Where are you on the Kinsey Scale?

[Arglorand]

Also, there is no such thing as a solid 0 or 6. If you were, then you would not be able to determine if you are a male/female that another male/female is what you would call handsome or determine desirable traits in him/her.

Honestly, I've seen people like that and, tbh, I'm myself very confused as to what those attracted to males may find desirable.

Granted, I'm confused as to what other heterosexual males find desirable in women as well, because people have tastes and they usually don't match.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Also, there is no such thing as a solid 0 or 6. If you were, then you would not be able to determine if you are a male/female that another male/female is what you would call handsome or determine desirable traits in him/her.

Honestly, I've seen people like that and, tbh, I'm myself very confused as to what those attracted to males may find desirable.

Granted, I'm confused as to what other heterosexual males find desirable in women as well, because people have tastes and they usually don't match.

I can't describe what I like, but generally if there is a pretty gal, I'll know

............I also have a weird sexual attraction to my flag O_o

[Arglorand]

Honestly, I've seen people like that and, tbh, I'm myself very confused as to what those attracted to males may find desirable.

Granted, I'm confused as to what other heterosexual males find desirable in women as well, because people have tastes and they usually don't match.

I can't describe what I like, but generally if there is a pretty gal, I'll know

I actually know that feeling. Like, for example, when I try to describe what features I'm attracted to, blond hair is always my least favourite color. Yeaaaaah. About a half of the girls I've had crushes on or relationships with were blonde.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I can't describe what I like, but generally if there is a pretty gal, I'll know

I actually know that feeling. Like, for example, when I try to describe what features I'm attracted to, blond hair is always my least favourite color. Yeaaaaah. About a half of the girls I've had crushes on or relationships with were blonde.

I have a small thing for Red Heads and Brunettes.

And I hate Breast that are too large or too small :|

[Wytenigistan]

So actually:

Mean Sexual Orientation: 2.5
Sexual Orientation Range: 1

Sex Drive: 5 Same-Sex Attraction: 1 Opposite-Sex Attraction: 9

[The Blaatschapen]

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

Mine:

Mean Sexual Orientation: 2
Sexual Orientation Range: 3

Sex Drive: 7.5 Same-Sex Attraction: 3 Opposite-Sex Attraction: 12

[Luveria]

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.

Examine it once more and you will find that your criticisms are without merit. You mention "gender" as a criticism. The Luvsey Scale does not include or factor in gender anywhere. Gender isn't something that can be seen or have attraction felt towards because of how gender is a concept people identify as. Thus, gender is a useless term when categorizing attractions and should have no place at all for measuring attractions.

Another of your criticisms is making the assumption that everyone is being treated as having full interest in an aspect of a gender. See above for why gender isn't any part of the scale. I will take a guess that criticism extended to implying full interest in a physical sex is an assumption being made. To the contrary, because androphilia and gynephilia are defined not only by attraction to the particular sex, androphilia and gynephilia also include attraction to feminine or masculine appearances.

For comparison, the Kinsey scale only measures attraction along a linear line of homosexual attractions at one end and heterosexual attractions at the other, both polar opposites in opposition to each other. Replacing that with androphilia and gynephilia results in two separate preferences being measured that have their co-existence factored in and a combination of androphilia and gynephilia being required for a person's hybrid attractions to be accurately displayed. Your criticism of genderless people not being included is dismissed by how gender isn't involved anywhere in androphilia or gynephilia.

Your criticism of androgynous people not being taken into account is thrice in error. If someone prefers feminine androgyny like that of Andreja Pejic or Miley Cyrus which are my ideal types for femme androgyny, then that is measured by 2; "Predominantly gynephilic, but more than incidentally androphilic." If someone prefers the more between androgynes or doesn't lean either way for their androgyny preference, then a 3 for equal androphilia and gynephilia fits that. If they prefer masculine androgynes, a 4 accounts for that. "Predominantly androphilic, but more than incidentally gynephilic." Androgynous preferences are comprehensively covered.

Your desire to see more axis and complexity for a scale is misguided too. The problems arising from the Kinsey scale are a result of overcomplexity. What should have been measured is androphilic and gynephilic attractions. "Homosexuality" when dismantled is reduced to being the word used for when androphilia coincides with the androphilic person being male. Thus, homosexuality doesn't actually exist and cannot be measured. That is why when a gay man is attracted to trans men like Buck Angel, that results in the Kinsey scale being broken because Buck Angel is a very manly man with a vagina. If a gay man prefers trans men over cis men, the Kinsey scale would classify that gay man as mostly heterosexual since he's having different-sex relations most of the time, yet it doesn't sound right implying a gay man has heterosexual desires for liking trans men. Attraction doesn't go along a hetero-homo line. What it's measured by is how a gay man could categorize themselves as 5; Predominantly androphilic, only incidentally gynephilic. The man may find himself only attracted to masculine men, but also being attracted to trans men who are masculine enough. The only aspect of gynephilia in such an example would be the vaginas of the masculine trans men, giving a rating of 5 on the Luvsey because although that gynephilia is minor, a small amount is there in limited circumstances.

The reason homosexuality and heterosexuality are replaced with androphilic and gynephilic preferences is because that is what exists. Those attractions are what was being measured in the first place. The Kinsey scale created a needless layer of complexity above that by adding the nonexistent orientations of homosexuality and heterosexuality that fall apart when a trans person is encountered, which is quite simply because people aren't homosexual or heterosexual. Instead, the only measure of consistency that stands up to scrutiny is recognizing that androphilia and gynephilia are the base foundation of attractions which all else is built upon. The all too widespread illusions like heterosexuality and homosexuality are a result of attempts to complexify categorization and make it more detailed. That is how it's now a nearly universal belief that homosexuality and heterosexuality exist, because instead of limiting it to the measurable preferences of androphilia and gynephilia they didn't want to stop at that.

A proper system is reduced to nothing more than it needs to perform its purpose.

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.

The femininity and masculinity is strictly about physical appearance, which should make it a trivial matter deciding if you fancy feminine women while not feeling attracted to masculine women.

[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.

The femininity and masculinity is strictly about physical appearance, which should make it a trivial matter deciding if you fancy feminine women while not feeling attracted to masculine women.

However, masculinity and femininity are also entrenched with how we think as women and what we think women should behave, and this varies from culture to culture. You placed Miley Cyrus as an example of an androphillic female, but for me she may not be someone I would date but she doesn't come across as masculine either.

[Luveria]

The femininity and masculinity is strictly about physical appearance, which should make it a trivial matter deciding if you fancy feminine women while not feeling attracted to masculine women.

However, masculinity and femininity are also entrenched with how we think as women and what we think women should behave, and this varies from culture to culture.

That doesn't change how in terms of attraction, if you cannot view masculinity and femininity, it cannot be measured. It's fine to have the categories of masculine and feminine as humans turned out to have two overarching appearance categories, and they are useful ones when everyone can be categorized as one or both of those categories. It is not okay for a society to categorize behaviours or thought patterns as masculine or feminine. That creates stereotypes of what is expected from the female and male sexes and then enforces the belief that a person's appearance and behaviour is linked to their physical sex.

You placed Miley Cyrus as an example of an androphillic female, but for me she may not be someone I would date but she doesn't come across as masculine either.

Miley Cyrus is an example of feminine androgyny like how Andreja Pejic's physical appearance is also feminine androgyny. The difference is Andreja Pejic being physically male can be feminine and the result is feminine androgyny. Miley Cyrus being physically female, can have an androgynous look like in her Wrecking Ball video, and it's feminine androgyny albeit in the mirror image way. Andreja Pejic offsets a male body with a feminine appearance, and Miley Cyrus does it inverted. Each one takes a different approach to reach an appearance that is androgynous on the feminine side.

[Valentir]

Around 2 or 3.

[Reliquary]

Kinsey Scale:
Around 4, I'd say. Maybe 5.

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

Mean Sexual Orientation: 8.5
Sexual Orientation Range: 7
Sex Drive: 9
Same Sex Attraction: 11
Opposite Sex Attraction: 7

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

On this I am a 4 as well, although closer to 3 rather than closer to 5 like on the Kinsey.

[Shnercropolis]

.25.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

3.

According to the test I took.

[Luveria]

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

On this I am a 4 as well, although closer to 3 rather than closer to 5 like on the Kinsey.

What was making the result different?

[Meryuma]

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.

Examine it once more and you will find that your criticisms are without merit. You mention "gender" as a criticism. The Luvsey Scale does not include or factor in gender anywhere. Gender isn't something that can be seen or have attraction felt towards because of how gender is a concept people identify as. Thus, gender is a useless term when categorizing attractions and should have no place at all for measuring attractions.

Another of your criticisms is making the assumption that everyone is being treated as having full interest in an aspect of a gender. See above for why gender isn't any part of the scale. I will take a guess that criticism extended to implying full interest in a physical sex is an assumption being made. To the contrary, because androphilia and gynephilia are defined not only by attraction to the particular sex, androphilia and gynephilia also include attraction to feminine or masculine appearances.

For comparison, the Kinsey scale only measures attraction along a linear line of homosexual attractions at one end and heterosexual attractions at the other, both polar opposites in opposition to each other. Replacing that with androphilia and gynephilia results in two separate preferences being measured that have their co-existence factored in and a combination of androphilia and gynephilia being required for a person's hybrid attractions to be accurately displayed. Your criticism of genderless people not being included is dismissed by how gender isn't involved anywhere in androphilia or gynephilia.

Your criticism of androgynous people not being taken into account is thrice in error. If someone prefers feminine androgyny like that of Andreja Pejic or Miley Cyrus which are my ideal types for femme androgyny, then that is measured by 2; "Predominantly gynephilic, but more than incidentally androphilic." If someone prefers the more between androgynes or doesn't lean either way for their androgyny preference, then a 3 for equal androphilia and gynephilia fits that. If they prefer masculine androgynes, a 4 accounts for that. "Predominantly androphilic, but more than incidentally gynephilic." Androgynous preferences are comprehensively covered.

Your desire to see more axis and complexity for a scale is misguided too. The problems arising from the Kinsey scale are a result of overcomplexity. What should have been measured is androphilic and gynephilic attractions. "Homosexuality" when dismantled is reduced to being the word used for when androphilia coincides with the androphilic person being male. Thus, homosexuality doesn't actually exist and cannot be measured. That is why when a gay man is attracted to trans men like Buck Angel, that results in the Kinsey scale being broken because Buck Angel is a very manly man with a vagina. If a gay man prefers trans men over cis men, the Kinsey scale would classify that gay man as mostly heterosexual since he's having different-sex relations most of the time, yet it doesn't sound right implying a gay man has heterosexual desires for liking trans men. Attraction doesn't go along a hetero-homo line. What it's measured by is how a gay man could categorize themselves as 5; Predominantly androphilic, only incidentally gynephilic. The man may find himself only attracted to masculine men, but also being attracted to trans men who are masculine enough. The only aspect of gynephilia in such an example would be the vaginas of the masculine trans men, giving a rating of 5 on the Luvsey because although that gynephilia is minor, a small amount is there in limited circumstances.

The reason homosexuality and heterosexuality are replaced with androphilic and gynephilic preferences is because that is what exists. Those attractions are what was being measured in the first place. The Kinsey scale created a needless layer of complexity above that by adding the nonexistent orientations of homosexuality and heterosexuality that fall apart when a trans person is encountered, which is quite simply because people aren't homosexual or heterosexual. Instead, the only measure of consistency that stands up to scrutiny is recognizing that androphilia and gynephilia are the base foundation of attractions which all else is built upon. The all too widespread illusions like heterosexuality and homosexuality are a result of attempts to complexify categorization and make it more detailed. That is how it's now a nearly universal belief that homosexuality and heterosexuality exist, because instead of limiting it to the measurable preferences of androphilia and gynephilia they didn't want to stop at that.

A proper system is reduced to nothing more than it needs to perform its purpose.

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.

The femininity and masculinity is strictly about physical appearance, which should make it a trivial matter deciding if you fancy feminine women while not feeling attracted to masculine women.

I'd probably be a low 4 on the Luvsey Scale, while remaining a Kinsey 5.

[Luveria]

Examine it once more and you will find that your criticisms are without merit. You mention "gender" as a criticism. The Luvsey Scale does not include or factor in gender anywhere. Gender isn't something that can be seen or have attraction felt towards because of how gender is a concept people identify as. Thus, gender is a useless term when categorizing attractions and should have no place at all for measuring attractions.

Another of your criticisms is making the assumption that everyone is being treated as having full interest in an aspect of a gender. See above for why gender isn't any part of the scale. I will take a guess that criticism extended to implying full interest in a physical sex is an assumption being made. To the contrary, because androphilia and gynephilia are defined not only by attraction to the particular sex, androphilia and gynephilia also include attraction to feminine or masculine appearances.

For comparison, the Kinsey scale only measures attraction along a linear line of homosexual attractions at one end and heterosexual attractions at the other, both polar opposites in opposition to each other. Replacing that with androphilia and gynephilia results in two separate preferences being measured that have their co-existence factored in and a combination of androphilia and gynephilia being required for a person's hybrid attractions to be accurately displayed. Your criticism of genderless people not being included is dismissed by how gender isn't involved anywhere in androphilia or gynephilia.

Your criticism of androgynous people not being taken into account is thrice in error. If someone prefers feminine androgyny like that of Andreja Pejic or Miley Cyrus which are my ideal types for femme androgyny, then that is measured by 2; "Predominantly gynephilic, but more than incidentally androphilic." If someone prefers the more between androgynes or doesn't lean either way for their androgyny preference, then a 3 for equal androphilia and gynephilia fits that. If they prefer masculine androgynes, a 4 accounts for that. "Predominantly androphilic, but more than incidentally gynephilic." Androgynous preferences are comprehensively covered.

Your desire to see more axis and complexity for a scale is misguided too. The problems arising from the Kinsey scale are a result of overcomplexity. What should have been measured is androphilic and gynephilic attractions. "Homosexuality" when dismantled is reduced to being the word used for when androphilia coincides with the androphilic person being male. Thus, homosexuality doesn't actually exist and cannot be measured. That is why when a gay man is attracted to trans men like Buck Angel, that results in the Kinsey scale being broken because Buck Angel is a very manly man with a vagina. If a gay man prefers trans men over cis men, the Kinsey scale would classify that gay man as mostly heterosexual since he's having different-sex relations most of the time, yet it doesn't sound right implying a gay man has heterosexual desires for liking trans men. Attraction doesn't go along a hetero-homo line. What it's measured by is how a gay man could categorize themselves as 5; Predominantly androphilic, only incidentally gynephilic. The man may find himself only attracted to masculine men, but also being attracted to trans men who are masculine enough. The only aspect of gynephilia in such an example would be the vaginas of the masculine trans men, giving a rating of 5 on the Luvsey because although that gynephilia is minor, a small amount is there in limited circumstances.

The reason homosexuality and heterosexuality are replaced with androphilic and gynephilic preferences is because that is what exists. Those attractions are what was being measured in the first place. The Kinsey scale created a needless layer of complexity above that by adding the nonexistent orientations of homosexuality and heterosexuality that fall apart when a trans person is encountered, which is quite simply because people aren't homosexual or heterosexual. Instead, the only measure of consistency that stands up to scrutiny is recognizing that androphilia and gynephilia are the base foundation of attractions which all else is built upon. The all too widespread illusions like heterosexuality and homosexuality are a result of attempts to complexify categorization and make it more detailed. That is how it's now a nearly universal belief that homosexuality and heterosexuality exist, because instead of limiting it to the measurable preferences of androphilia and gynephilia they didn't want to stop at that.

A proper system is reduced to nothing more than it needs to perform its purpose.



The femininity and masculinity is strictly about physical appearance, which should make it a trivial matter deciding if you fancy feminine women while not feeling attracted to masculine women.

I'd probably be a low 4 on the Luvsey Scale, while remaining a Kinsey 5.

What causes the different result for you? Trans attractions?

[Zarkanians]

X. Unsurprising, I suppose.

[Boomhaueristan]

I'm a heterosexual man to be frank, never tried sex with another guy, but whatever ill take this test.

Answered all the questions but I still get an F, okay.

[Zarkanians]

I'm a heterosexual man to be frank, never tried sex with another guy, but whatever ill take this test.

Answered all the questions but I still get an F, okay.

Congratulations; you are unique. Someone get the cross, the rope and the torches.

[Meryuma]

I'd probably be a low 4 on the Luvsey Scale, while remaining a Kinsey 5.

What causes the different result for you? Trans attractions?

Also the fact that I find guys who are too masculine very unappealing. To me a hot guy is boyishly adorable, not rugged and chiseled.

[Straughn]

I have *no* idea. I think i have to leave it up to other posters from previous years to figure that one out ... *hints at Sexiest NSr title from a few years back*
If nothing else i like to leave "An Analysis of Human Sexual Inadequacy" on the coffee table for company.

[Boomhaueristan]

I'm a heterosexual man to be frank, never tried sex with another guy, but whatever ill take this test.

Answered all the questions but I still get an F, okay.

Congratulations; you are unique. Someone get the cross, the rope and the torches.

Plz no, plz zarkanians no!

I mean yeah, I'm straight. I'm a 0, or whatever. Don't crucify me.

[Zarkanians]

Congratulations; you are unique. Someone get the cross, the rope and the torches.

Plz no, plz zarkanians no!

I mean yeah, I'm straight. I'm a 0, or whatever. Don't crucify me.

But we haven't had a good cross-and-human bonfire in hours. =(

[Boomhaueristan]

Plz no, plz zarkanians no!

I mean yeah, I'm straight. I'm a 0, or whatever. Don't crucify me.

But we haven't had a good cross-and-human bonfire in hours. =(

Sounds like a personal problem there chief. Just staple the blu-ray of Nicholas Cages "The Wicker Man" to a small plank cross. Cover in gasoline and burn. Proceed to play "Gay Bar" on your iPod and crack open a Jagermeister.

Finally, write several Kinsey Scales on notebook paper and highlight the unique part with a crayon (preferably Salmon) then use it as kindling. Enlightenment achieved

[Zarkanians]

But we haven't had a good cross-and-human bonfire in hours. =(

Sounds like a personal problem there chief. Just staple the blu-ray of Nicholas Cages "The Wicker Man" to a small plank cross. Cover in gasoline and burn. Proceed to play "Gay Bar" on your iPod and crack open a Jagermeister.

Finally, write several Kinsey Scales on notebook paper and highlight the unique part with a crayon (preferably Salmon) then use it as kindling. Enlightenment achieved

Got it. We'll give that a try.