in enhancing people’s comprehension of sexuality. Unlike other categorization systems, the scale does not label individuals based on their sexual behaviors. This creates an environment that encourages exploration and experimentation. The article “How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” specifically addresses the use of the Kinsey Scale and explores how individuals may hold biased views towards homosexuals.
Adhering to the Kinsey Scale can enhance objectivity and foster a deeper comprehension of homosexuality, potentially diminishing homophobia among heterosexual individuals. This encourages them to perceive the lives of homosexuals impartially, challenging the biases instilled in them from childhood. Moreover, the enforcement of gender roles establishes societal expectations for behavior based on biological sex, resulting in marginalization and social exclusion for those who defy these norms.
This article supports the validity of the Kinsey scale and highlights how subjective viewpoints can have a negative impact on people’s lives. One example of this bias is seen in Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University, who holds a subjective bias against homosexuals in different states. Wardle accuses the legal profession and social scientists of favoring gay rights and compromising research in this area. He also criticizes liberal judicial and policy decisions that rely on such research. Furthermore, Wardle argues for a judicial standard that assumes child custody should be given to heterosexual married couples.
In Utah, Wardle implemented new state regulations that limit adoption and foster care placements to households where all adults are blood relatives or married (Biblarz & Stacey 2001). These regulations have also been adopted in Florida, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and are being considered in 10 other states as well (Biblarz & Stacey 2001).
According to psychologist Paul Cameron, homosexuality is seen as either a sin or a mental illness, and he continues to publish alarming research on the supposed negative effects of gay parenting. Despite being expelled for misrepresenting information, his work is still referenced in amicus briefs, court decisions, and policy hearings. Additionally, Wardle relies explicitly on Cameron’s work to support his arguments against the rights of gay parents.
Wardle claims that homosexual parents are more prone to molesting their own children, and these children are also at a higher risk of losing a homosexual parent due to AIDS, substance abuse, or suicide. Furthermore, they face greater chances of experiencing depression and other emotional challenges. Additionally, homosexual couples have a higher probability of instability and separation. The unjust social stigma and embarrassment surrounding having a homosexual parent unfairly isolate children and hinder their ability to establish relationships with peers (Biblarz & Stacey 2001).
If Wardle had embraced Kinsey’s Scale and rejected the notion of distinct sexual categories, he would have seen all individuals as equal. This viewpoint would have enabled him to remain objective and dismiss worries about same-sex couples raising children in an “incorrect” way. He would have acknowledged that parents’ sexual orientation does not affect their children’s orientation.
Moving forward, Wardle would have refrained from implementing a rule that deprives homosexuals of their parental rights across various states. Consequently, this would enable homosexual individuals to become parents without encountering educational bias stemming from their sexual orientation. The prevailing studies on same-sex parenting predominantly reflect a heterosexual viewpoint as the majority of esteemed scholars in this domain are heterosexual men. As a cohesive collective, we wholeheartedly support the Kinsey Scale and advocate for individuals’ autonomy to evolve their sexual practices throughout their lives.
Based solely on their sexual behaviors, it is not appropriate to categorize individuals as gay, lesbian, or heterosexual according to Kinsey’s Scale. The purpose of this scale was to evaluate the proportion of same-sex and other-sex behaviors instead of labeling people (Yarber, p.47, 2009).
References
- Sayad, B. et al. 2010. Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America (7th edition). Boston: McGraw Hill. Stacey, Judith and Timothy
- J. Biblarz. 2001. (How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter. American Sociological Review 66(1):159-183.
