NationStates Jolt Archive

Another thread inspired me to ask this question. I was wondering if men or women are more likely to believe in the Kinsley scale.

The Kinsley scale is the idea that only a few people are turely homosexual or heterosexual and that most people fall somewhere imbetween. Someone who is inbetween but leans towards heterosexuality might end up only dating the opposite sex, but this person may still have some homosexual tendicies. And those right in the middle tend to be bisexual or so the theory goes.

Alternatively those who don't believe in the scale, recognize that there are people imbetween, but think this is a small portion of society and think that most people are on the extreme ends of either being entirely straight or entirely homosexual.


(If you were born male, but identify as a woman please vote as a male since I'm trying to see if there is a genetic cause, women who identify as men should vote as a woman).

I don't know. In my head, I tend to label certain guys as attractive (which certainly feels natural and not at all wrong), yet I don't find the thought of having sex (including oral sex) with a man at all appealing, in this aspect, I consider myself completely heterosexual.

The first part would indicate the Kinsley scale exists, but the second part acts against it. Or maybe i'm just weird.

Another thread inspired me to ask this question. I was wondering if men or women are more likely to believe in the Kinsley scale.

The Kinsley scale is the idea that only a few people are turely homosexual or heterosexual and that most people fall somewhere imbetween. Someone who is inbetween but leans towards heterosexuality might end up only dating the opposite sex, but this person may still have some homosexual tendicies. And those right in the middle tend to be bisexual or so the theory goes.

Alternatively those who don't believe in the scale, recognize that there are people imbetween, but think this is a small portion of society and think that most people are on the extreme ends of either being entirely straight or entirely homosexual.


(If you were born male, but identify as a woman please vote as a male since I'm trying to see if there is a genetic cause, women who identify as men should vote as a woman).

I absolutely believe that the vast majority of humans are "innately" bisexual, and that our gay-straight polarization is an artifact of our socialization.

I don't know. In my head, I tend to label certain guys as attractive (which certainly feels natural and not at all wrong), yet I don't find the thought of having sex (including oral sex) with a man at all appealing, in this aspect, I consider myself completely heterosexual.

The first part would indicate the Kinsley scale exists, but the second part acts against it. Or maybe i'm just weird.

I would say the same about myself, but add that the thought of kissing another guy isn't completely repulsive to me, depending oviously on who the guy is. So, I suppose the scale must exist, with me fairly close to the completely hetero end.

I don't know. In my head, I tend to label certain guys as attractive (which certainly feels natural and not at all wrong), yet I don't find the thought of having sex (including oral sex) with a man at all appealing, in this aspect, I consider myself completely heterosexual.

The first part would indicate the Kinsley scale exists, but the second part acts against it. Or maybe i'm just weird.
That doesn't say anything about the legitimacy of the Kinsey scale, only where you belong on it (sounds like you're a very close 5).

I absolutely believe that the vast majority of humans are "innately" bisexual, and that our gay-straight polarization is an artifact of our socialization.
Agreed. I hardly ever get hit on by "gay" men. 9 times out of ten, it's a straight friend who's had a few beers too many. Or maybe I give off a vibe or something, I don't know. Experience really colors our perception of this topic.

I don't know. In my head, I tend to label certain guys as attractive (which certainly feels natural and not at all wrong), yet I don't find the thought of having sex (including oral sex) with a man at all appealing, in this aspect, I consider myself completely heterosexual.

The first part would indicate the Kinsley scale exists, but the second part acts against it. Or maybe i'm just weird.
not werid - same here.

a favourite quote from Frasier applies i think:
Niles: "You know I don't think I've ever used the word 'wow' to describe another male before. I wonder what that means?"

Frasier: "You know perfectly well what it means, Niles. It means you're a gay-man :rolleyes: "

:p



i don't see why this scale can't be true

I would say the same about myself, but add that the thought of kissing another guy isn't completely repulsive to me, depending oviously on who the guy is. So, I suppose the scale must exist, with me fairly close to the completely hetero end.

Romantic kissing would be a little gross. Stubble, damnit! Stubble! Ewww....

But yeah, if I were dared to do it, I probably would.

That doesn't say anything about the legitimacy of the Kinsey scale, only where you belong on it (sounds like you're a very close 5).

Yeah, OK. I'll follow that logic then. Kinsey scale all the way! :)

Agreed. I hardly ever get hit on by "gay" men. 9 times out of ten, it's a straight friend who's had a few beers too many. Or maybe I give off a vibe or something, I don't know. Experience really colors our perception of this topic.

I get hit on by gay men more than women hit on me. :p

not werid - same here.

a favourite quote from Frasier applies i think:
Niles: "You know I don't think I've ever used the word 'wow' to describe another male before. I wonder what that means?"

Frasier: "You know perfectly well what it means, Niles. It means you're a gay-man "

lol! :D

That doesn't say anything about the legitimacy of the Kinsey scale, only where you belong on it (sounds like you're a very close 5).

I guess what I ment by the question is not could everyone be place on the scale, but that if you buy the assumption that most people are imbetween. Sort of like with physical sexuality. The vast majority of people are born either with male or female genitalia but there are a few that are imbetween. But I wouldn't put physical sexuality on a scale since the imbetween people are clearly rare outliers.

You know, I actually used to somewhat believe that the Kinsey scale was a bit of rubbish. I'm sittin there like "Bitch, please, I'm straight as an arrow and I'm certainly no minority" but then one night I got drunk and made out with a girl. Then my lesbian friend introduced me to this chick Katy who I have a "girl crush" on (which I guess means I admire her, because that's everybody else's title for it, not mine). I guess they slid me just barely into the bisexual region, because rather than looking at girls simply as whether or not they're more attractive than me, I find myself from time to time actually enjoying looking at a girl. Especially if she's got really good hair.

Well, that, and somebody explained it to me in common terms, because I got sick of sorting through all the "clinical" explainations. Maybe the first time in my life my arguments have been turned around in 10 minutes or less.

Another thread inspired me to ask this question. I was wondering if men or women are more likely to believe in the Kinsley scale.

The Kinsley scale is the idea that only a few people are turely homosexual or heterosexual and that most people fall somewhere imbetween. Someone who is inbetween but leans towards heterosexuality might end up only dating the opposite sex, but this person may still have some homosexual tendicies. And those right in the middle tend to be bisexual or so the theory goes.

Alternatively those who don't believe in the scale, recognize that there are people imbetween, but think this is a small portion of society and think that most people are on the extreme ends of either being entirely straight or entirely homosexual.


(If you were born male, but identify as a woman please vote as a male since I'm trying to see if there is a genetic cause, women who identify as men should vote as a woman).

I believe that this is true, but in most situations the curve is shifted dramatically to the heterosexual side due to social norms.

Kinsey has no credibility whatsoever. He was a sorry excuse for a scientist, an utter fraud. Most of the people he interviewed for his research were whores, pedophiles, prison inmates, sexual deviants, etc. Several of his researchers were also child molesters. Read all about the real Kinsey in Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith Reisman.

Kinsey has no credibility whatsoever. He was a sorry excuse for a scientist, an utter fraud. Most of the people he interviewed for his research were whores, pedophiles, prison inmates, sexual deviants, etc. Several of his researchers were also child molesters. Read all about the real Kinsey in Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith Reisman.
I've read all about the REAL Kinsey in Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences: The Red Queen and The Grand Scheme, as well as in Sex and the Measure of All Things: A Life of Alfred C. Kinsey, The Kinsey Corruption, and Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life. When you're as well-read as some others, and you've been presented with arguments from both sides, as well as the reasoning behind why he chose some of the people he chose for his study, come back and we'll discuss. I'd love to hear your opinion, but not based off of just one book.

Simonist']I've read all about the REAL Kinsey in Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences: The Red Queen and The Grand Scheme, as well as in Sex and the Measure of All Things: A Life of Alfred C. Kinsey, The Kinsey Corruption, and Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life. When you're as well-read as some others, and you've been presented with arguments from both sides, as well as the reasoning behind why he chose some of the people he chose for his study, come back and we'll discuss. I'd love to hear your opinion, but not based off of just one book.

Have you really read them? They're virtually the only reliable books on Kinsey. Most Kinsey books are footnote-free whitewashes that make no mention of his crimes. Did you know, for example, that one of his "researchers" was a former Nazi who once molested Jewish children before sending them to the gas chambers? Or that his research on children and sexuality involved sexually torturing infants and small children? The man was a fucking nut-case, who should have been shot like a rabid dog.

Have you really read them? They're virtually the only reliable books on Kinsey. Most Kinsey books are footnote-free whitewashes that make no mention of his crimes. Did you know, for example, that one of his "researchers" was a former Nazi who once molested Jewish children before sending them to the gas chambers? Or that his research on children and sexuality involved sexually torturing infants and small children? The man was a fucking nut-case, who should have been shot like a rabid dog.
Why would I have posetd that I'd read them if I hadn't? I did a report on Kinsey and his research for Psych 2 a few years back. Yes. I read about Kinsey. But all I'm saying is, I don't think that based off of ONE biased book, you should make that kind of a judgement. If I read one very well-written book from an eloquent racist that convinced me that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a menace and an attention whore, and any real "benefit" he gave to society was a waste of taxpayers' money, don't you think it would then be fair for me to examine the other side of the coin?

Yeah, the books biased. Guess what: All sources are biased, to a certain extent (some more so than others). I don't give damn about bias, so long as the person names names and lists sources. I'd rather read a biased book loaded with documentation than an unbiased, footnote-free book.

Yeah, the books biased. Guess what: All sources are biased, to a certain extent (some more so than others). I don't give damn about bias, so long as the person names names and lists sources. I'd rather read a biased book loaded with documentation than an unbiased, footnote-free book.
Well it's great that your simple refusal to broaden your own intellectual enlightenment will go so far as to ignore even the books that I did mention, none of which are "unbiased, footnote-free" books, but at least two of which will present BOTH SIDES. Wonderful debate tactics.....denial's a great argument.

Worthless waste of time. I'm out. Enjoy your stunted views.

Simonist']Well it's great that your simple refusal to broaden your own intellectual enlightenment will go so far as to ignore even the books that I did mention, none of which are "unbiased, footnote-free" books, but at least two of which will present BOTH SIDES. Wonderful debate tactics.....denial's a great argument.

Worthless waste of time. I'm out. Enjoy your stunted views.

I have read those books you listed. I have no respect for people who omit less than pleasant facts about someone, and are more interested in white-washing than they are in telling the truth.

I don't believe in it because I'm not even anywhere on the scale.

I don't believe in it because I'm not even anywhere on the scale.
Actually, you are on the scale, dead center. If you disregard either sex as equally worthless in bed, then you are a bisexual with no drive. You are only an asexual if you regularly split into self maintaining wholes.
On the other hand, I think that the Kinsey scale is a load of crap, and that men purport it simply because they like to believe that all women want to make out with other women at least a little bit.

I believe it, being a man that is deffinately attracted to women but still able to occasionally say, "God, he's good looking." Even if the scale is not quite right, the general idea that sexuality is not an "on/off" thing is seems to have plenty of evidence.

On the other hand, I think that the Kinsey scale is a load of crap, and that men purport it simply because they like to believe that all women want to make out with other women at least a little bit.

Indeed, that does seem to be a common thing. I've actually heard one man say "all women are actually bisexual".

Indeed, that does seem to be a common thing. I've actually heard one man say "all women are actually bisexual".
Beyond simple lust, there is the fact that no one can completely relate to someone else's views. Therefore, a gay man/straight woman/bisexual will never be able to completely believe that someone can not be turned on by a hot guy, and the same goes for the lesbian/straight man/bisexual who will never understand someone night being infatuated with boobies.

Someday, we will evolve beyond labeling people based on who they have sex with. :p

Someday, we will evolve beyond labeling people based on who they have sex with. :p
I agree. Sexuality should be less labelled and more enjoyed.

Another thread inspired me to ask this question. I was wondering if men or women are more likely to believe in the Kinsley scale.

The Kinsley scale is the idea that only a few people are turely homosexual or heterosexual and that most people fall somewhere imbetween. Someone who is inbetween but leans towards heterosexuality might end up only dating the opposite sex, but this person may still have some homosexual tendicies. And those right in the middle tend to be bisexual or so the theory goes.

Alternatively those who don't believe in the scale, recognize that there are people imbetween, but think this is a small portion of society and think that most people are on the extreme ends of either being entirely straight or entirely homosexual.


(If you were born male, but identify as a woman please vote as a male since I'm trying to see if there is a genetic cause, women who identify as men should vote as a woman).

If the Kinsey scale describes a normal population, i.e., can be represented by a bell curve, then I don't believe it's an accurate descriptor.

Using a bell curve, I think that means that 2/3 of all people fall between somewhat bisexual to somewhat homosexual. That means that people who are very heterosexual or very homosexual are a very small percentage of the population.

That doesn't work with my life experience, which indicates the majority of people are heterosexual.

Someday, we will evolve beyond labeling people based on who they have sex with. :p
Someday, we will evolve beyond labeling colors based on whether they are red or not. We'll also realize that names are silly labels, because there is no difference between people, and so everyone will be called Bob (even the women, because there is no difference between sexes).
Some day, we'll forget that there is a rather definite difference between wanting to have sex with men and not wanting women, or wanting women and not wanting men.

Someday, we will evolve beyond labeling colors based on whether they are red or not. We'll also realize that names are silly labels, because there is no difference between people, and so everyone will be called Bob (even the women, because there is no difference between sexes).
Some day, we'll forget that there is a rather definite difference between wanting to have sex with men and not wanting women, or wanting women and not wanting men.

We'll all be Bobosexuals. :D

Indeed, that does seem to be a common thing. I've actually heard one man say "all women are actually bisexual".
As Henry Rollins once said, "Men just can't accept that there might be a woman who has no need for their penis."