Pretty simple poll, where do you fall on the Kinsey scale? I even added in the option that Kinsey listed for people who are asexual.
Printable View
Pretty simple poll, where do you fall on the Kinsey scale? I even added in the option that Kinsey listed for people who are asexual.
I fall closer to the gay end of the scale, it's pretty close.
I answered 4 but I find that I seem to drift down to 3 or even 2 from time to time.
I picked a 3 because I enjoy having sex with either gender, as well as trans either way whether pre or post op. I can really get into it and let myself go.
I do find a difference between the physical act of having sex and the romantic side of the equation. Growing up, I considered myself exclusively heterosexual. I dated only girls and had no romantic or sexual involvement with guys.
Shortly after my first marriage, we started swinging and we also both discovered our bi sides. After the first wife passed away, my romantic interest was only in bi women and, predictably, my second wife was also bi. In both the first and second marriages we played with others of all genders and orientations.
Since the second wife passed away in 2007, I remain sexually open to all, but only have romantic interest when it comes to bi women. Never thought it would happen, but last week I asked a wonderful bi lady to be my wife and she accepted. Our attitudes are exactly the same, enjoyment of the physical aspects of sex with any gender or orientation, but only able to develop a romantic relationship with someone of the opposite gender who is also bisexual.
I wonder how Kinsey would classify me! LOL
Pappy
For me these days it doesn't make any sense.
Surely I either
a) only find men attractive
b) only find women attractive
or
c) have attraction *in whatever shifting, changing degrees* to both men and women. whether it changes every week or decade or whenever.
So why then 6 levels, why not 8, 10? what is 'more then incidentally gay'? I never understood that word 'incidental' in that context (or is that only this site that uses it) even though i ticked a box beside the term.
The only time I thought the Kinsey scale was pretty cool and I liked using it was when I was terrified that I was 100% gay. I hadn't fancied women for a while but if I applied the Kinsey Scale I could be 5, even push a 4 and cling onto the coat-tails of hope and membership to 'heteroland' i.e. 'normality'.
and yet still have 5/6 years of gay abandon.
I liked it then. very very useful.
But now I'm thinking the 3 way split would have also served the purpose and better. I could have just been 'bi' all those years.
However, if I know that 'bi' is too general and kinda sends the wrong message and people assume that I'm equally into men and woman, when I'm maybe more into men, then that's pressure I don't need.
Now Im back to the Kinsey scale way of thinking. It would work, because it allows you to transgress in small, doable amounts and because its 2 way, you can dip ur toe into the level up or the level down without too much commitment to banging a different sex to the one u know ur really more into.
Finally then, I return to why 6 stages? Surely the more stages the easier it is to transgress, be fluid, be experimental, encourage straight guys to suck your cock (ahem) etc.
Why create a scale which celebrates sexual fluidity and human sexuality and then give it 6 stages. Isn't that like trying to give a parrot freedom by building a bigger cage? why not just get rid of the cage?
and why a parrot? that's a really out of context metaphor, but u get my point?
Why 6?
Asexual, I mean does that need it's own scale? Surely it runs parallel to the other scale rather than distinct of it.
I have only ever known one asexual person in my life. Nothing, no interest in either man nor woman nor beast until 47 years old. All of a sudden he cracks and blows thousands of points on rent boys in 3 months.
Does Kinsey have a show or something so I can write in? Did he just create this scale, like I would have done, earlier on: a way of fucking guys and still be able to look my mum and dad in the eye and talk about girlfriends and marriage and babies. Which ironically is where i ended up anyway. :flag4:
... me neva falls on the Kinsey Scale.. it is ALWAYS put away in the cupboard wer it belongs just to stop such a thing...:bigrin:
My bisexuality has ridden the pendulum, from one extreme to another, but hovered near the middle for a long time. From the ages of 14, to about 60, I was just as happy with either gender.
These days it seems to be more in the 2 range.
I attribute this to being in a very loving and sensual relationship, with a magnificent lady, who is also bisexual. Even though we both have discussed our interests in same-gender relationships, since late 2008, neither of us have put much effort out toward meeting anyone else. The severity of those urges to be with other males, or females for her, seem to depend a lot on the intensity of relationships we've had. I guess you might say that we've reached that point where we are happy and satisfied, so there is less of a desire for more.
Because she is younger and extremely virile, I suspect that her desire to be with another lady is often stronger than my need is, for being with a male. She hasn't revealed her Kinsey rating to me, but I think it'd be at least a 3.
Actually, it's 7 levels. All of the numerals from 0 to 6 are assigned a meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd
Usage of the Kinsey Scale seems to be considerably different that how Kinsey used it in his research. He classified them only as to their past sexual conduct. Translated to a percentage basis, a zero (0) or a six (6) means 100% of the experience was with those of only one gender. A one (1) or a (5) equates to a 17%/83% split of experience between men and women. Twos (2) and fours (4) had ratio of 1/3 to 2/3, and a three (3) was fifty-fifty.
There seem to be many different interpretations of the scale in use today. Many use it to assess both conduct and desire. Some include romantic attraction or love interest. Others even say that according to the scale only a three (3) is bisexual because it is the only point on the scale that represents equal desire, activity, or romantic interest.
The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid uses essentially the same seven (7) levels used by Kinsey but instead of a single measurement based on activity, Klein measured seven (7) different variables at three (3) different points in time. So Klein gives you 21 separate measurements. You end up with grid plots, not a single numerical value.
The scales certainly were not designed to celebrate sexual fluidity or human sexuality. They were used by researchers to report the cold, hard facts they discovered about the conduct/desires of many people and present their findings in a manner that would allow them to report that their small numbers of people actually studied could then be translated to representative numbers in society as a whole.
It's the same concept as political pools. If only 27 of the 100 people polled approve of the way the President is doing his job, the report is that the Presidents approval rating, generally, is up, or down, to 27%.
IMHO the only reason that individuals try to use some type of scale is to provide us with a means of communicating our make-up to others with whom we may not have the opportunity to communicate with (they might read the ad) or with whom we cannot get a sufficient opportunity to describe who we are, what we like, etc. Simply put, we are trying to find a way to give information to others in the hope that they might find us attractive enough on some level to desire us or at least decide, that based on what we have conveyed by our label or rating, they want to communicate with us to get more information to see if we are compatible.
If you are a Parrot Freedom Lover (PFL) interested in other PFLs, but only those who are willing to buy or build a cage at least 100' by 100' by 100', it's a lot easier to find a match by placing an ad saying "PFL 100'x100'x100' looking for same or similar" than it would be to rely on a chance encounter in the local exotic bird store.
People use labels and ratings all the time to accept or reject others. Age, race, height, weight, orientation, hair color, sexual practices, etc., are all things we see being used as initial tests for possible matches. They can be helpful or limiting. A person automatically rejected because of one characteristic might also have been someone who actually was a match in every other way. The more open we are to the variations in others, the greater the possibility of meeting and having a good time or finding a soul mate.
dafydd, I responded to your post, not to blast you, but because you asked a very good question that was worthy of discussion. In real life, I have never met anyone who found someone compatible by inquiring about only one characteristic, or even 21 of them. People are much more complex.
Happy Classifications!!
Pappy
Im in the middle. I sort've have a great amount of liking for both.
I think it's clear from reading this forum through the years, that most people's sexuality is fluid at least to some extent and varies over time. A couple years ago I would have considered myself pretty much homosexual, although I still found few guys sexually attractive.Quote:
Originally Posted by nwmscurious
I gave myself a four this time as I've found myself becoming more interested in women nowadays than I have been in the last few years. I still only look to guys for sex, though.
I really wish people would not respond to those kind of questions. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bityme
“Others even say that according to the scale only a three (3) is bisexual because it is the only point on the scale that represents equal desire, activity, or romantic interest.”
Interesting Pappy I think it all hangs on whether people were reporting acitivty or desire. How does it effect results if people had expereimented once with same-sexual activity but decided that in fact it wasn’t for them? E.g. a man sleeps with another man when he is young but realises that the desire is fleeting, uncomfortable, passing etc. then marries the first woman he has sex with
According to Kinsey rating based on only sexual activity, he’s a 3. 50/50.
The scale now seems superfluous to describing modern day sexuality, thought it doubtless influenced its expression. Should a scale composed from a small sample of people, which took into account only experience rather than desire, and at a time of high sexual suppression come to symbolise or be used as a vocabulary of a widespread enlightened polyamourous desire in 2011? Why attempt to communicate your modern unlimited sexual preferences using the lingo of a repressive past. That's like trying to write a guide on link layered internet protocols using Hieroglyphics or even English.
However it is interesting and valuable in its historical placement, as social a commentary of 1950 sexual morality and the unravelling journey in LGBT civil rights. (And because it made me feel better to think whilst sucking cock. "I'm only a 5. I'm not a 6. I'm only a 5!")
I expect straight people have no use for the Kinsey Scale, it becomes meaningless as you approach 0, the default When you are part of the norm, what use is there for advertising your specialiasm? Just as much as right handed people do not need or call for right handed equipment shops. Or able-bodied people have to ask "where are the able-bodied toilets here?”
Surely the closer you get to Kinsey 0, the less u need to tell anyone that. Funnily enough, that only works if you’re a genuine Kinsey 0, if not then absolutely it’s a good idea to tell everyone you’re a Kinsey 0, 1 or 2 , when deep down you know you’re a big fat failure at 5 or 6.
And if you’re not wrestling with inner demons…why announce ur specialism anyway? To know we are finding the right people/connections? Surely the essential choice is whether you want to sleep with a male or a female or both or none. That’s 4 points on a different scale. A scale of desire, not ‘experience’ is better, because it describes your sexuality: (who you are now) rather that who you have been with, (which is really logistics.) e.g consider the difference between what these statements tell us about somebody
I love going to Paris. (what I want)
Last week I was in Paris. (where I’ve been)
Surely to ensure attraction is reciprocated it’s better to know about what someone wants rather than where they have been (although that also is useful if picking up online)
There are people who get turned on by the fact that someone has been with a certain number of a certain sex e.g the attraction some gay men (6) feel toward sleeping with another male, only if he is 3 or below (and as close to 0 as posssible). Do men who are nearer 0 on the scale share certain characterisits preffered by bi men or is the attraction the fact that a male 0 has been with women, and closer to the default norm 0? I don’t know but I don’t like the way the scale funnels my thoughts in that direction. Aces are low boys.
I think the biggest problems is in the connotation that number = value. 0 is the start position and the aim of the game is to finish life with as low points as possible.
"I am 4 away from 0 but she is 6 away from 0. I more 0 than she is."
Well, I was always crap at Uno.
I would champion anything that enables people to explore and feel comfortable, and proud about their sexuality or connect with others, but personally I feel where I am today that I don’t need the scale to do this
(but that's because not in a relationship that society deems wrong, and I can hold my partners hand in public, and that’s probably the only thing I’ve written that I understand.)
Squawk!
d
Based on my experience, as the introduction to my ad details, these sex scales don't apply to me, or to anyone else. They don't include attractions to third-sex persons or to bigendered persons, don't include desires like enema sex, or bondage or any of those things that make us orgasm. These are also sexual orientations. The Kinsey scale I think is political progaganda sort of-it tries to neatly, sanitizingly, categorize humans in ways that have no basis in nature, as if these numbered gradations were fixed. One person in chat the other night accused me of not believing homosexuality to be innate. I do think it is a choice, only the brain hormones that cause desire are innate, and what we desire changes all the time. So what if humanity has sex? You can't slice it up any more than gravity, a fifth force of nature if you will. The only thing to understand about sexual orientation is if the other person you're hitting on is really into you.
My one experience with guys (and yes, I mean guys plural) was incredible.
However, i have a fiance that is the most incredible woman and would do absolutely anything for me. I would never, ever risk the love we have for a bisexual experience. If she gets into it or is seduced into it, that would be awesome. But i am content the way things are.
Sadly Kinsey left out a designation that fits me best...I'm sexual in the simplest form of the word! I like sex, gender has nothing to do with it!
One point is that this is a self descriptor and people may use different definitions. I'm not sure that the categories in the poll match the sites definitions. I'm also a bit confused as to why every poster in the asexual category in this poll state in the site that they are a 3 or 4(equally straight and gay/lesbian). I guess it is that not sexually driven but romantically gay/straight. Whatever????.....:rolleyes:
I follow under asexual because I'm very highly sexual person. I love sex of all kinds. Any way I can or my partner(s) can receive pleasure I love. Like the ole saying "I'll try anything once, and twice if I like it!"...LOL
Ah..then you may want to look up the meaning for the word "asexual". What you have described is not what the word means.Quote:
Originally Posted by mischimp
sounds like you are using the alternative meaning of asexual, which is a lack of sexual orientation..... or sexuality undefined.....Quote:
Originally Posted by mischimp
the most common understanding of asexual is lack of sexual attraction, lack of sexual desire, lack of sexual drive, be it one or all of them.......and that asexuals are not sexual.....
if I may quote from wikipedia ( google asexuality
Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality),[1][2][3] in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction[4][5] and, in some cases, the lack of interest in sex. [6] Sometimes, it is considered a lack of a sexual orientation.[7] One commonly cited study placed the prevalence of asexuality at 1%.[8]
Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by an individual's religious (or other) beliefs;[9] sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring".[10][11] Some asexuals do engage in sexual activity despite lacking a desire for sex or sexual attraction, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to please romantic partners.[12]
using asexuality as a definition of your sexuality doesn't make you wrong, it simply gives others a opening to tell you you are wrong about how you understand your sexuality
To answer the original question, I decided I was a 2 on the Kinsey scale. Had not actually heard of it until I joined here.
Someone posted about the Klein grid, so I took the survey. Turns out I was a 2 there, also. So 2 it is.
I read the Kinsey report years ago. I'm a 3 I can fall in love and have romantic attractions to both men and women since that's what a 3 on the scale is. If you're a man and only fall in love and have partnerships with women then you're a 2 and not a 3. On the flip side if you are a man and only have partnerships or actual relationships with a live in partner with men then you're a 4 and not a 3.
I understand that others may object to a simplistic question, but sometimes simplicity leads to understanding. In my case… It depends. When I was 22. I lived, dreamed and desired ladies just about 24 / 7. Now… and the older I get… the more I want to play with guys my age. Go figure.
Hey Isit...that is perfectly normal. For many bisexuals, our sexualities fluctuate throughout our lives. I've observed that this can *appear* at least to follow wanting what we don't currently have...but it can also just vary over time, regardless of who is in our lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isitfun
So presumably, the poll is really just asking for your number *at the time that you answer the poll*, understanding that 10 years from now your number may have changed.
I am a 4 fast approaching a 5. :)
I say 5 because I'm still happily married to the first wife in a loving but non sexual marriage. If I wasn't married I'd say 6. Haven't had sex with a woman since around the early 90s and have no desire to.
I viewed myself as a 3 but then have drifted to a 4. As I get older I feel I am moving to a 5. At least in fantasy.
By the way, have others found that they have moved around the Kinsey scale and have others moved more toward the homosexual side?
I still call myself a 3, but all of my fantasies involve sucking cock and eating cum. I still feel attraction to women, but would like to be romantically involved with a woman who would share another man with me. Maybe this makes me really a 4 or even a 5 on the scale. I'd love to share a load of cum with a woman who would snowball with me.
I certainly have moved to higher numbers - more homosexual - over the years. I can't tell whether it's because my preferences have shifted or I've become more comfortable with my homosexuality. While I think it's unlikely that I would lose all interest in having sex with women, I would be perfectly happy to have sex only with men.Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire
Bisexual Explorer
I find conversations threads on this topic interesting and frustrating, illuminating and a demonstration of how misleaded we get when we focus on finding a label. I answered the poll as three but, if I apply Kinsey's original research criteria, I have gone from a strong 0 to a 4 or more. Why? Because I originally as a young man was strictly interested and interacted with femaies. If I had known anyone at that time that was going living or going through a transgender transition, I probably would have counted them on the female side (especially if they were living and presenting themselves as a female) and I knew/accepted but not understood how a man could want sex with another man. But, for the past few years, I have had a growing attraction and desire for intimacy with other men and experienced and seek it. I still find and enjoy sex with my wife and can find other women attractive but I have little or no interest in sex with other women other than curiousity. By that original criteria, I am probably a four or maybe even a five although I have not reached a stage where I would give up my wife to live with another man. But this demonstrates some of the issues that resulted in developing and trying to use the Klein scale to describe a persons attitude and behavior toward sex. And the biggest one is that, over time, the Kinsey scale is not a good description other than a value at a point in time. I would like to think that, as I have grown older and gained experience, I have learned that the value for me of another person is not their gender but how they behave and how they react to me. And that is not on the Kinsey, Klein, or another 'scale' seeking to separate people in a LBGT spectrum. Instead of putting someone in a box labeled 'bisexual' or 'gay' or 'lesbian', I like the categories of 'friend', 'stimulating', 'comforting', 'interesting', 'someone to share mutual interests with'.
Bi leaning Gay...if THAT makes any sense. Guess I just need to meet the "right" person.
Like a ripe watermelon, from a great height.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberlib
Oh for fucks sake! Like most people on here, ur here because ur a lover of man. Accept it. It's not like you're admitting to being a Nazi! Or a republican.
'Oh for fucks sake! Like most people on here, ur here because ur a lover of man. Accept it.' Why the flame? I have no trouble admitting a I am 'lover of man' (actually, it is more likely to be 'men'). But my statement was to make the point that I feel it is silly trying to make a claim to a place on the Kinsey scale. For one reason, because it tends to be point I am passing by rather than a permanent residence. And for another, by the factors we are trying to apply, I find I live more in a range of those values and not in a narrow band.