Where are you on the Kinsey Scale?

[Adonis Island]

A 4 or a 5, I guess.

[Dakran]

Apparently I scored a 3, thought I feel like its mostly because I chose the, "I don't want to die without having experimented with both genders"
Eh, I suppose I'm fine with this.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Apparently I scored a 3, thought I feel like its mostly because I chose the, "I don't want to die without having experimented with both genders"
Eh, I suppose I'm fine with this.

That...that mother fucking question >:|

[Zottistan]

Kinsey - 4
Luvsey - 2
Women with penises. <3

[Thafoo]

Kinsey - 4
Luvsey - 2
Women with penises. <3

euuuwwwww XP

[Coffee Cakes]

I got a 4. >_>

[Luveria]

Kinsey - 4
Luvsey - 2
Women with penises. <3

I'm reasonably certain the reason why the Kinsey and Luvsey scales have a minority of people with different results between the two is because of trans preferences not fitting within the Kinsey model.

[Meryuma]

The second seems more like me. In any case, my moderate attraction to females is eclipsed by my maximized gay desires.

So we are even more similar than coming out at 2008?

Yep.

and females who are of the male gender?

That's really not how it works. A trans guy is a male whose assigned sex is female, and vice versa. It can cause serious emotional pain to refer to a trans person as the wrong gender.

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.

Literally? That's sad.

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.

See, I love males but I'm not very into masculinity.

Kinsey - 4
Luvsey - 2
Women with penises. <3

I'm fine either way when it comes to genitalia, and whether a girl has a penis wouldn't really influence me either way.

[Dyakovo]

I found a better test.http://www.mysexualorientation.com

Results for Dya
February 3, 2014

Mean Sexual Orientation: 1
Sexual Orientation Range: 2

Sex Drive: 7.5 Same-Sex Attraction: 2 Opposite-Sex Attraction: 13

[Liriena]

I'd say I'm a 3.5 in the Luvsey scale.

[Zottistan]

Kinsey - 4
Luvsey - 2
Women with penises. <3

I'm reasonably certain the reason why the Kinsey and Luvsey scales have a minority of people with different results between the two is because of trans preferences not fitting within the Kinsey model.

If you use both models simultaneously, you can spot all possible kinds of attraction by dealing with both sex and physical characteristics.

[Thafoo]

Eventually, I suppose, I could make a four-quadrant Kinsey/Luvsey scale. But considering my laziness and the fact that I just voiced my idea, someone will probably make it before me and do a damn better job.

[Zottistan]

Eventually, I suppose, I could make a four-quadrant Kinsey/Luvsey scale. But considering my laziness and the fact that I just voiced my idea, someone will probably make it before me and do a damn better job.

I've been meaning to do it, but business.

[The Terran Systems]

Usually a 3 or 4.

[Americanada]

and females who are of the male gender?

That's really not how it works. A trans guy is a male whose assigned sex is female, and vice versa. It can cause serious emotional pain to refer to a trans person as the wrong gender.

That was just insensitive wording on my part since I was trying to keep-up the format of describing a person's sex and then gender from the first example. On first reading, it simply seemed odd to describe a person's sex after identifying their gender since I thought that it implied that the person's sex was what mattered in gender identification. On second reading, that seems to have been improper.

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 think that you missed my criticism. The Luvsey Scale still has similar flaws of the Kinsey scale, just replacing the dichotomy of being universally attracted to people of one sex with universal attraction to one gender. I think the problem is that we are assuming that everyone, rather than a subset of people, is capable of pan-interest in one aspect of gender (I.E. gynephilia). Also, it still does not account for a-gendered people and androgynes, which would suggest that either the system of this sort of Kinsey scale-esque classifications needs more axis in order to take into account more factors in attraction due to complexity of human attraction making just one axis useless or the assumptions behind the idea of such an organizational system about attractions are flawed.

[Hladgos]

My 9.5 sex drive is actually kinda funny, since I'm seeing a lot of 4.5's and such. What am I..

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm pretty much a solid 1 on the Kinsey scale.

On the Luvsey scale I cannot place myself accurately because whether a woman is "masculine" or "feminine" is quite hard to pinpoint my attraction to them. That is to say; the women I have dated have some masculine traits but they have more feminine traits so I would not know where to lay my attraction towards.

[Othelos]

That's really not how it works. A trans guy is a male whose assigned sex is female, and vice versa. It can cause serious emotional pain to refer to a trans person as the wrong gender.

That was just insensitive wording on my part since I was trying to keep-up the format of describing a person's sex and then gender from the first example. On first reading, it simply seemed odd to describe a person's sex after identifying their gender since I thought that it implied that the person's sex was what mattered in gender identification. On second reading, that seems to have been improper.

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 think that you missed my criticism. The Luvsey Scale still has similar flaws of the Kinsey scale, just replacing the dichotomy of being universally attracted to people of one sex with universal attraction to one gender. I think the problem is that we are assuming that everyone, rather than a subset of people, is capable of pan-interest in one aspect of gender (I.E. gynephilia). Also, it still does not account for a-gendered people and androgynes, which would suggest that either the system of this sort of Kinsey scale-esque classifications needs more axis in order to take into account more factors in attraction due to complexity of human attraction making just one axis useless or the assumptions behind the idea of such an organizational system about attractions are flawed.

Technically, if someone is attracted to people who are androgynous or a-gendered, that person could be considered a three on the Luvsey scale, because androgyny is a mix of male and female characteristics in one person.

[Coffee Cakes]

I found a better test.http://www.mysexualorientation.com

Results for Dya
February 3, 2014

Mean Sexual Orientation: 1
Sexual Orientation Range: 2

Sex Drive: 7.5 Same-Sex Attraction: 2 Opposite-Sex Attraction: 13

CC's results:

Mean Sexual Orientation: 7.5
Sexual Orientation Range: 8

Sex Drive: 9 Same-Sex Attraction: 10 Opposite-Sex Attraction: 8

Yeah, no. There is no way in hell that the first one is a 9.

[Coffee Cakes]

My 9.5 sex drive is actually kinda funny, since I'm seeing a lot of 4.5's and such. What am I..

Only .5 more speed than me.

[Congotar]

I got a Zero on the scale.

[Aequalitia]

Results for Dya
February 3, 2014

Mean Sexual Orientation: 1
Sexual Orientation Range: 2

Sex Drive: 7.5 Same-Sex Attraction: 2 Opposite-Sex Attraction: 13

CC's results:

Mean Sexual Orientation: 7.5
Sexual Orientation Range: 8

Sex Drive: 9 Same-Sex Attraction: 10 Opposite-Sex Attraction: 8

Yeah, no. There is no way in hell that the first one is a 9.

So we go do now tons of test to go higher on the scale?

I can living with the fact I be just 4 on the kinsey scale

[Hladgos]

My 9.5 sex drive is actually kinda funny, since I'm seeing a lot of 4.5's and such. What am I..

Only .5 more speed than me.

Hey, that's all I need to get on top of the competition

[Coffee Cakes]

CC's results:

Mean Sexual Orientation: 7.5
Sexual Orientation Range: 8

Sex Drive: 9 Same-Sex Attraction: 10 Opposite-Sex Attraction: 8

Yeah, no. There is no way in hell that the first one is a 9.

So we go do now tons of test to go higher on the scale?

I can living with the fact I be just 4 on the kinsey scale

I got a 4 on that one, too.

[Coffee Cakes]

Only .5 more speed than me.

Hey, that's all I need to get on top of the competition

It's a race now?