Talk:Bisexuality

Distinguishing bisexual people from people who identify first as heterosexual and then as homosexual

The first sentence did say "A bisexual person is one who can become romantically involved with persons of either sex." I've changed it into something which is much more unweildy and which I like less, but which I think is more accurate. The way the sentence was did not take into account people who are in a heterosexual relationship for a length of time (unhappily, one presumes) before leaving their partners and announcing that they are gay or lesbian. --KQ

---

Whether everyone is bisexual

The article says:

According to modern sexological ideas, the majority of people are to some degree bisexual. Most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. Only a minority (5-10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual.

What a load of tripe! I'll contain my comments on this page,though, until I can find some evidence to cite that this is junk science. <>< tbc

I suggest taking it out and moving it to here to the talk page until whoever wrote that can back up this rather bizzarely bold assertion with some references. --AV

I agree.

I would suggest your "load of tripe" is the only "load of tripe" here --Lestatdelc

---

The source of that information is probably the Kinsey Reports on Sexuality in the Human Male and Female. Kinsey et al got that figure by creating a 7-point scale. 0 was purely heterosexual, 3 was 50-50 bisexual, 6 was purely homosexual. The point the above author is trying to get across is correct according to Kinsey's research, though maybe you've misinterpreted. It's not saying that most people are 50-50 bisexual, it is saying that most people are predominatly heterosexual or homosexual with some degree of bisexuality. Kinsey et al claimed that most people aren't totally devoid of feelings for the sex other than the preferred one, its just that these feelings are a lot less strong than those for the preferred sex.

Like most things Kinsey said, this is pretty controversial; but I have never actually seen any *scientific* refutation of the idea of the scale (though since I've read hardly any sexology, there may well be scientific refutations somewhere out there.) All I've ever seen are conservative authors (e.g. Judith Reisman, Kinsey's archnemesis) who argue that the idea of sexuality being a continuum has no scientific basis. But they don't have any evidence that it has no scientific basis, I'd say it a priori makes sense, that many conservative authors (with their ideas of homosexuality being a choice and of homosexuality being "curable") themselves presume it, and that when Kinsey et al showed people the scale and asked them where they fitted they didn't all choose 0, 3 or 6, which is what you'd expect if the scale didn't reflect reality to some extent.

On the other hand, maybe his numbers as to the percentage of the population at each point on the scale are biased. Reisman argues that Kinsey's sample was biased towards prisoners and the college-educated, and that self-selection resulted in an excess of people with 'unconventional' sexual interests. Maybe she is right. I don't know if she is; and I don't know how the figures in this instance would be affected if she is right. -- SJK

I'm currently taking a class in Human Sexuality in univeristy, and much of the most recent data supports the Kinsey's assertaion that a majority of North American humans (male and female) are, in fact, bisexual to some degree. The reasoning behind this is because current researchers are (still) using a Kinsey-like scale of 0-7 (100% straght to 100% homo). On this scale only a 0 is counted as heterosexual, and only a 7 is counted as homosexual... anything numbering from 1-6 is counted as a bisexual.

This is why the number of bisexuals is so high, researches are not taking into account that a male who rates himself as a "1" may be only having sexual encounters with females, but agrees that, say, Orlando Bloom or someone similar is "attractive". Ditto for people ranking high on the scale.

Of course, keep in mind, researchers are still dealing with the "volunteer bias", so filling in this sort of questionaire requires some level of comfortability with sex and one's own sexuality. This may or may not have an effect on the numbers, but until researchers break down this scale into, say heterosexual, female-biased bisexual, bisexual, male-biased bisexual, homosexual (for men, vice versa for women), the number of bisexuals will remain quite high. It's not junk science... just generalized science.

Arcuras June 28, 2004

The heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual triad is a cultural construct and is a flawed concept. There is quite a bit of scientific material on the subject and it's fairly conclusive. It seems almost certain that, removed of socialization, essentially all people are capbable of attraction to both sexes. Consider the near universality of same-sex love and sex in pre-Abrhamic societies (and the lack of moral judgements - it was often considered normal to all people) and the continuing prevalance of bisexual sex (and love) among post-Abrhamic Europe in its royalty, aristocracy, philosophers, intellectuals, and artists.

Additionally, bisexuality has found to be extremely prevalent amongst the animal kingdom (in both male and females), including all manner of mammals from primates and cetaceans on down the evolutionary/taxonomic scale in mammals as well as all other classes (observed in over 500 species now). This behaviour is also diverse, both inter- and intra- species; but courtship, affection, and pair-bonding has generally been observed, and in some cases, same-sex parenting through adoption or 'threesomes' (this is relatively uncommon; though in most species the male plays little to no role in raising offspring, and it has long been known that females often cooperate in raising young).

Prevalance and acceptability of same-sex sex is totally dependeont on the culture and changes with time/changing culture. So the only accurate category then would be bisexual. Biology likely plays somewhat of a role; genes and hormones probably set up proclivities and contantly interact with the physical and sociocultural environment. Yes, everyone is bisexual, but we should move away from the dyadic/triadic system, which is much too simplistic for the (complex, fluid, interconnected) actual world and causes multifarious problems for societies and their members and tends to badly handicap scientific research with preconceived notions and biases. Skyodyssey 07:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Prevelence of bisexuality in women

The following isn't NPOV. -- SJK

It is my opinion, after many years of research and personal experience, that bi-sexuality in women is more prevalent than most people realize, and FAR more prevalent than the previous paragraph indicates. I do not have any "concrete" research figures to draw any percentage figures from, but I think the following five paragraphs will perhaps lead to a more realistic examination of the everyday evidence regarding bi-sexuality; at least the bi-sexuality of women.

Female to female relationships. Girls will, from a very early age, sit together on a bench at school, or on the grass in a park, or on stairs, or on the curb and talk for hours. They sit or stand around with their arms linked, or with their arm around their friend's shoulder or waist. They walk along holding hands, laughing and talking as if they are the only two people in the world. They do these things because they want and need close personal contact and intimate conversations with their 'girlfriends.' They bond together, especially in the case of 'best friends,' often for the rest of their lives in a relationship so strong that few men can understand it. This is normal social behavior for females. This same close intimacy sometimes leads to sexual activities. It is simply an extension of the need (or desire) for close physical intimacy in the friendship.

This closeness, and the desire to share sexually oriented contact, is also experienced by quite a large number of women (who are beyond 'girlhood') when they are in a private situation with a woman friend. This is a normal attraction and a normal desire for women who need the intimate contact with another female that their basic sexual nature calls for. Women who experience these feelings towards other women, but who also have intimate relationships with a man (or men) are considered to be, according to the most accepted social definition, "bi-sexual." They are, however, simply women who are aware of their natural basic sexual orientation.

This feeling of need (or desire) for close physical contact by one woman for another is not wrong, or "dirty" or perverted. It is normal. It is not understood by most people in our society, and that is really too bad, because shared intimacy when it is mutually desired is a truly beautiful thing. Unfortunately, many women deny themselves this intimate sharing because they feel that others will think that they are "lesbians."

A woman who likes both men and women is not a lesbian, according to the present-day generally accepted definition. A woman who enjoys the intimacy of close physical contact with another woman, but also likes men, is a normal woman who is correctly classified as "bi-sexual" and she has no reason to be afraid or ashamed of her desire for sexual contact with another woman to whom she is attracted.

Conversely, women who never feel these sexual attractions toward other women are just as normal as are women with bi-sexual feelings. They are simply located on a different part of the sexuality curve upon which all humans are located. The X-Y chromosome definition was, for a while, considered to be an adequate factor upon which to classify human sexual orientation. We now know that this is only one step above the 'male-or-female' classification.

TWW

Thankyou for writing that. I feel there is alot about sexuality which is neither socially acceptable nor socially and even accidemically realised. People have such knee-jerk reactions to the whole sexuality thing that it is seldomly discussed in any meaningful way. I think males are capable of being like how you spoke, but tend to not develop so because of factors borne of sociology, which in turn are probably partially borne of unrelated psycho/neurological factors vaguely associated with the brain/mind of the male sex.

---

The state of not being attracted to any gender

Wat is it calld if you dont like to be atracted to ether gender and dont like to hav sex or fall in love or get meryed with enybudy?

Dead? - Lestatdelc

Morrisseyxuality?

Now THAT is funny! (for those not getting the joke check out info on The Smiths front man Steven Morrissey - Lestatdelc

Asexuality? Marnanel 02:06, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

"The physical side of them is secondary to their thoughts, actions and beliefs"

The following comment was added to the main article by 128.125.30.42. I've simply moved it here:

I am a 20 year old bisexual. I have never had a serious boyfriend, but I have been dating my girlfriend since June 2002 and we are now engaged. Many people do not understand how I can be with a girl and still be attracted to men. I explained it to a (male) friend of mine like this. Knowing he had a girlfriend but never having met her, I asked him what color hair she had. He said blonde. I asked him if it would make any difference to him if her hair was brown, black or red. He looked shocked. "Of course not," he said. "I love her for who she is, not how she looks". "Exactly, "I said. He looked confused. "To me, it doesn't matter what gender a person is. Though I can't honestly say I don't notice a person's body, the physical side of them is secondary to their thoughts, actions and beliefs." And that's my two cents on the topic.

-- Hadal 03:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Multiple relationships

The article says "Bisexuals may choose to have more than one relationship with more than one gender at the same time or may choose to be monogamous..."

This is badly worded, and implies that Polyamory is peculiar to Bisexuality, since the entry on Hetereosexulity doesn't mention it.

I've reworded it, although in a fit of absent-mindedness I forgot to include an Edit Summary. Although I agree that polyamory isn't unique to bisexuality, there's a widespread perception that it is, as well as a confusion of bisexual behavior with bisexual orientation; and in my opinion this distinction should be made clear from the beginning. G.Syme 17:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although some bisexuals are polyamorous. Filchyboy 11:29, 5 Jan 2005 (PST)

Relationship with a gender...

This sentence strikes me as odd:

Bisexuals may choose to have relationships with more than one gender at a time; to be monogamous with a single gender; or to merely prefer one gender to another.

I'm quite new here, and I realize this may be a contentious topic, so I'll try to be careful (boldly ;). I hope this hasn't been rehashed to death already! If so, please point me to the talk page or archive and I'll go study up :) So three comments:

1. The idea of "having a relationship with a gender," while not nonsensical, doesn't seem to be quite what's being discussed here. It should probably be "having a relationship with a person of xxx gender," or something similar.
2. The ideas of biological sex and behavioural gender seem to be used interchangeably here. I realize that reflects a current state of confusion in society at large: perhaps something explicit should be written addressing that. I notice that the homosexuality definition references sex, the heterosexuality definition references both sex and gender, and the bisexuality definition references only gender. *grin* Does bisexuality mean the ability to find people sexy whether they have a penis or a vagina? Or does it mean the ability to find people sexy whether they conform to the behaviours we call masculine or feminine?
3. The point about monogamy (or lack thereof), while not untrue, probably doesn't belong in the definition, as someone mentioned below. Anyone may choose to be monogamous or not -- it's not particularly related to sexual orientation. The idea that bi folk need "one of each" is of course a common stereotype (in fact, that might be a good section to add). It raises a question about the nature of sexual attraction... after all, a straight person may have the ability to fall in love with both blue-eyed people and brown-eyed people. Should we include that in the definition of heterosexuality? "Heterosexuals may choose to have relationships with more than one eye-colour at a time; to be monogamous with a single eye-colour; or to merely prefer one eye-colour over another." (ok, I'm being silly, but the point is there... ;)

Any thoughts? Wordie 17:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with you that the opening is very badly worded. I've fiddled with it a tiny bit, but haven't taken the time to really rewrite it, which it definitely needs. Why don't you take a crack at it? If you're not successful, others will edit it or improve it or revert it. Be bold.... Hayford Peirce 18:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree about the wording, and that there's a too-common confusion between bisexuality and non-monogamy. Still, that stereotype is exactly why I'd be in favor of making some distinction at the beginning of the article. I'd suggest something like:

Bisexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by romantic love or sexual desire for members of either or both genders, contrasted with homosexuality, heterosexuality, and asexuality. The terms pansexual or omnisexual are generally used synonymously. Bisexuals may have simultaneous relationships with partners of both genders, practice serial monogamy with partners of either gender, have relationships with partners of only one gender, or practice celibacy. Bisexuality refers to desires and self-concept, not necessarily behavior.

This also makes the article's introduction more parallel with the corresponding entries for homosexuality and heterosexuality. I've decided to be bold and change it. Thoughts?

G.Syme 16:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Trysexual"

The current article contains the following joke in the Terminology section:

Trysexual (sometimes "trisexual") is a neologism and a pun on bisexual. It is used as a humorous term for someone who will try any sexual experience at least once.

In my opinion, jokes of this sort don't belong under definitions. Unlike "pansexual" and "omnisexual", which I have seen in print and heard in speech, "trysexual" only seems to exist in the context of the joke cited.

Whether intentionally or not, including this sort of humor - especially towards the beginning of an article - is similar to a rhetorical device often seen in dismissive articles about bisexuality, which often begun by either (1) raising the question of whether bisexuality actually exists, or (2) jokingly equating bisexuality with a complete lack of discrimination when it comes to sexual partners and practices. Although the poster may well have included the term to make the section more comprehensive, I think it suggests to readers that the entire subject is one to be taken lightly, and, therefore, I think that including this term at this point violates NPOV.

If there's a strong opinion that the joke is worth retaining, I think it should be moved down to the bottom of the article, along with the Dana Carvey quote. However, I also notice that the homosexuality and heterosexuality articles don't include any humor of this sort. Is it genuinely appropriate here?

G.Syme 16:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

no lesser luminary then David Bowie described self as trysexual.

As far as I can determine from Google, Bowie was repeating the same joke. (Most Google hits for the Bowie quote prefer the "trisexual" spelling.) Perhaps a good analogy is Ringo Starr's "mocker" comment; it's well-known enough to be listed in the Mods and Rockers article, but not included in either the Mods or Rockers definitions, because the expression never had any currency outside the context of the joke. G.Syme 17:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another definition of a trisexual is someone who is attracted to men, women, and transsexuals. Hayford Peirce 18:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I certainly can understand how some bisexual people could be upset with the inclusion of a trisexual joke particularly at the suggestion that bi-ness might be something they are 'having a go at'. I'm not sure I understand the idea about it only being used in the context as a joke. Deeply held beliefs can start as humourous ideas even Anglicanism. This seems to be a great fault with wikiland its determined poe-facedness on everything the anglicanism article does not mention the latin pun at the heart of that belief and someone took from another article, what I considered a very important point, that one great work of literature was better then another as it had better jokes. Mocker is a good example as it can suggest someone who likes some of both music but doesn't dress up in silly clothes. Trysexual also suggests not only someone who does shag anything but someone who would like to shag something.MeltBanana 19:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a similar joke that someone who speaks three languages is trilingual; someone who speaks two is bilingual; and someone who speaks one is American. The joke is widely circulated, but it would still be inaccurate to say that "American" can mean "someone who only speaks one language", because the word "American" is not used in that sense outside that particular joke.

"Omnisexual" and "pansexual" are used widely, if not commonly, and can be found in dictionaries. "Trysexual" is, as far as I've seen, invariably followed by an explanation of the pun on "tri" and "try"; dictionary.com finds no listings for it at all.

Your comment suggests that, when other Wiki articles have had conflicts between being neutral and being funny, being neutral has won out. This suggests that the bisexuality article might best be handled the same way. G.Syme 20:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bi-curious

Should there be anything put in the bisexuality article about the bi-curious?

Excellent question. But is there any real consensus about what "bi-curious" actually means? Is it just curiousity about having a same-sex experience, or curiousity about the bisexual orientation itself, or something else? Maybe "bi-confusion" is a better term. Edeans 17:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have never encountered another use of the word, and I don't quite see the point of "bi-confusion". Seems to be far less used, too. -- AlexR 19:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the bi-curious article about what bi-curious means.

Arab World

"In the modern Arab world, same-sex sexual behavior between men is very common; some sources describe it as near-ubiquitous. This is despite prohibitions against homosexual behavior in the Qur'an and severe penalties for offenders in some nations, including the death penalty. While among Arabs bisexual behaviour is known to be very common, and men are not given much trouble about these behaviors so long as they marry and raise families and fulfill other societal duties, it is something which remains very covert, and an open declaration of homosexual preference would be unacceptable. In this way, bisexuality in the Arab world is somewhat similar to the DL culture prevalent in some African-American communities."

The "near-ubiquitous" comment seems exaggerated. Sounds like a comment made either by someone trying to slander the arab world, or by some homophobic commentator in the arab world... Also, isn't the arab culture largely(?) a macho culture, where it is the receiving part who gets most stigmatized?

I don't think it follows that this is some sort of slander against the Arab world, homophobic or otherwise: I've heard similar claims below. Some references would be helpful to provide some evidence to back this up, however. --Axon 16:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am naturally suspicious of any claim that Arabs, or any other ethnic/religious group, has any predisposition toward being any GLBT persuasion. But maybe it's because I'm bi myself. But what the hell would I know? [not Arabian, and not that it would matter]

I think there is a difference between a) mentioning that bisexual or homosexual activity occurs in a community or culture and b) that a group has a predisposition towards bisexuality and homosexuality. I don't think the later claim is being made here. --Axon 17:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this statement should be backed up, lest it be removed from the article. --Nathan J. Yoder 11:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A quick search on-line uncovers various references to this subject, including "Bisexuality in the Arab World" by Françoise Gollain This article [1] and [2] goes into detail on the subject:

"In some ways, we have less hang ups about it than the West. Here it is just something that is, and men do it and do not make a big deal about it. Of course, they have to hide it, and deny it, but everyone knows it is there, just under the surface.”

The following article also seems to make mention of it [3] --Axon 14:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those biased sources are hardly authoritative. Nathan J. Yoder 17:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You requested evidence for which I supplied. What evidence do you have that they are biased? You could simply dismiss any articles and evidence I have on the subject as biased. What level of evidence would you require? On the contrary, my evidence is far more authorative than the complete lack of evidence you have provided. --Axon 17:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A magazine about bisexuals is going to be inherently biased. The other sites are just links and it's not my job to wade through a million links for you. Try quoting a historian or some sort of authortative source on the matter rather than random magazine articles and websites. The burden of proof is on you here, since you are the one insistent on ADDing something to the article. Nathan J. Yoder 18:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would a magazine on bisexuals be biased? Please explain? If you have any evidence to doubt what they are saying please present it here. As I understand it, the arabic bisexual stuff was already in the article so if you want it removed, the burden of proof is on you. If you can't even be bothered to do any research yourself then I don't really know what you are doing on Wikipedia. --Axon 09:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's backwards logic, the stuff "already being in the article" has nothing to do with it. I can put all kinds of random garbage in the article, it doesn't mean the burden of proof has shifted. In order to KEEP something in the article you must have justifiable reason to keep it in there. I'm not really sure how to explain the bias any further, the magazine is about bisexuality so of course they're going to jump on any information say it's more prevalent than it is without bothering to check it well. Nathan J. Yoder 02:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, the information is already in the article I'ev spent time researching this and I've supplied ample proof, I've read the articles in question and they back up what I have said. We have no reason not to trust what they say unless you can provide some contrary proof which ammounts to more than a "feeling that it is wrong". --Axon 10:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have a funny definiton of ample proof. One article in a biased publication does not constitute proof. Nor does a website with a million links. You might as well offer a link to google as ample proof. If you continue to refuse to supply substantial evidence of this, it will be removed from the article. Nathan J. Yoder 07:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Niyoder, please remember to sing your posts. Johntex 07:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• clear throat* Do re me fa so ... "ooooh you have a funnnny definitionnn of proooof." ... I know I just keep forgetting, I always correct it a few minutes later though. Nathan J. Yoder 07:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you just keep repeating yourself and cherry-picking those remarks you wish to respond to without actually responding to the points I make, whilst being slightly obnoxious and border-line un-civil. This is very tiresome. If you have no wish to explain why exactly why you think my evidence is biased and you cannot be bothered to do any research yourself, there seems little point in further dicussion with you. --Axon 10:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of cherry picking? I've responded to each and every remark you've made, you just didn't like my answers. I already explained why it's biased. Find an actual authoritative source, not a magazine artcile from some biased publication nor just a giant list of links. The burden of proof is on you, as I already explained, but which you ignored.

Looking through the magazine article it doesn't even appear to support the Wikipedia article. It simply says Egyptian men often have gay sex as rite of passage, something based on an interview with some random guy mind you. That is not equivalent gay sex being VERY COMMON in the ARAB WORLD. At best it means just some number of EGYPTIAN men had gay sex a few times. This most certainly does not support the most men often engaged in same-sex relationships statement about Ancient greece either. Something which even Kinsey's own statistics on bisexuality wouldn't support.

Find a source that is a) authoritative and b) actually supports what the Wikipedia article says. That means something other than a list of links and some random magazine article. You want me to back up why this silly theory is wrong? I've got a useful link for you: http://www.google.com/ - that will give a list of links just like your sources. Stop being evasive and try to actually substantiate what the article says. -Nathan J. Yoder 13:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prevalence of bisexuality and cultural practice of it

This article should not be suggesting how many people are bisexual without backing it up with scientific evidence. Kinsey's studies are junk science and can't be trusted for this purpose. Additionally, people should cite their historical sources regarding the prevalence of bisexual sex practice in all of these cultures where it's purportedly extremely common. Barring proof of these, that stuff should be removed.

I think arguments about the veracity of Kinsey are best left to the Kinsey article, unless you have any proof of the above. --Axon 14:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So instead the article should just accept it as truth and not even question it? That's incredibly POV bias in favor of Kinsey. You MUST mention that Kinsey's research is controversial and not present it as solid fact. Nathan J. Yoder 17:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no "must" (in capital letters or otherwise) about it. The paragraphs you mention clearly cite Kinsey as the source of the evidence so your concerns that they are stated as fact seems over-inflated. Of course, for in-depth balance we could go into detail about who does and does not considers Kinsey's work controversial, discuss the detail of scientific consensus on his work and so forth but that would reproducing the Kinsey article within this article: as I stated before, discussion of controversy on Kinsey belongs in the Kinsey article. After all, the idea that Kinsey's work is controversial is itself controversial. --Axon 17:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article states it mater-of-factly with no reference to the controversy behind him. That is a bias in favor of Kinsey. Someone reading the article who didn't know about him most likely wouldn't read the article on him and pick that up. Not mentioning the controversy and the fact that this may be false is POV. Nathan J. Yoder 18:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It quite clearly attributes the source as Kinsey for all the stats is presents and, as I've stated above, the controversy is itself controversial. We could mention it is controversial, but then someone else would want to mention that teh contrvoersy is itself controversial, then there would have to be more detail on what exactly is and isn't controversial and it would quickly snowball into an full blown edit war and article on Kinsey itself. If people want to check Kinsey sources they can simply click on the Kinsey link and read more. To be quite blunt, what evidence do you have that prevalance of bisexuality is more or less? --Axon

What you are saying doesn't make sense, controversy is always controversial. Saying the controversy is controversial is redundant. I don't see what problem you have with simply stating a NPOV matter of fact. You're also making an annoying slippery slope argument here. Not mentioning the controversy is POV. To be quite blunt with you, what evidence do you have that it's actually that common? Kinsey is known, as a matter of _fact_, for fudging numbers either that or he was actually getting someone to rape kiddies. He can't be trusted for valid scientific information. Nathan J. Yoder 02:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is exactly that "knowledge" that is disputed, isn't it? And I am far more inclined to trust Kinsey than some right-wing nut who tries to turn back the clock by slander. Be that as it may, currently most people are inclined to cite Kinsey's figures, and only a small minority makes claims about him which are, as far as I know, still completely unsubstantiated. So why should it be neutral to insert those claimes everytime Kinsey is mentioned? -- AlexR 07:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The claims are not unusubstantied. His methods of data collection are totally unscientific. Go take a look at the data he has on baby and adolescent orgasms if you want to see some great number fudging. Plus apparently 62% of men have had a gay experience, I wonder how he fudged that one. It is not a small minority making claims either. It is necessary to put a notice in sections devoted just to him and in other random mentions a foot note. And lack of good figures from other sources is not good reason to use his. It's like saying "well this one pseudo-scientific source is more scientific than the other pseudo-scientifc source so it's ok." Nathan J. Yoder 07:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The entire problem with bisexuality and it's prevalence depends upon it's "definition". If a sexologist defines everything that is not exclusive heterosexuality or exclusive homosexuality as bisexual, then you have a very large group of people, as it is generally accepted that most people are not exclusively one or the other, able to (at the very least) admit that some members of both sexes are attractive, etc. (eg: Straight-identifying male who can admit that Brad Pitt is good looking is, in this definition, bisexual) This is, as should be obvious, a very broad view, and probably inaccurate, but this is the definition many sexologists apply. Others work only on self-identification: the number of people in sample size of X say "I am a bisexual".

Kinsey is one of the better known sexologists who studied the prevalence, and it is generally accepted that his numbers are accurate given the first "definition" of bisexuality. Other sexologists have come up with different numbers, but we are not an easy group to count as some of us (myself included) have very fluid sexualities where we are gay one day and straight the other. Add this to the fluid definition of what bisexuality really is, and it's no wonder there's controversy. Instead of going into a full-blown discussion of that here, as this is not where it belongs, why not find a sexologist whose numbers you like better, and add it in as a point-counterpoint: Kinsey said X, but Person B said Y. Leave the kinsey-bashing to his own page, lest his ego grow too large.

Besides which... it's sex research. There is no such thing as sex research that is not controversial. Arcuras 07:28, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's not controversial simply becuase it's sex research, it's controversial because it's unscientific. The issues isn't how he defines sexuality, it's his figures. I don't know of any large scale sex research off hand that was done even semi-recently, so I wouldn't know what to replace it with. Lack of another source isn't reason to include a bad source thouhg. Nathan J. Yoder 07:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you can't suggest some other numbers, then what proof do you have that his numbers are incorrect? I'm taking three university courses on this stuff, and everything I've read and reasearched says that, for his definitions, the prevailiance is about spot on. Arcuras 22:26, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Absurd figures:

• 37% of males had gay sex to orgasm, 13% of females
• 48.9% of males performed cunnilingus in marriage, 45.5% of females performed fellatio in marrriage
• Among males 14% had performed fellatio, 30% had received fellatio
• 69% of white males have had at least one experience with a prostitute
• 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes
• Pre-marital intercourse 68% of males (by age 18), 50% females (this was over 50 years ago remember)

http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-data.html

Contradicting numbers from other studies:

• Prevalence_of_homosexuality lists several studies with conflicting numbers. Numbers range from 1-10% for exclusive homosexuals.
• http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html also lists conflicting figures from other studies.

Poor sampling (massive volunteer bias):

• 5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education. (This part of the sample is referred to as the "College Sample.") Kinsey tried to compensate for volunteer bias in his sample by interviewing 100% of the individuals available in a given organization or group. Approximately 25% of the sex histories came from these 100% groups. (Kinsey did not believe a random sample was possible.)

http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-data.html

• Cochran et al. found much to praise in Kinsey's work, and they acknowledged that Kinsey could not have been expected to use more sophisticated methods when he began. It is important to remember this point when reviewing Kinsey's methodology from the vantage point of 60 years' additional experience with sex surveys. Today we look back at Kinsey with the hindsight afforded those who have access, not only to these many sex surveys, but also to many improvements in survey practice.
• Noting that Kinsey had begun his research when the use of random sampling in surveys was just beginning, the three statisticians concluded that he could not have been expected to use this sophisticated new methodology, especially given the paucity, of qualified statisticians during the war. They also took issue with Kinsey's so-called 100% samples in which interviewers attempted to obtain interviews with every member of any group they approached. As Cochran et al. noted, this created a cluster sample because each interview was not obtained independently, thereby reducing the benefit of the large number of cases.
• Asserting that random sampling applied only when one was short of data, Kinsey refused to check his data with a small probability sample

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n2_v35/ai_20846990

• "The methodology has changed the most," [Dr. Laura Berman] says, "I don't know that what he found is that different but now we have the technology and the scientific ability and we know how to do things in a more scientifically rigorous way," says Berman, who has yet to see the movie. "Instead of interviewing people, we have access to random samples, phone numbers, addresses, and we can do surveys by mail, in person, or online."

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/103990.htm

• But 26% (1,400) of Kinsey's alleged 5,300 white male subjects were already "sex offenders."[34] As far as the data can be established, an additional 25% were incarcerated prisoners; some numbers were big city "pimps," "hold-up men," "thieves;" roughly 4% were male prostitutes as well as sundry other criminals; and some hundreds of homosexual activists at various "gay bars" and other haunts from coast to coast.[35]

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html (Partial source for this: http://www.drjudithreisman.org/bbc_transcript.htm)

So basically modern (and even old) statisticians acknowledge is methodology was fundamentally flawed.

--Nathan J. Yoder 05:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I recommend reading Kinsey Reports - the articles addresses many of those complaints. Also, there is certainly some bias - but unless there is sufficient reason to assume that sexual behaviour in that part of the population - on which the data presumably is reliable - differs considerably from that of the rest of the population, which I have never heard of, then this bias just is no reason to throw out all the data Kinsey came up with. -- AlexR 01:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've already read Kinsey Reports. It doesn't even a single point I made here. The closest it comes is by saying this:

In a response to these criticisms, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for  Sex Research, spent years "cleaning" the Kinsey data of its purported contaminants, removing, for example,  all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson)  published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for   Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's surprise he claimed, was that none of Kinsey's original  estimates were significantly affected by this bias.

No sources are given to support this claim by the wikipedia article's authors. The idea that none of his statistics were significantly effected by this massive volunteer and sample bias is ridiculous. Considering that some of the statistics I listed are extremely far fetched, I don't see how anyone can claim this. Also note that the person who conducted this 'cleaning up' was a member of the Kinsey Institute.

This is also state:

   Instead of Kinsey's 37 percent, Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4 percent; the 10 percent figure  (with prison inmates excluded) came to 9.9 percent for white, college-educated males and 12.7 percent for  those with less education. And as for the call for a "random sample," a team of independent statisticians  studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex  research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing  technique had been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental  endeavor."

No sources are given for this either. In fact, they don't even bother to specify what the 37% is referring to, which is quite odd. The best example they can come up with is mentioning some mystery statistic from a source that isn't quoted. Not to mention that this is a bad example of POV and being misleading wrt to quoting some mystery statisticians. Some modern statisticians may said that his methods were skillful for his time, but NO modern statisticians, other than those from the Kinsey Institute, say that his methods were actually accurate.

Look, even the others have acknowledged that his statistics aren't accurate. The massive disparity in studies is even futher evidence that they can't be trusted. People are being totally disingenuous in this article, they suggest "oh but no studies are perfectly accurate so it's ok", but that's not the point. The point that the stats are slightly inaccurate, it's that they're grossly inaccurate. THere's even worse justification "oh but the other studies suck too, so it's ok to quote bad statistics [i.e. two wrongs make a right]."

Even worse than all of that, one guy suggested that even if the statistics are totally inaccurate, that they should still be included because of Kinsey's contributions to society. His contributions have nothing to do with this article or its inclusion of his statistics.

I haven't seen a single remotely logical argument for inclusion of his statistics in this talk page. I present a very valid, objective view point and I get met with disingenuous responses. It is obvious that people aren't willing to listen at all. Even you criticized what I was saying on IRC without having even read my criticisms on this talk page.

There is a form of wiki bullying going on here. It doesn't matter how right I am. Any changes I make will be automatically reverted since my opinion regarding this page is unpopular and goes against the personal biases of its other editors. If this continues, I will file an RfC to get objective third parties in here to verify what is obvious--that the statistics don't belong there.

-Nathan J. Yoder 12:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This already IS on RfC, since after the incident on IRC I did not want to be the only one to debate this matter; the latest comments except mine probably were a result of that RfC. There also is no form of bullying going on here, and your accusations of others not wanting to truly debate here can be made against you just as well - you don't care what other's say, either, unless they happen to agree with you. You know, whining about bullying and bias, and spreading - to put it nicely - unconfirmed statements about others is not really going to help you to convince other people. Neutral ones, those that came in because this article has been on RfC for days.

Also, I notice, you seem to think that those indenting their comments do so for fun - but the reason is that this actually makes the talk pages much more readable. You might consider doing the same - bad style itself is not an argument, but it sure comes into play when others judge a persons comments. And it sure does not help convincing them. -- AlexR 13:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been on an RfC for only 24 hours, not for days and you never even mentioned it being added before. That is disingenuous at best and a lie at worse. Only one person has commented as a result of the RfC and he never responded back to me yet.

Furthermore, you didn't address my points about why the statistics are inaccurate and why they shouldn't be included in the article. Instead you just decided to engage in a pure attack against me. Not just that, but you mocked me for not indenting, that is very childish to say the least. It is obvious to anyone reading this that you are being very immature and ARE biased. I did not indent it because sometimes it is preferred to switch between indenting and not indenting to avoid having a long, deeply nested thread.

Please stop responding to this article unless you are willing to address why Kinsey should actually be excluded. I presented a very clear, concise argument. You presented personal insults. Who do you think is actually going to look worse? Lastly, you are reinforcing my point that you are not interested in debate since you didn't actually respond to the debate aspect of what I said. By all means, keep on engaging in ad hominem, it's sure helping your cause. And from talking to you on IRC< your response is entirely predictable, you were too stubborn on IRC to address my points then, and you're too stubborn now. I seriously doubt you even read ANY of my arguments for why the data is bad until afterwards and even then you just barely skimmed it. -Nathan J. Yoder 14:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's all very nice information... but none of it has to do what this article is about. This article is about bisexuality, not Kinsey or his samples. That's what his article is about. Additionally, you have not suggested some other numbers to add into the article. If your argument is that the numbers he supplies are wrong, and thus should be removed, then at the very least give us some other numbers to replace them with, and substantial, undenyable proof that they are accurate, since you have such an issue with the accuracy of these ones.

The straight of it is that none of these tests are ever entirely accurate. People lie, quite frequently, especially in random polls. The stigma surrounding sex, and sexual orientations especially, decrease the accuracy of "self-reporting". The numbers that are obtained are naturally flawed in any case, as they are made up only by those who are willing to discuss such issues. As such, your arguments against using Kinsey really aren't making sence to me. Stick in a "For more on Kinsey's works see..." bit if you want, but throwing in all this unnessisary and off-topic information is only detrimental to the article itself. Arcuras 05:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

It appears you didn't read what I wrote in reply to, but instead ingored it on the basis that Kinsey's methods were just as good as methods employed by other sexologists (which they clearly aren't). Kinsey didn't use random polling and his sampling methods are seriously flawed. I can easily cite one of the other figures in a study from Prevalence_of_homosexuality (as I already mentioned) which were actually done with decent random polling. In any case, even lacking other numbers, it's not a good reason to use bad ones in their place because promoting bad science is bad regardless of the excuses you make. It is necessary to put in a warning that Kinsey's methodologies were strongly critcized, even by modern sexologists and statisticians who are in no way prude. --Nathan J. Yoder 07:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did, in fact, read your responce. I also looked at everything you linked to before I made my reply. I know quite well that kinsey did not use typical sampling methods, and I also know that he did so in an attempt to reduce volunteer bias; however I could make no judgement on whether his attempts were successful. I also found it interesting that you cited the Prevalence_of_homosexuality article twice now, which makes the exact same point I made in reply (see Prevalence_of_homosexuality#Footnote). This is why every series of research into this area comes up with different numbers, and changes depending on the social climate, the sample size, who the interviewer is (sex/age/social status/etc), the time of day, and the class of people interviewed. You also must look at who is publishing the research (Quote: In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports. also from Prevalence_of_homosexuality).

I hartiliy accept that Kinsey's numbers may be wrong... but then, in my own opinion, I believe that most, if not all, of the numbers are wrong. We have no way of knowing exactly how many there are because we are an invisible minority; and because of this, an accurate count will never be made - unless we should suddenly all turn a violent shade of purple, en mass. Despite all this, you have still not responded to the simple fact that the controversy relates to Kinsey, and not to the topic at hand, which is, and shall remain Bisexuality, and the estimated number of people who are, according to varying definitions, bisexual. The controversy that is raised with Kinsey by the Fundie hordes is well delt with on his own page. Surely it need not be mentioned on every page that contains his name. Arcuras 09:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I already noted, modern statisticians have said that his "100% grouping" actually made things worse. The fact that it wasn't random sampling alone and that he knowingly picked people from very non-representative population clearly demonstrates his figures can't be trusted. If you look at some of the figures themselves, the excessively high rates (even by todays standards) of homosexual and extra-marital make it clear his figures are far off.

Modern scientific surveys use random phone polling, which actually do manage to get fairly consist results from study to study as long as the sample size is large enough. So to chock this up to 'studies being different' is absurd and it makes me think you don't really want to accept his figures as invalid. "Oh but all studies are going to have inaccuracies" is not an excuse to use one with well known and avoidable innaccuracies. Following that logic, it would be acceptable to poll a couple of my friends for a "scientific survey" because hey--all surveys are flawed.

The article may be about bisexuality, but it quotes Kinsey's figures. Why you would quote Kinsey's figures as a matter of fact and no one elses makes no sense unless you're POV pushing. You most certainly need to either mention that A) there are many conflicting figures on this or that B) Kinsey's methologies are consiered to be excessively flawed. Not to do so is doing nothing short of mispreresenting the facts. Unless you can present a damn good reason not to, I'm going to change the article to reflect the range of figures available and the sources of those figures. Nathan J. Yoder 11:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it sadly ironic that the person who just accused me of not reading what he wrote, has just made it painfully clear that he is the one who is guilty of it. If one were to go back and read the very first post I made in this section, they would notice that I suggested doing what you just unnessisarily threatened me with. My entire issue here was not with Kinsey's numbers, but with keeping the article on topic. Adding in more numbers only beings more to the article, and makes it closer to what may be believed to be accurate. Adding in sections or paragraphs on how some researchers believe Kinsey's numbers to be innaccurate to the greater and modern world is not on topic, and what I was arguing against.

Now, as to your other points, I feel as if you are misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. I was trying to point out that no polling system can ever be touted as wholly accurate. Look at the random smaple phone polls of the Amerianc ellection. Many were done, and accross the board, the vast majority showed that Kerry was in the lead by a slim margin; as hopefully anyone can see, what was reported was not the correct result. As such, and researcher who touts their research as the last and final word should be cast into question, as no study, no matter how it is conducted, can ever be accurate. However, this does not mean that they can be completely rejected as entirely false, and that the methodology can be tossed out the proverbial window, as you stated. Current methodologies go to great lengths to try and ensure the most accurate information possible, but they can never be stated as being wholly accurate.

This is especially true when it comes to sex surveys. In any sample size, you would most likely get the save average number of people who told the truth, and the same average of people who did not; and thus, current studies would continue to come up with the same approximation of numbers. However, the number who lie cast the end result into question, as you can not predict the number of straight people who say they or not, or the number of gay/bi/les who say they are not. Considering the current political and social atmosphere, it is widely agreed that the second group would be considerably larger then the first. Despite living in a "free" society, we are still dealing with groups of people who, if they keep their mouths shut, are treated as otherwise normal and equal people. Telling someone you don't know over the phone that you are not (what is appointed as) normal is a potentially dangerous thing. Further that with the fact that some people try to hide what they feel within for most of their adult lives due to the same social climate (Govneror of New Jersey, for example), and it is a higher probability that the current statistics are lower then the reality of the situation. This was the point I was trying to make, not that we should just throw up our hands in defeat and loudly proclaim "Fuck it all" and start making numbers up, as you suggest. And, before you say it (as the fundie group tends to do quite often, not that I suggest you belong in said group), no, Kinsey did not do just that. For the samples that he took, being largely of incarserated individuals, I would argue that his numbers in this area would be largely accurate. Of course, this is an opinion, and unprovable... but so then is the inverse.

I look forward to seeing the numbers you interject, but please don't simply use the ones over at Prevalence_of_homosexuality, as they have less to do with bisexuality specifically, and more with gay and lesbian individuals. Arcuras 20:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

_______________________________ --Maby something should be added about that most men (including myself :) would very much like to have sex with two bisexual women at the same time, while there is no such thing to be noted in everyday talks with friends and on the street about the reverse situation - that a heterosexual women would like to participate in sex with two bisexual men. This last option seems uncommon and very "unwanted". It's true that I don't have any links to provide, but most males and females reading this - be honest to yourself and ask yourself a question: "What is your great sex fantasy?" Im pretty sure that if we made a larg scale poll, majority of males would list "..to have sex with two chicks at the same time while they are kissing each other.." and majority of females would definitively NOT list something like, say "..to have sex with two guys while they are kissing each other.."?? The last probably does happen, but is definitively not that widespread as guy-with-two-chicks situation. Feamles would probably list in more equal quantities stuff like most males (the guy-with-two-chicks situation), then situation with two guys, but NOT bisexual guys, meaning straight ones with one performing anal and the other "classic" thing, then females could also list the situation with two couples at the same time and so on and on.. I mean come on.. don't make that look on your face - it's Wikipedia :) We are suppose to provide things as they are. Anybody has any clues how to check the upper claims? (..maby poll, or asking yourself about fantasies..). Then there is also no notion about that bisexual females are less attacked by rightwingers then bisexual men - which might in part explain some statements that I made above - that men, which hold more power in rightwing societies not only have nothing against bisexual females, but even secretly prefer (or fantasize in secrecy) doing it with two bi-chicks at once while any notion about guys doing anything to each other is ..huh - you know what words would they use, while on the other hand, two males doing something to one female at the same time but doing NOTHING between each other would be, in such case considered as ok.. This stuff, after researched little more maby someday, should be added, because there are more proofs that female bisexuality is different (and more desired by both sexes) that male bisexuality. They are maby technically the same, but quantitatively totally different things - hence, if you ask common people on the street to throw a few associations at two words - those would be first - for words "bisexual women" associated words - ..err..lesbians, ..err..cool, ..experimental, desired,.. and if asked for "bisexual men" associations - ..err.. gays, ..no thanks!, ..maby, ..hmmm, ..and so on. ..Ok! Now.. bottom line.. Someone might hate me for these things, someone might like it, but I think my comment was: 1.)honest, 2.)highly possible and 3.)close to real situation..! ..thanks for reading - ..hope that puts some prospect to situation.. _____________________________

I do indeed see some prospect there - namely, that somebody that clueless is not very likely to ever get one woman into bed, let alone two who could probably have more fun without him. -- AlexR 04:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• laughs* That's mean! True, quite funny, and mean! Arcuras 09:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bisexuality#See_also

Is the link to Pederasty really relevant? –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 04:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having been the one to list it, let me ask you how can you exclude it when you already discuss the topic in the article itself? The real question is how can you exclude it when it was (and possibly remains, from an international point of view) the main manifestation of bisexuality in society. Haiduc 04:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kinsey

Please do not remove the Kinsey data from this article. If nothing else, it is historically very important because Kinsey's figures shaped modern attitudes towards bisexuality, and continue to influence them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean his figures are accurate or should even be included in this article. It is not appropriate to include figures on the basis of how Kinsey influenced peoples' attitudes. That is not what this article is about. That section of the page is strictly statistical, it has nothing to do with Kinsey's influence. I've already had a lengthy discussion about this and why his methodology was seriously flawed on the talk page. Address that before you just blindly revert. The only person who replied suggested that the statistics should be kept only on the basis that there are no good statistics. Bad information is bad information, and shouldn't be included regardless. --Nathan J. Yoder 01:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the figures have been shown beyond doubt to be so flawed as to be useless, discuss that in the article. If the figures are of some small use but still flawed, discuss that in the article. But don't remove them again. Kinsey's findings revolutionized how we regard sexuality, particularly the former fringe sexualities such as homosexuality and bisexuality. They must be treat in some appropriate and accurate manner in the article, not just ignored. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• We are not here to pass judgment on the accuracy of certain information. We are here to summarize pertinent and verifiable information that may bear on a debate or issue that is the topic of an article. Kinsey is a widely recognized figure and while his theories may be debated in the public street, they are nevertheless both verifiable and pertinent. They should be included. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:47, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Of course we are here to pass judgement on the accuracy of information. Are you seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter if Wikipedia articles contain accurate information? His information HAS NOT been verified, his methods WERE NOT sound. The information is inaccurate and junk science. If you want unscientific information in a wiki article, take it to a different wiki.

This is not about his theories, this is about his statistics. How he revolutionized anything is totally and utterly irrelevent, to mention it is a non-sequitur. This isn't an article about Kinsey, this is an article about Kinsey and the quotes regarding kinsey are about very specific statistics he found. What "small use" do dubious statistics serve?

I specifically outlined how his information is inaccurate in this talk page and the massive disparity in even modern studies with better methods goes to show this even further (see http://www.thebody.com/siecus/report/youth_issues.html). Even LGBT rights groups acknowledge there are no definitive, accurate statistcs on this. You look at one study, you get 1%, you look at another and you get 10%. When the disparity in studies is so large, you can't really include the information. "Ok, so the information may be inaccurate. In fact, it may be TEN TIMES OFF, but we should include it anyway!"

I do not want to keep repeating myself because people can't read back through the talk page. What it comes down to is this: there are no accurate statistics on the matter. The studies have widely conflicting statistics that fall far out of acceptable room for error. It might, be 1%, 5%, 50%, no one knows. Why should inaccurate statistics be included? What purpose do inaccurate statistics serve? And why do Kinsey's statistics get special priority, especially considering modern statisticians contest even his most basic methods? Even the smaller scale modern studies are better than his. Kinsey's fame and effects on society are a red herring, which is a logical fallacy.

If I am to follow your logic, that accuracy doesn't matter, then I will just put in statistics from every single study I can find. You'll see figures ranging from 1%-50%. You are not allowed to contest me putting these in the articles following your own logic.

-Nathan J. Yoder 22:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Respectfully, I stand by my original point, which is backed up by Wikipedia's policies. You may find it useful to familiarize yourself with Wikiquette if you are not already. I will quote the pertinent section here for clarity: Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox (soapbox) for advocacy (advocacy). Kinsey's theories are extremely well-known and should be presented in the article. It's fine to include documented criticism of them as that too is part of the debate, but simply not presenting them is doing the article and its readers a disservice. People can make up their own minds from NPOV information an article presents. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to point out, in answer to the comment Nathan made above about bullying, that I came here as a result of a recent RfC. I have no axe to grind. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. Those policies don't apply here. This is not about representing views, this is about statistics. Statistics are not value judgements, nor are they views. And I'm discussing in the inaccuracy of the statistics here, which is what your quote says the talk page is for. Your quote actually supports my point.

Kinsey's theories aren't the issue here, as I've stated. Please do not make me repeat myself for the millionth time, this is about statistics. Kinsey's theories being well-known have absolutely NOTHING to do with this.

Even if you were to completely misinterpret what I was saying and were to misinterpret Wikiquette, it wouldn't make sense because including all "views" (statistics) would mean including literally DOZENS of statistics from the many studies on the matter. It would be one giant table with statistics from numerous sources that are in complete conflcit with eachother. So no matter how you look at it, including those statistics serves no purpose. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I fear we are devolving into semantics. You are passing judgment on Kinsey's statistics (and therefore, the theories he developed from them). That is clearly against the spirit of NPOV, which insists that we present all relevant, verifiable sides. Obviously there is a point of diminishing returns (we would not include statistics gathered by an 11th grader doing a class project), but given his involvement in this subject, Kinsey's information clearly deserves to be incorporated. This is all I have to say on the matter. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Yeah, too bad Kinsey's stats aren't verifiable. - Vague | Rant 08:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • His statistics don't need to be verified. What would need to be verified is that Kinsey did indeed put forward whatever statistics end up being included in the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:59, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Katefan0: it is irrelevant whether you or I disagree or not with Kinsey, Kinsey's works are widely considered to be reliable and the consensus on this page is that the article should stand as is. If you have further statistics from reliable sources that contradict Kinsey widely, as you claim, that you can certainly cite them in the article but deleting a whole section would not seem to be appropriate at all. What is more, the discusison of whether Kinsey's work is controversial or wrong belongs on the Kinsey page and not here. --Axon 11:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is becoming totally absurd. YOU are the one who is arguing absurd sematnics katefan. What you are suggesting is that LITERALLY you are NEVER allowed to remove statistics from an article under any circumstances as long as they're from a study that was actually conducted. To remove ANY statistics would be POV, because according to you "judging statistcs" means judging theories, which is a disingenuous thing to say. You didn't even address what I've already said, following your logic we'd have to include dozens of statistics from dozens of sources in the article, otherwise it would be POV. You have said Kinsey's stats clearly need to be included based on their popularity, this is a logical fallacy -- see argument from popularity. If you continue to use ridiculous illogic, I will take this beyond just an RfC since people are just being stubborn, childish and refusing to address the point.

To be absolutely clear: Argument from popularity is a HUGE logical fallacy. His popularity has nothing to do with the accuracy of his statistics. Refrain from using logical fallacies. I have already pasted a link listing all kinds of contradicting statistics from other scientists. You have chosen to ignore the link I pasted because it didn't suit you.

In summation: you are all cherry picking and engaging in many logical fallacies. I'm sorry, but that just won't cut it. Your arguments are completely irrational. And whether or not kinsey's stats are controversial DOES belong on this page if his statistics absolutely must be included. You are contradicting yourself with your own logic. You say 1. His statistics must be included because they are popular and 2. A notice of controversy shouldn't be included even though it is a popular notion that his statistics are likely innaccurate. Axon, please take your POV elsewhere, I'm putting on an NPOV notice and if you refuse to comply within 1 week I report this to higher authorities.-Nathan J. Yoder 08:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)