Where are you on the Kinsey Scale?

[Taoju]

NSG is 49% bi and bi-ish... Wow

Everyone is bi trope?

[Uieurnthlaal]

omg so fabulous!

I actually have yet to meet a gay guy who acts like that haha.

I have never met a gay dude in my life.

They probably never bothered to tell you. For example, I recently found out that the principal of my school is gay. Which is cool, I guess.

[Marcurix]

I got a 0, which isn't surprising.

That last question though....never mind.

[Othelos]

So far, only 50% of the people who voted on this thread are (almost) completely straight.

Interesting.

[Luveria]

I don't find the Kinsey Scale to be an accurate way of rating human sexuality.



One example, is that if a trans female has a primary preference for transgender females, that's not making her homosexual, as it's a bisexual attraction to a certain type of female. Physically, that would be attraction to a female with physical characteristics from two sexes, making it a type of bisexuality from that view, and devoid of being homosexuality.

As another example, if a gay man has a primary fancy for trans men like Buck Angel, they aren't being heterosexual for that in any way as Buck Angel is a man who happens to have a vagina. Purely in terms of physical attraction, it's a form of bisexuality for a gay man to be attracted to Buck Angel. With that pointed out, bisexual attraction doesn't make a person any more or less heterosexual or homosexual if ultimately they are still only attracted to other males or exclusively to the other sex.

With scenarios like the above taken into consideration, it becomes difficult to categorize those sort of things on the Kinsey Scale which doesn't appear to take the above attractions and preferences into account.

That is why I would think that, with gender variance become more understood and more people finding out whether are attracted to various types of gender variance, it is becoming increasingly difficult to try to have one term define a person's romanticism with the obvious exceptions of panromantics and aromantics. At some point, I think it might just be easier to just say what combinations of gender identity and sex a person is attracted to. Heck, what term would be used to describe a male androgyne who is attracted to intersex women, males who are third-gender, and females who are of the male gender? While an extreme example, it is meant to be a demonstration of how hard it is to categorize people's capability of attractions about gender and sex and combinations of the two when the capability of attraction is not either to either everyone regardless of sex, gender, or combinations of the two, or no one.

It would perhaps be easier to reclassify it by attraction to femininity or masculinity. Here is my take on it having replaced heterosexuality and homosexuality with androphilia and gynephilia.

The Luvsey Scale

0 - Exclusively gynephilic
1 - Predominantly gynephilic only incidentally androphilic
2 - Predominantly gynephilic, but more than incidentally androphilic
3 - Equally gynephilic and androphilic
4 - Predominantly androphilic, but more than incidentally gynephilic
5 - Predominantly androphilic, only incidentally gynephilic
6 - Exclusively androphilic
X - No socio-sexual contacts or reactions

The Luvsey Scale categorizes it by attraction to females/femininity and males/masculinity, making it possible for a person to easily sort out their orientation without being broken by a preference for third genders or requiring self-categorization along a homo-hetero axis.

With the new wording, I can easily place myself as a 2 on the Luvsey Scale. I cannot place myself on the Kinsey Scale.

[Breadknife]

(No offense intended, but:) If Asexuals don't feel any sexual attraction, do they, you know, ever have the urge/need/desire to masturbate? I've always wondered about that, even though it's a kind of stupid question.

[...]I personally don't do it, [...] and the one time I tried it it ended up hurting more then anything else.

I'm sorry, but I have an overwhelming need to ask if the pain came from getting poked in the eye.

(To add something useful to the thread: I think I'm probably somewhere sub-3, if the scale's the one I know, but I'm not sure Kinsey (however advanced it was for its era) is a suitably all-encompassing measurement for today's diversity. Probably good enough to label me with, but I know enough people who are exceptions even to the exceptions.)

[Olivaero]

That is why I would think that, with gender variance become more understood and more people finding out whether are attracted to various types of gender variance, it is becoming increasingly difficult to try to have one term define a person's romanticism with the obvious exceptions of panromantics and aromantics. At some point, I think it might just be easier to just say what combinations of gender identity and sex a person is attracted to. Heck, what term would be used to describe a male androgyne who is attracted to intersex women, males who are third-gender, and females who are of the male gender? While an extreme example, it is meant to be a demonstration of how hard it is to categorize people's capability of attractions about gender and sex and combinations of the two when the capability of attraction is not either to either everyone regardless of sex, gender, or combinations of the two, or no one.

It would perhaps be easier to reclassify it by attraction to femininity or masculinity. Here is my take on it having replaced heterosexuality and homosexuality with androphilia and gynephilia.

The Luvsey Scale

0 - Exclusively gynephilic
1 - Predominantly gynephilic only incidentally androphilic
2 - Predominantly gynephilic, but more than incidentally androphilic
3 - Equally gynephilic and androphilic
4 - Predominantly androphilic, but more than incidentally gynephilic
5 - Predominantly androphilic, only incidentally gynephilic
6 - Exclusively androphilic
X - No socio-sexual contacts or reactions

The Luvsey Scale categorizes it by attraction to females/femininity and males/masculinity, making it possible for a person to easily sort out their orientation without being broken by a preference for third genders or requiring self-categorization along a homo-hetero axis.

With the new wording, I can easily place myself as a 2 on the Luvsey Scale. I cannot place myself on the Kinsey Scale.

Huh. I'm a 3 on that one too.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Huh. I'm a 3 on that one too.

I'm a 5. >_>

[Aeken]

That is why I would think that, with gender variance become more understood and more people finding out whether are attracted to various types of gender variance, it is becoming increasingly difficult to try to have one term define a person's romanticism with the obvious exceptions of panromantics and aromantics. At some point, I think it might just be easier to just say what combinations of gender identity and sex a person is attracted to. Heck, what term would be used to describe a male androgyne who is attracted to intersex women, males who are third-gender, and females who are of the male gender? While an extreme example, it is meant to be a demonstration of how hard it is to categorize people's capability of attractions about gender and sex and combinations of the two when the capability of attraction is not either to either everyone regardless of sex, gender, or combinations of the two, or no one.

It would perhaps be easier to reclassify it by attraction to femininity or masculinity. Here is my take on it having replaced heterosexuality and homosexuality with androphilia and gynephilia.

The Luvsey Scale

0 - Exclusively gynephilic
1 - Predominantly gynephilic only incidentally androphilic
2 - Predominantly gynephilic, but more than incidentally androphilic
3 - Equally gynephilic and androphilic
4 - Predominantly androphilic, but more than incidentally gynephilic
5 - Predominantly androphilic, only incidentally gynephilic
6 - Exclusively androphilic
X - No socio-sexual contacts or reactions

The Luvsey Scale categorizes it by attraction to females/femininity and males/masculinity, making it possible for a person to easily sort out their orientation without being broken by a preference for third genders or requiring self-categorization along a homo-hetero axis.

With the new wording, I can easily place myself as a 2 on the Luvsey Scale. I cannot place myself on the Kinsey Scale.

I got 6 again.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Is your particular placement on the scale best?

No. If I'm going bi, I want real bi. Absolute gymnophilia, androphilia and attraction to any possible combination between masculinity and femininity would be best. I'd actually took pills for sometime if it promised me this.

[Uieurnthlaal]

That is why I would think that, with gender variance become more understood and more people finding out whether are attracted to various types of gender variance, it is becoming increasingly difficult to try to have one term define a person's romanticism with the obvious exceptions of panromantics and aromantics. At some point, I think it might just be easier to just say what combinations of gender identity and sex a person is attracted to. Heck, what term would be used to describe a male androgyne who is attracted to intersex women, males who are third-gender, and females who are of the male gender? While an extreme example, it is meant to be a demonstration of how hard it is to categorize people's capability of attractions about gender and sex and combinations of the two when the capability of attraction is not either to either everyone regardless of sex, gender, or combinations of the two, or no one.

It would perhaps be easier to reclassify it by attraction to femininity or masculinity. Here is my take on it having replaced heterosexuality and homosexuality with androphilia and gynephilia.

The Luvsey Scale

0 - Exclusively gynephilic
1 - Predominantly gynephilic only incidentally androphilic
2 - Predominantly gynephilic, but more than incidentally androphilic
3 - Equally gynephilic and androphilic
4 - Predominantly androphilic, but more than incidentally gynephilic
5 - Predominantly androphilic, only incidentally gynephilic
6 - Exclusively androphilic
X - No socio-sexual contacts or reactions

The Luvsey Scale categorizes it by attraction to females/femininity and males/masculinity, making it possible for a person to easily sort out their orientation without being broken by a preference for third genders or requiring self-categorization along a homo-hetero axis.

With the new wording, I can easily place myself as a 2 on the Luvsey Scale. I cannot place myself on the Kinsey Scale.

5.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

[...]I personally don't do it, [...] and the one time I tried it it ended up hurting more then anything else.

I'm sorry, but I have an overwhelming need to ask if the pain came from getting poked in the eye.

This is their case.

Plenty of asexuals explain how sexual orientation is different from libido by saying, "imagine it like an itch, homosexuals have a tendency to want people of their sex to scratch them, heterosexuals have a tendency to want people of the other sex to scratch them, bisexuals/pansexual want people of whatever sex/gender to scratch them and asexuals will just want no help from someone else to do it".

Having low libido does not equate to asexuality and vice-versa. And I'm pretty sure if I unplugged my foreskin to violently rub it as an older teen or adult for the first time just as a curiosity, it would hurt too, because that's a sensitive area that gets even more sensitive with isolation and my body would be almost completely formed.

[Thafoo]

It would perhaps be easier to reclassify it by attraction to femininity or masculinity. Here is my take on it having replaced heterosexuality and homosexuality with androphilia and gynephilia.

The Luvsey Scale

0 - Exclusively gynephilic
1 - Predominantly gynephilic only incidentally androphilic
2 - Predominantly gynephilic, but more than incidentally androphilic
3 - Equally gynephilic and androphilic
4 - Predominantly androphilic, but more than incidentally gynephilic
5 - Predominantly androphilic, only incidentally gynephilic
6 - Exclusively androphilic
X - No socio-sexual contacts or reactions

The Luvsey Scale categorizes it by attraction to females/femininity and males/masculinity, making it possible for a person to easily sort out their orientation without being broken by a preference for third genders or requiring self-categorization along a homo-hetero axis.

With the new wording, I can easily place myself as a 2 on the Luvsey Scale. I cannot place myself on the Kinsey Scale.

5.

6~~~~~

[Uieurnthlaal]

5.

6~~~~~

I'll have to stick with 5 for now.

[The Blaatschapen]

About 0.5 to 1. I identify as 'straight'.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

About 0.5 to 1. I identify as 'straight'.

Is it bigotry against straight men if I didn't expect it for your qualities as a sensitive person, among other things?

[Aeken]

6~~~~~

I'll have to stick with 5 for now.

Just move down just a bit. It'll be worth it.

[Uieurnthlaal]

I'll have to stick with 5 for now.

Just move down just a bit. It'll be worth it.

To 4? I don't wanna be a 4. 5 is cooler.

[Aeken]

Just move down just a bit. It'll be worth it.

To 4? I don't wanna be a 4. 5 is cooler.

6.

[The Blaatschapen]

About 0.5 to 1. I identify as 'straight'.

Is it bigotry against straight men if I didn't expect it for your qualities as a sensitive person, among other things?

I'm a sensitive person?

Well, I do bruise like a peach.

And it could be bigotry. It could also very well be a cultural thing.

[Uieurnthlaal]

To 4? I don't wanna be a 4. 5 is cooler.

6.

Maybe later, Aek, maybe later.

[Aeken]

6.

Maybe later, Aek, maybe later.

Argh.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

It could also very well be a cultural thing.

Ah. Yeah. In Brazil, "This is no such thing for machos. End of story." (I've seen one of these discussing male brassieres in facebook today from my more conservative Catholic friend from hinterland São Paulo ) is one hell of a prevalent cultural attitude. So yeah, people who are more free are more readily to be labeled.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Maybe later, Aek, maybe later.

Argh.

5 is good enough for now. 5/6ths fab.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Argh.

5 is good enough for now. 5/6ths fab.

6 is never good enough if you were born bi. Male queer culture is already homonormative enough.