Kinsey Scale for Sexuality

[melon]

Okay, everyone. Here's a poll for you all. Rate your sexuality on Alfred Kinsey's famous 1940s scale, which was the first time that science saw sexuality beyond rigid gay/straight archetypes.

Plus, now with the advent of forum polls, we can ask this anonymously. So be honest!

Also, this isn't necessarily a gauge of just sexual activity. This must be kept in mind:

? fantasies ? dreams ? thoughts

? frequency of sexual activities ? emotional feelings

So answer away!

Melon

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Um, I think people are too scared to reply/vote.

What does "incidentally homosexual/heterosexual" supposed to mean? Like at one time you had an incident?

 

[U2002revolution!]

i'm as straight as they come!....no doubt here!....the likely-hood of me being attracted to another female is the same as me being attracted to a dog. lol.

interesting thread, melon! [i'm guessing the 1st vote was yours...if ya don't mind me askin' (?)]

 

[melon]

"Incidentally" means that you have had fleeting thoughts for someone of the same sex, but have never really given it serious thought. Hence, you are, for all intensive purposes, straight.

100% straight means that you've never once found yourself turned on sexually by someone of the same sex. Why should people be scared? It's anonymous.

Melon

 

[Sicy]

Do famous people count?

"Incidentally" means that you have had fleeting thoughts for someone of the same sex, but have never really given it serious thought. Hence, you are, for all intensive purposes, straight.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

*wonders if sis means *coughsgwencoughs*

Ah, ok, that's what I thought it meant.

 

[zonelistener]

beLIEve

People LIE!

 

[ghetofabu]

I think they do Sicy.

nice poll. I voted.

 

[melon]

Let me elaborate:

0 - Never once have thought about anyone of the same sex sexually.

1 - Have found yourself thinking about someone of the same sex sexually, but have never acted on it, and 90% of the time, find yourself attracted to people of the opposite sex. This can include finding yourself attracted to same sex celebrities here and there.

2 - You are thinking about the same sex more than just fleetingly, but are still mostly straight and attracted to the opposite sexually.

3 - You swing all ways -- 100% bisexual.

4 - You are thinking about the opposite sex more than just fleetingly, but are still mostly gay and attracted to the same sex sexually.

5 - Have found yourself thinking about someone of the opposite sex sexually, but have never acted on it, and 90% of the time, find yourself attracted to people of the same sex. This can include finding yourself attracted to opposite sex celebrities here and there.

6 - Never once have thought about anyone of the opposite sex sexually.

Does this help?

Melon

 

[Sorgie]

While I think the Kinsey scale has its faults, it is great at making clear a very important factor when in comes to understanding sexual labling -- that these stereotypes are in fact fictions that we inscribe upon our bodies through a performance. Most people readily admit that they do not fall into the 1 or 6 categories, demonstrating that they cannot be considered purely heterosexual of homosexual, which makes these problematic identities. Yet, one also cannot conclude that everyone is bisexual, since in most cases "bisexuals" do have a sexual preference. It is actually the behaviours and thoughts that people make public information is what determines which label they fall under, and these identites did not actualy exist until modern history. We all know that same sex practices existed during the time of the greeks, but in a different style than they do today. Then it was a part of an educational system which we now term as pedagogic eros, the older dominant male was the penetrator and the younger penetrated. However, with age the males took the assetive sexual role, and if they did not, then their behavior was considered abnormal. As for Anglo-American culture, our sexual epistemology has change throughout the years. Pre-Victoria same sex practices were common in the Aristocracy, but peope were just people, and though sodomy was a sin, people were not considered sodomites. They performed acts of sodomy. And everyone was implicated because of that fateful day in the garden of eden. It wasn't until large cities began to develop, which allowed more people with an affinity for same sex practices to get in touch with each other, that sexality actually entered medico-legal discourse. When this occurred doctors started formulating the idea of the sexual invert, a term that was label homosexual in the year 1869 by an Austrian doctor (whose name i cannot remember right now). This is when sexual labels actually began to describe a certain kind of person. In fact, the homosexual preceeded the idea of the heterosexual, who actually depends upon his defiled homosexual for his identity. Early in the twentieth century, medial research (such as the Kinsey report) on the topic started to uncover the grey areas of these labels and received a conservative backlash, and lost much funding. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need a revised version of the medieval epistemology on the topic, since people are people, and who I choose to have sex with shouldn't be such a big factor as to how I am perceived by the rest of society. Sex after all is a private act.

 

[Sorgie]

might i add, the more that the idea of the homosexual was spread around in medical culture, the more people began to practice that behavior. while trying to stop people from performing such abmoninable acts, the doctors were actually popularizing the practice by exposing more and more people to the idea

see "The Wilde Century" by Alan Sinfield

 

[u2er]

<-- all the way HETEROsexual

 

[Sorgie]

if that is how you selectively choose from your memories and experiences and present yourself to the public way to go! I'm proud of you! However, it is the things that are left unsaid that are really important

 

[U2002revolution!]

demonstrating that they cannot be considered purely heterosexual of homosexual,

ok. i know you said "CANNOT be considered...." but, my question is, @ one time/ (or presently) is it believed by some that we ALL are bisexual even if we don't "show" it? (i can't even conceive that....i KNOW i'm straight. lol)
sorry but i find that very laughable!

did i misinterpret?

*wondering*

 

[missmacphisto]

Exclusively heterosexual.
I have a weakness for hot male things.

 

[Sorgie]

for all pragmatic purposes i agree with you, however, i was trying to illustrate that there is no essential nature to human behavior... that it evolves with our along with our concepts... and therefore there is no reason for discrimination because we are all a product of that machine - our common culture, history, heritage - which we are all too often blinded from understanding

you are straight because you identify with this identity that exists outside of you, and you have internalized this stereotype - not that i think there is nothing wrong with that

Freud would say that everyone is bisexual, before him that was inconceivable, I say questions such as that are irrelevant... we are all human... bisexual, like straight and gay, is a POLITICAL IDENTITY, and you are the one which you openly perform

 

[diamond]

No matter what Arun says..I will deny this..


DB9

 

[V Nura]

Diamond...I think it's time we come out of the closet

I want to wear my heels with pride

 

[Angela Harlem]

Clearly then Arun it is time to give those heels back to Diamond and get your own....

 

[Calvin N. Hobbes]

Re: everything Sorgie said

Sexual identity is locked in one's gentic makeup, it's not a choice one makes based on sterotypes in which you were raised in. Did you choose to be straight? When your father had that talk with you a few years ago, did he ask you to join a team? I can choose many ways in which I like to be politicaly percieved, but I can not simply flip the switch on my sexuality regardless of how much the meida has been so-called "popularizing the practice." Besides, where is the advantage for one to choose to be homosexual? Anybody can tell you that leading a homosexual lifestlye isnt necessarly the easist life to live. One would deal with discrimination and prejudice that knows no color lines. When you say that there's a connection between the rampant practice of homosexuality in modern times with that of it's awareness - you really don't think closets existed way back when?

 

[DrTeeth]

Come on, there has to be more than 38 sexual active people on this forum

 

[joyfulgirl]

I am certainly not embarrassed to say that I voted 1. There have been maybe 3 women in my whole life who made my heart pitter-patter though all 3 were straight and I've never been moved to act on it.

I have way more gay & lesbian friends than straight friends.

But it's the men who have the power to actually break my heart.

 

[Sorgie]

Re: Re: everything Sorgie said

Sexual identity is locked in one's gentic makeup, it's not a choice one makes based on sterotypes in which you were raised in.

to say hat sexualy identiy is locked in one's genetic makeup is confusing several things....
1. I do not disagree that genetic makeup effects sexual behavior... but theorists agree, that like all genetic factors, if there is one, it is for a potential. it is the combination of nature and nurture which ultimately effects ones sexual behaviors.
2.there is a defference between sexual identity and sexual behavior, men wo had sex with men before stone wall were "homosexuals" or "of the oscar wilde type." that was their sexual identity, characterized by secrecy. After Stonewall there was a shift in identity for men who had "same sex passion". Now, people could be gay, essentially a public "homosexual", and this is when the media really grasped onto the idea, and made it a somewhat acceptable behavior
3. there is a portion of the gay community which thinks that nature vs. nurture is a question that should not be discussed...
remember a couple ofyears ago when that gay medical researcher "proved" that there were differences in the brains of gay and straigh men? well, his father was a conservative poltician, and in response to the discovery, he said that he considers is son like soeone wit down's syndrome -- to say it is purely genetic causes us to run into the problem that it could be a "disorder" or "disease"

4. as to the question as to whether the closet existed before modern times? hell YES! the closet is an essential part to human nature. it is whatever is left unsaid, and there i no way that anyone can full communicate their "personal experience." it's just at different times in history people have looked at different aspects of the closet.

5. oh yeah, i forgot -- sexual identity is a choice, there are many men who consider hemselves straight, yet have lots of sex with other men -- sexual activity is also a choice, you can always say no -- desire?, well, maybe that's where the genetics get involved with that tricky relationship with culture

 

[BAW]

okay, I'll admit it...I voted 1. I've never been attracted to a female "in real life" but I have crushes on female celebrities all the time. I don't know if I could ever act on it but I find certain females very attractive.

I do predomintenly love men and could never go without a certain "feature" they provide

 

[Sicy]

yeppers, me too

okay, I'll admit it...I voted 1. I've never been attracted to a female "in real life" but I have crushes on female celebrities all the time. I don't know if I could ever act on it but I find certain females very attractive.

I do predomintenly love men and could never go without a certain "feature" they provide

 

[Laura M]

I picked 0

do dooooo dooooooooooo

 

[OzAurora]

ok I am going to be honest here (now I dont know why I am, but anyway) and say that I went with option 3. I dont really consider myself bi-sexual but I have had flirtations with women and have loved a woman greatly, I guess I see myself as falling in love with someone for who they are and the gender issue is something that is secondary. however all of this aside I love men and for the last year have never had my heart feel so strongly towards someone and yes he is a man. I have many gay and lesbian friends and whilst I have had a relationship with a woman I dont identify with them or their plight or issues- I love being with men, love their bodies and if you grab one with a great personality, well then you have all bases covered, however where I am concerned I know that it is possible to fall in love with someone of the same sex

 

[Stories for Boys]

0

 

[U2ME3]

originally read the title of this thread as "Kinky Scale for Sexuality"

 

[melon]

Sorgie brings up interesting points. I'm putting in my two cents:

. there is a portion of the gay community which thinks that nature vs. nurture is a question that should not be discussed...remember a couple ofyears ago when that gay medical researcher "proved" that there were differences in the brains of gay and straigh men? well, his father was a conservative poltician, and in response to the discovery, he said that he considers is son like soeone wit down's syndrome -- to say it is purely genetic causes us to run into the problem that it could be a "disorder" or "disease

This is what bothers me. We have these idealized view of genetics--black-and-white, "normal" and "abnormal." Quite honestly, I have grappled on the question and homosexuality could very well be genetic, but no more "abnormal" than left-handedness. The straight world likes cast their stones at times, but homosexuals are quite happy with themselves, minus the ridicule from the straight world. But that is straight society's fault, no one else's.

Melon