![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
To understand the current state of research on sexual orientation, we need to address some important questions. Is the distribution of sexual orientation discrete or continuous? Is it best measured with one dimension or two—or more? Just what is sexual orientation, anyway? When studying sexual orientation, should we focus on the beloved, not the lover (i.e., interpret attraction as a function of the attractive person, rather than the person who is attracted)? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid as we move into the next phase of sexual orientation measurement? Finally, as we move from small-scale surveys to large-scale national polls (as some have already begun to do), what modifications of our inventories and procedures need to be made? This section of this issue contains articles that address each of these questions, and this review essay enlarges upon them.
Notes
1Scholars who tut-tut at the word ‘homosexual’ because the prefix is from the Greek and the suffix from the Latin will disapprove of Storms’ terms for the same reason. I am not a tut-tutter. Malebranche and Donovan (Citation2006) used the term ‘androphilia,’ but their definition gives it a completely different meaning.
2Note that the zero end of the stick was assigned to the culturally and numerically predominant heterosexuals. Scientifically speaking, it is silly to worry about whether the culturally predominant group is described, in an arbitrary scale, by an emotionally dominant descriptor (i.e., a high number). But psychologically, people notice these things. I don't know whether anyone has pointed out that in a different way, the heterosexual end could be described as predominant: It is mentioned first in the title, the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale. “Heterosexual – homosexual” is a construction that matches “0 – 6” in the numerically corresponding natural order of the integers. Hence, it makes sense to refer to the orientation mentioned first in the title with the numerical value that occurs first in the list of integers. I have no idea whether Kinsey thought about such issues.
3This surprising breakdown is shown in Gebhard and Johnson (Citation1979), table 561, p. 611. It is confirmed in the Kinsey code book (CitationBrewer, n.d.), where card 47, columns 27 and 28, are reserved for the “Current Homosexual-Heterosexual Rating by Subject.” This ranges from 00 = 0 (100% heterosexual) through 60 = 6 (100% homosexual), with the values at 5-unit intervals corresponding to Kinsey ratings of “0,” “0–1,” “1,” “1–2,” and so on. There is no provision in Brewer for the asexual X category, and the tabulation in Gebhard and Johnson do not show any such category (all categories sum to 100%, taking rounding error into account). Because the X category is clearly (if unobtrusively) mentioned in the Male and Female volumes at a level far higher than rounding error, we seem to have here a documented case of asexual erasure. See “Notes on the Kinsey Scale” in this issue.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
James D. Weinrich
James D. Weinrich, PhD, is currently the editor of the Journal of Bisexuality. He collaborated with Fritz Klein on some innovative studies of bisexuality in the early years of the journal.
