Kinsey and Bisexuality

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I would think Kinsey 3's would be as rare, being right smack dab in the middle, as being a 6 or a 0.


Anyway, if a dabble of youthful experimentation puts a current 6 as a permanent 3 in Kinsey's book, I think Kinsey's methodology is a little too skewed.

Skewed indeed. And that also kind of illustrates the flaw of Kinsey's "reported behavior" criteria. Sure, based on behavior on a recent time scale, you're a 6, but that shift in behavior comes more from your relationship status than an actual shift in preference.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by ubergeek42

as for the kinsey scale, without knowing too much in depth about it, I could see myself as a 3...
I know I am not a 1 or 6...

So, for the purposes of classifying Not Afraid's husband's, what are we to make of this?

Does the geek know enough about the kinsey scale to know he'd be a 3 based on some youthful indiscretions long since forgotten, or is the mid-range self-rating something less purely Kinseyan?


Whichever way it turns out, I find it much more interesting if NA's hubbies have a variety of sexual desires.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Whichever way it turns out, I find it much more interesting if NA's hubbies have a variety of sexual desires.

And why should you think otherwise?

[Not Afraid]

You know, most people go through an experimental stage of their life. You do drugs, try all types of sex, just explore other possabilities that wern't presented to you in the past. I think with boys, as they grow up, their early sexual experiences are all of the homosexual variety because, that's what's available. I would say the same types of things happens with girls as well. In High School or College, a lot of new things are put on the table to be checked out. Add alcohol or drugs in there a person looses many inhibitions.

So, to say that what I am today is based on what I've done in the past does not really make sense. I think, for me, I did any experimentation I did to figure out what I preferred over what I didn't prefer. I probably would be classified as a Kinsey 3 based on my experiences, but, in reality. I'm more like a Kinsey 1. The old "been there, done that adage works for me". I don't need to keep trying new things because, I've done most of them already. At this point in time, I know what I like and know how to get it.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Blah blah blah. This all about who would be pleased at the idea of me having sex with another woman.

Count me in, babe.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

At this point in time, I know what I like and know how to get it.

Rrrraaaaowwh!

[MickeyLumbo]

[quote=Prudence]Well, my first girlfriend was a lesbian...


QUOTE]

i'm not gay, but my boyfriend is

[Kevy Baby]

I have been fascinated watching others discuss my sexuality.

Couldn't argue with any of the comments.

[MickeyLumbo]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I have been fascinated watching others discuss my sexuality.

Couldn't argue with any of the comments.

and i hope you noticed not a peep from me about us on the Matterhorn. remember, mums the word.

zip it!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

what do you think of Kinsey's notion that we are intrinsically bisexual?

I think I disagree. But it's very difficult to know how most folks feel about the issue because so few are willing to truly discuss their feelings honestly. Well, other than folks posting in this thread.

I gotta be honest and say I don't understand bisexuality at all. I accept it, but I don't "get" it.

Kinsey would definitely rank me a 6. I have never had a sexual fantasy involving a woman, never been sexually attracted to a woman, nor had physical relations with a woman. From a very early age, I knew I was gay. So when I try to imagine a guy being attracted to a woman (to any degree), I have no personal point of reference—the concept is totally foreign to me.

In addition, I don't define sexuality the way Kinsey did. To me, a person's orientation is defined by which gender they are able to form romantic/emotional bonds with, i.e., love. If you're a woman who only falls in love with men but occasionally "does it" with chicks, you're not bisexual—you're a straight woman who likes to play with ladies. But if you're a woman who does fall in love with both chicks and dudes, you are indeed bisexual. (Again, this is just my personal definition. I don't expect others to adopt it.)

Years ago I used to think that anyone who called themselves bisexual was either a straight person who wanted to sound chic or a gay person who couldn't quite drag themselves all the way out of the closet. I have since become enlightened. While I still think some of the aforementioned types exist, I have come to learn that there truly are folks who dig both the chicks and the dudes. And if that works for you, more power to you!