Kinsey Scale

I appreciate the finer points of men. Still prefer women.

I have a strong belief that men that can't appreciate men are totally unaware of their sexuality.

[COLOR="green"]1

I'm not gonna lie if a man has good features.

Like Usher's voice. God damn son.[/COLOR]

1.

I can appreciate the relative beauty/attractiveness of other men, but that doesn't mean I am prone to acting on it, or ever acting. I can only picture myself being with another woman, hence heterosexual. Seconding what Rob said about those that strictly deny the features of those of the same sex do not comprehend their own sexuality.

[COLOR="green"]1

I'm not gonna lie if a man has good features.

Like Usher's voice. God damn son.[/COLOR]

Usher? Boy I think you meant to say Morgan Freeman.

I have a strong belief that men that can't appreciate men are totally unaware of their sexuality.

I completely agree, and also believe the same of homosexuals: if you can't appreciate the opposite sex, you aren't looking with the right perspective.

But if I believe that, why vote 6 and say I'm exclusively homosexual? The way I read the Kinsey Scale is with regards to sexual attraction - that is, if you are in any way sexually aroused by some facet of the human body, you poll somewhere on the scale of 0-6. As I have never been sexually attracted to females, though can greatly appreciate the female body, I voted 6.

Ultimately, however, I believe the Kinsey Scale is still too rigid an organizational method for human sexuality. Instead, I strongly believe in a spectrum, like that posted a few months ago on this forum in some random thread (all I remember is Ceddy reposted it a few posts later), and that no one is 100% exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. My personal hypothesis is that human sexuality is greatly influenced by genetics, with even specific alleles for the trait following the genetic concept of incomplete dominance. Like a flower colored a certain shade of pink, resulting from the cross of a red and white flower, so too do I believe human sexuality work; everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum.

I am purely heterosexual, but as others have said, I do recognize and appreciate the finer points of men. Also, will not deny whether a guy looks good or not.

I am strictly heterosexual.

Ive had homosexual friends/roomates before and I'm fine with it and everything, but its simply not for me.

I completely agree, and also believe the same of homosexuals: if you can't appreciate the opposite sex, you aren't looking with the right perspective.

But if I believe that, why vote 6 and say I'm exclusively homosexual? The way I read the Kinsey Scale is with regards to sexual attraction - that is, if you are in any way sexually aroused by some facet of the human body, you poll somewhere on the scale of 0-6. As I have never been sexually attracted to females, though can greatly appreciate the female body, I voted 6.

Ultimately, however, I believe the Kinsey Scale is still too rigid an organizational method for human sexuality. Instead, I strongly believe in a spectrum, like that posted a few months ago on this forum in some random thread (all I remember is Ceddy reposted it a few posts later), and that no one is 100% exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. My personal hypothesis is that human sexuality is greatly influenced by genetics, with even specific alleles for the trait following the genetic concept of incomplete dominance. Like a flower colored a certain shade of pink, resulting from the cross of a red and white flower, so too do I believe human sexuality work; everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum.

...that genetics talk is just flat out preposterous. You had better pray that isn't the case, because if it is, that means that Homosexuality can be detected prior to birth the same way that certain genetic diseases are, which raises the possibility (indeed, probability) of all manner of disturbing eugenics movements. Screening embryos for sexual preference is probably in the top 10 of "Horrible Traits of a Dystopian World".

Besides all that, you're saying that it should be a spectrum when that's exactly what it is. look at the chart, it's a scale from 0% to 100%, with a numerical value assigned to certain ranges for the sake of simplicity. A spectrum with hundreds of parts isn't particularly useful to anyone. At least this way you can get some information about a person's typical behavior by their number. If the ranges are too narrow, then you'll have people jumping from category to category constantly. It's not as if a person is going to remain at a single exact percentage of bisexuality their entire life. Circumstances will cause it to vary somewhat, and a moderately sized range is going to allow you to see that variation.

Then again that whole post just sounds like it was more for you to try to prove something than to convey useful information to anyone else so replying is probably pointless at best. I'm not really interested in getting into a big debate either. I just don't want flowery language to confuse any random reader who stumbles onto that and takes it at face value.


I guess I should explain my vote too. I picked 1 because it's been only specific instances where i was like "Wow, that guy..."
David Tennant...

I appreciate the finer points of men. Still prefer women.

Lmao. I have to agree with Fiel, though. 0 for me.

Besides all that, you're saying that it should be a spectrum when that's exactly what it is. look at the chart, it's a scale from 0% to 100%, with a numerical value assigned to certain ranges for the sake of simplicity. A spectrum with hundreds of parts isn't particularly useful to anyone. At least this way you can get some information about a person's typical behavior by their number. If the ranges are too narrow, then you'll have people jumping from category to category constantly. It's not as if a person is going to remain at a single exact percentage of bisexuality their entire life. Circumstances will cause it to vary somewhat, and a moderately sized range is going to allow you to see that variation.

Then again that whole post just sounds like it was more for you to try to prove something than to convey useful information to anyone else so replying is probably pointless at best. I'm not really interested in getting into a big debate either. I just don't want flowery language to confuse any random reader who stumbles onto that and takes it at face value.

Don't read too much into the definition of my word choice, but the context in which I use it: I said "spectrum," because, while the Kinsey Scale is indeed a spectrum, the use of the word here implies something more akin to the Visible Light Spectrum, a scale with ranges so narrow the colors ultimately blend moving from one to another as the frequency increases. You raise a good point that such a spectrum would be too impractical for human sexuality, as personal oscillations between degrees would make such a scale pointless. But in the end my point by choosing that phrase was to state my personal opinion in that I find the Kinsey Scale too rigid. Something in between the scale as it is now and the spectrum I just described would be more appropriate.

By the way, I'm not out to prove something. I'm not a genetics researcher with a grant to perform human sexuality researcher. I'm merely a curious intellectual proposing a hypothesis toward a natural occurrence on an open discussion board. But I'd wish you not degrading my post as "something other than useful information" when it's an opinion on a topic with no clear answer. As this is a place to, again, discuss such things, I would hope people reading this thread and others wouldn't look for answers, but ideas. My posts don't need to go through your surveillance for legitimacy.

Don't read too much into the definition of my word choice, but the context in which I use it: I said "spectrum," because, while the Kinsey Scale is indeed a spectrum, the use of the word here implies something more akin to the Visible Light Spectrum, a scale with ranges so narrow the colors ultimately blend moving from one to another as the frequency increases. You raise a good point that such a spectrum would be too impractical for human sexuality, as personal oscillations between degrees would make such a scale pointless. But in the end my point by choosing that phrase was to state my personal opinion in that I find the Kinsey Scale too rigid. Something in between the scale as it is now and the spectrum I just described would be more appropriate.

By the way, I'm not out to prove something. I'm not a genetics researcher with a grant to perform human sexuality researcher. I'm merely a curious intellectual proposing a hypothesis toward a natural occurrence on an open discussion board. But I'd wish you not degrading my post as "something other than useful information" when it's an opinion on a topic with no clear answer. As this is a place to, again, discuss such things, I would hope people reading this thread and others wouldn't look for answers, but ideas. My posts don't need to go through your surveillance for legitimacy.

There was this one episode of Friends... Joey was trying to write a recommendation for Monica and Chandler to adopt a kid. Ross taught him about the thesaurus function and Joey ended up using it on every single word. I imagine the recommendation looked a lot like this post.

I rate myself an X because even though I'm an explorer, nobody wants to explore me.

I rate myself an X because even though I'm an explorer, nobody wants to explore me.

You don't rate based upon other people. You rate based upon you.

I rate myself an X because even though I'm an explorer, nobody wants to explore me.

;_;

I'm still trying to wrap my head around incidental sexuality. So i guess that makes me a pretty straight shooter with a 1.

EDIT: errr zero

Derp.

I have difficulties quantifying what an attractive male looks like, so I guess I'm a zero.

I have difficulties quantifying what an attractive male looks like, so I guess I'm a zero.

or probably cause of religion.. what ever

1, because I can take gay guys flirting with me, but I dont take it further than that.

I have difficulties quantifying what an attractive male looks like, so I guess I'm a zero.

This, for me.

However I'm not sure if "quantifying" is the best word there. Attractiveness is not a number. At any given moment, I'm either attracted or not; that and the intensity depend on too many other factors.

This, for me.

However I'm not sure if "quantifying" is the best word there. Attractiveness is not a number. At any given moment, I'm either attracted or not; that and the intensity depend on too many other factors.

I don't understand how sexuality is something that is ever incedental either.

Example: I don't get how some people in thread are like "oh i like X's voice but he's a man and i has sexy time with ladies only. I'm a 1/2 herp derp"

I can get how you can like a feature about a person of the same sex, but that doesn't make it sexual. I mean i like Jesse McCartneys voice, but that does mean i want to suck his voices cock.

I can see who is attractive and who is not despite gender with and without someone's or my own specific type in mind, but i still only find women sexually appealing.

He'll i'd suck some cock for a million dollars in a heartbeat, but i still don't find that appealing. (the money is obviously appealing). yet i am convinced i'm a zero.

So did i just stumble on to some more sexually unenlightened plane of existence or am i so retarded that i can't understand how this scale would have anything more than 3 items on it.

EDIT: 4 items.