All these statistics....I wonder if any of the researchers ever considered that some sexual activity can be driven by "fashions" that have naught to do with actual inner orientation?

Thus, Kinseys findings may in part reflect what was en vogue at the time, and a more modern researcher may have got different results because homosexual-type acts were considered differently by society?

(This does not in any way imply that homosexuality in general is driven by fashion....I'm suggesting that some (otherwise straight) men could conceivably be slaves to peer pressure or "keeping up with the Joneses and succumb)

("succumb"....a great word for this thread )

According to Judith Reisman, however, Kinsey’s research was fraught with very bad scientific method and possibly fraud.

That's that sorted then.

"Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty."

Charles E. Rice, Professor, Notre Dame Law School

"The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life.... and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, "Anything goes". In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports ... Kinsey et al ... questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of "normal" sexual behavior. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles--or so it must be hoped. Kinsey.... has left his former co-workers some explaining to do."

The Lancet, (Vol. 337: March 2, 1991, p. 547)

According to Judith Reisman, however, Kinsey's research was fraught with very bad scientific method and possibly fraud.

That's that sorted then.

"Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty."

Charles E. Rice, Professor, Notre Dame Law School

"The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life.... and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, "Anything goes". In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports ... Kinsey et al ... questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of "normal" sexual behavior. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles--or so it must be hoped. Kinsey.... has left his former co-workers some explaining to do."

The Lancet, (Vol. 337: March 2, 1991, p. 547)

Seems that IS sorted then!

("succumb"....a great word for this thread )

Succumb is just an all round great word for any occasion, I must use it more often.

According to Judith Reisman, however, Kinsey’s research was fraught with very bad scientific method and possibly fraud.

That's that sorted then.

Thank goodness for that. Thought I'd have to fess up to being another one of the 10% in denial

If this sounds incredible, think back (if you are not in denial) to school days and whether or not there was playing around or experimentation with others of the same sex

None at all in the three schools I went to, at least none that I was aware of. Not implying it didn't go on behind closed doors, but I can't think of one incident that was known about to anyone else.

Its hardly something that guys would sit around talk about I would think. So, I seriously doubt, that unless you've had that experience with someone else, your mate would be telling you about it.

Its hardly something that guys would sit around talk about I would think. So, I seriously doubt, that unless you've had that experience with someone else, your mate would be telling you about it.

Exactly. Which is not a confession on my part, per se, but an aknowledgement of common sense.

That is to say, that anecdotal evidence may not be truly indicative of the real situation.

I suspect the statistics are not a true reflection, in line with what LRB has put forth.

Its hardly something that guys would sit around talk about I would think. So, I seriously doubt, that unless you've had that experience with someone else, your mate would be telling you about it.

Exactly, which makes IJWT's comments all the stranger. The implicaton is that there that anyone (except those in denial) would have been aware of a lot of same-sex experimentation going on, as if it was all part and parcel of school life. I may have misinterpreted his comments though.

Its hardly something that guys would sit around talk about I would think. So, I seriously doubt, that unless you've had that experience with someone else, your mate would be telling you about it.

Exactly, which makes IJWT's comments all the stranger. The implicaton is that there that anyone (except those in denial) would have been aware of a lot of same-sex experimentation going on, as if it was all part and parcel of school life. I may have misinterpreted his comments though.

Sounds like you're in denial.

Denial denial too

Its hardly something that guys would sit around talk about I would think. So, I seriously doubt, that unless you've had that experience with someone else, your mate would be telling you about it.

Exactly, which makes IJWT's comments all the stranger. The implicaton is that there that anyone (except those in denial) would have been aware of a lot of same-sex experimentation going on, as if it was all part and parcel of school life. I may have misinterpreted his comments though.

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

A lot of straight guys do get defensive over this subject, you're right, but luckily we seem to be free from that kind of thing on this particular thread, and people seem to be able to pass comments and observations freely. Hopefully it will remain like that.

On reflection, I think in this case it is a case of misinterpreted comments though, although at first I read it how I described above.

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

Oki, let's just take this 'in denial' subject and flip it over a little bit, and I'll try to do this as light-heartedly as possible.

In the name of research I did some googling this morning and discovered many articles covering the subject of young girls playing with their younger brothers genitals (many articles) and sometimes not just out of curiosity.

Now if I asked you, Eek, Patts, Boo, Mig etc if you had ever done that, I bet you would be able to hear the shouts of "Noooooooo" half way around the planet..... isn't it just possible that most, if not all, of the chaps contributing to this topic are saying no purely and simply because it didn't happen.

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

I don't think that it's the 'straight' guys getting defensive necessarily.

Much of the time it's the 'non-straight' (is 'bent' still allowed - or is it a derogatory word these days?) guys refusing to believe that the 'straight' guys do not share their experiences.

Not everyone gets corrupted in their youth.

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

I don't think that it's the 'straight' guys getting defensive necessarily.

Much of the time it's the 'non-straight' (is 'bent' still allowed - or is it a derogatory word these days?) guys refusing to believe that the 'straight' guys do not share their experiences.

Not everyone gets corrupted in their youth.

Give us an example (fictional or not) of "corrupted in their youth".

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

I don't think that it's the 'straight' guys getting defensive necessarily.

Much of the time it's the 'non-straight' (is 'bent' still allowed - or is it a derogatory word these days?) guys refusing to believe that the 'straight' guys do not share their experiences.

Not everyone gets corrupted in their youth.

Rather than querying whether your selection of words is 'allowed' you could simply go with the flow and use the word 'gay' which is acceptable to all. After all we've all got over the use of 'nigger' which used to be acceptable. The world changes. Get used to it.

Rather than querying whether your selection of words is 'allowed' you could simply go with the flow and use the word 'gay' which is acceptable to all. After all we've all got over the use of 'nigger' which used to be acceptable. The world changes. Get used to it.

Sorry, you missed the point.

Why is the obverse 'straight' acceptable when the reverse 'bent' is considered objectionable? It's the same coin.

Gay implies light and happy, thus no dark side.

The manipulation of words by the PC community is corrupting the society that my forebears fought and died for. I in turn do my little bit to expose this corruption of the language to achieve quasi-political goals wherever I can. This is a tearing down of solid Christian beliefs that built the civilisation we had.

Sorry if I sound like the Christian Right in the States, with whom I also disagree often, but they do have some credibility on their side.

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

Oki, let's just take this 'in denial' subject and flip it over a little bit, and I'll try to do this as light-heartedly as possible.

In the name of research I did some googling this morning and discovered many articles covering the subject of young girls playing with their younger brothers genitals (many articles) and sometimes not just out of curiosity.

Now if I asked you, Eek, Patts, Boo, Mig etc if you had ever done that, I bet you would be able to hear the shouts of "Noooooooo" half way around the planet..... isn't it just possible that most, if not all, of the chaps contributing to this topic are saying no purely and simply because it didn't happen.

I have no brothers, and I believe the particular kind of thing you are talking about is called playing doctor. Most small children are just learning what all those little bits down there mean. I don't think talking about adolescent sexual experiences is the same thing at all and it seems to me that you are trying to change it to something else so that the finger can be pointed elsewhere, I can only assume

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

Oki, let's just take this 'in denial' subject and flip it over a little bit, and I'll try to do this as light-heartedly as possible.

In the name of research I did some googling this morning and discovered many articles covering the subject of young girls playing with their younger brothers genitals (many articles) and sometimes not just out of curiosity.

Now if I asked you, Eek, Patts, Boo, Mig etc if you had ever done that, I bet you would be able to hear the shouts of "Noooooooo" half way around the planet..... isn't it just possible that most, if not all, of the chaps contributing to this topic are saying no purely and simply because it didn't happen.

I have no brothers, and I believe the particular kind of thing you are talking about is called playing doctor. Most small children are just learning what all those little bits down there mean. I don't think talking about adolescent sexual experiences is the same thing at all and it seems to me that you are trying to change it to something else so that the finger can be pointed elsewhere, I can only assume

So, your first statement was that you have no brothers, rather defensive, but I bet your friends did and you associated with them as you would, if I now pointed out that what you have just written could be a case of being in denial, would that be right or would that be wrong?

Or would it just be a case of you had a normal upbringing, a normal childhood, you were curious about boys, and the boys you knew were curious about girls and here's the clincher, very few, if none, of the boys you knew were curious about other boys? .... a damned sight less than 10%

P.S. check the avatar, I like being an imp, or the devils advocate.

P.P.S most published research has a commonality with boys of a certain age, it and they are all <deleted>.

it and they are all <deleted>.

Except when it is all Fanny ( UK Interpretation )

I think you should have said US meaning of fanny Moss.

SB, sorry if my last post sounded a little terse, but most if not all the chaps I know get sick of being told that they are this or they are that, when the vast majority are just us.

If you were constantly being told on an internet forum that PMS/PMT was just a figment of your imagination and there were stats to prove it.... well, I'm sure you get my drift

Rather than querying whether your selection of words is 'allowed' you could simply go with the flow and use the word 'gay' which is acceptable to all. After all we've all got over the use of 'nigger' which used to be acceptable. The world changes. Get used to it.

Sorry, you missed the point.

Why is the obverse 'straight' acceptable when the reverse 'bent' is considered objectionable? It's the same coin.

Gay implies light and happy, thus no dark side.

The manipulation of words by the PC community is corrupting the society that my forebears fought and died for.

Do your forbears include Alan Turing - one of the men who can genuinely be said to have helped to win WWII? He was bent - they allowed him to crack Enigma but after the war was over they hounded him to his grave for being gay.

I think you should have said US meaning of fanny Moss.

SB, sorry if my last post sounded a little terse, but most if not all the chaps I know get sick of being told that they are this or they are that, when the vast majority are just us.

Join the club tenfold.

I can't say I interpreted it in the same manner you did but then I think alot of straight guys get extremely defensive over this kind of discussion, perhaps it challenges their notions of masculinity, perhaps it makes them nervous, I don't know. Its just quite noticeable is all.

Oki, let's just take this 'in denial' subject and flip it over a little bit, and I'll try to do this as light-heartedly as possible.

In the name of research I did some googling this morning and discovered many articles covering the subject of young girls playing with their younger brothers genitals (many articles) and sometimes not just out of curiosity.

Now if I asked you, Eek, Patts, Boo, Mig etc if you had ever done that, I bet you would be able to hear the shouts of "Noooooooo" half way around the planet..... isn't it just possible that most, if not all, of the chaps contributing to this topic are saying no purely and simply because it didn't happen.

I have no brothers, and I believe the particular kind of thing you are talking about is called playing doctor. Most small children are just learning what all those little bits down there mean. I don't think talking about adolescent sexual experiences is the same thing at all and it seems to me that you are trying to change it to something else so that the finger can be pointed elsewhere, I can only assume

So, your first statement was that you have no brothers, rather defensive, but I bet your friends did and you associated with them as you would, if I now pointed out that what you have just written could be a case of being in denial, would that be right or would that be wrong?

Or would it just be a case of you had a normal upbringing, a normal childhood, you were curious about boys, and the boys you knew were curious about girls and here's the clincher, very few, if none, of the boys you knew were curious about other boys? .... a damned sight less than 10%

P.S. check the avatar, I like being an imp, or the devils advocate.

P.P.S most published research has a commonality with boys of a certain age, it and they are all <deleted>.

think what you like Thaddy, but I can tell you this right now, your behavior here speaks volumes about you. volumes.

I'm sorry, but all I was pointing out was that I tend to believe what people say, whoever they are, and I expect the same in return, and it really irks when anyone tries to infer otherwise, especially using statistics lifted from the internet. Almost all stats are there to prove something that the person publishing them wants you to believe.

That was all I was trying to say, if you thought that I was trying to infer something else, then please believe me when I say that I wasn't, and I offer my apologies.

I haven't yet said anyone else had done anything they didn't say they did, and still find it hard to understand why there is all this need to deny that the research exists which shows that OTHER people behave this way- and I don't understand why many posters here are apparently accusing posters here (presumably including myself) of accusing them somehow of anything they didn't do. I don't think the research is personally accusing anyone, either. I haven't read any of the materials that Mark45y cites regarding the reliability of Kinsey and his followup researchers, and I certainly wouldn't trust Mark's personal opinion to take the place of my own examination of anything, so I'll have to take a pass on that for now.

If anyone can find a place where I said any specific individual who has REPEATEDLY, STRIDENTLY announced that he NEVER EVER EVER had any homosexual or homoerotic moments at all in his ENTIRE life, despite the fact that there are many heterosexually identified men who HAVE (and if ya don't like it too bad) had actually done so, I would gladly apologise. They are in that end-of-the-bell-curve group on the hetero side. Congrats!

I think a lot of people were responding to this quote:

BOTH sexes- people who have exclusively had sexual contact with only one sex are the minority, whether as completely homosexual or as completely heterosexual (about 10% in both groups).

This obviously raised a few eyebrows as I expect most people find that figure of 10% rather difficult to believe. I'm not saying it isn't true - just unexpected. Therefore, people start responding to see what kind of proportion we get here - doesn't seem to be 10%, more like the inverse based on people's responses on this thread (although of course that's not taking in to account the people who are in denial, and thus giving untrue answers, which would skew the figures somewhat).

So, I would surmise that no-one's responding directly to any questions, just chipping in and sharing their own experiences and observations.

You know what Stephen, I just deleted 20 minutes worth of typing.... I went outside, had a cigarette and a think.

I met you quite a few years ago, I met PeaceBlondie a few minutes later, you should learn from him.

You know what Stephen, I just deleted 20 minutes worth of typing.... I went outside, had a cigarette and a think.

I met you quite a few years ago, I met PeaceBlondie a few minutes later, you should learn from him.

Pity you didn't do the same before you posted that nasty piece of work aimed at me. Apology or not, your intent was clear at the time, just seems you realized later how totally offensive you were. Sorry, but I don't really believe in your sincerity in this matter.

I don't have brothers, was raised in a female dominated family & went to an all girls school. I have a son though & often have to touch his bits, washing, drying, putting on pants etc & will sometimes in process give it a little tickle to make him laugh, he especially enjoys when Yaa goes in for a nice long sniff of his winky (Thai stylie) but it doesn't means he wants to have sex with either of us or vise versa I did though have sexual experimentation with my best friend from junior school when we were about 11, we wanted to know how to kiss boys so spent an afternoon lying on her bunk bed snogging each other. Once we decided we had the hang of it we never did it again & it never crossed my mind as being wrong although we all ( the girls at school) used to be scared in case our female PE teacher saw us in the showers (she was reputed be a lesbian, never proved but it was expected that all female PE teachers were) Kids are strange, strange creatures.

Anyway, I forgot the point, just felt like sharing.