Where do you sit on the Kinsey scale?

1. Anyone that says 0 is a liar.

I said "2".  Ha! I remember saying to my best friend growing up once "Hey, if you weren't a guy..."  I don't know if I've had homoerotic dreams in the past, but I would be surprised if I haven't.  And, I can look at a good-looking man and say, that's a handsome man.  However, thoughts of Brad Pitt lathered in Crisco don't command my attention whereas Selma Hayek reading the newspaper does.  

Zero doesn't mean sexually inactive, guys. I can understand the confusion though and I appreciate the honesty.

" Zero doesn't mean sexually inactive, guys. I can understand the confusion though and I appreciate the honesty. "

Guess I'm a 1. I'm totally hetero, but that doesn't mean I can't think a guy is attractive.
 
Btw, usually it's the homophobes who are closet-homo. :)

people who answer zero, and then post to say they are zeroes, are probably secret 5's

" Guess I'm a 1. I'm totally hetero, but that doesn't mean I can't think a guy is attractive.  Btw, usually it's the homophobes who are closet-homo. :) "

If you ever had to turn off some Asian gangbang porn because the dicks weren't big enough, you might be a little gay. If you ever watched a Peter North compilation, you might be a little gay. If you ever watched a porn where the camera cuts to the dude's face right before a money shot and didn't stop masturbating, you might be a little gay.

0
 
But didn't Kinsey use prisoners who were convicted for sexual crimes as his test subjects?

2, since having the ability to transform into video game characters (many of which are girls) kinda fucks with you on many levels.

" @Termite said:

"And no, I'm not saying you should base your choice on statistics"

@Termite said:

"it's better to gravitate towards the norm than the extremes."

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't base my choice on statistics, but on... statistics. Okay.  I am of the opinion that you should work with what you have. If you later get ahold of information that gives you reason to change your decision, change your decision then; doing it preemptively makes no sense. It's like answering "2" on a survey asking "How much do you like peanuts on a scale of 1-5" even though you can't stand peanuts, because almost everyone the dude who made the scale ever studied liked peanuts at least a little bit. "

" @BattleShinobi: Wait so if you're fully gay at 5, then what is 6? Is that the point where a sex change occurs? lol ;P "

1 I can be around guys without flipping the fuck out. Also I can admit when I guy is good looking or ugly. Because 0 sounds like you get freaked out by your own penis.

The fact that so many people here think that 0 = homophobe. Shows that this graph is not very well defined.

I don't think I would ever do anything exclusively with a guy (not opposed to group sessions with guys around, just no direct contact) because it doesn't really turn me on, but it doesn't turn me off either. I'm just apathetic towards males and wouldn't really enjoy it. I do, however, LOVE women so it kinda makes the whole "would I with a guy"  proposition mute. If I was in jail for life, or on an Island with one man forever, I honestly can't say what would happen. I'm leaning towards sexual activity occurring, but it is possible I would find some alternate way to satisfy my needs.
 
Here is my question. If you were married to someone you thought was a woman/man for several years and you had never had sex or had seen his/her genitals (I know it's unlikely that you and your spouse wouldn't be having sex or that you wouldn't know about their genitals, but for the sake of what if), and you later found out he/she had the opposite of what you expected, would you still engage in sex at that point. Also, If you did, would it be based on love for the person and completely void of sexual pleasure?
 
I rated myself a 2, wouldn't be surprised to find out I was a 3 or 4 by Kinsey's standards. I just don't know what he considered a 3/4.

Kinsey was hack who tried to justify his own behaviors through shady research.

You thread needs more Masters and Johnson, less Kinsey.

I cast my vote on 1, because the occasional hug is nice.

" @Icemael said:

" @Termite said:

"And no, I'm not saying you should base your choice on statistics"

@Termite said:

"it's better to gravitate towards the norm than the extremes."

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't base my choice on statistics, but on... statistics. Okay.  I am of the opinion that you should work with what you have. If you later get ahold of information that gives you reason to change your decision, change your decision then; doing it preemptively makes no sense. It's like answering "2" on a survey asking "How much do you like peanuts on a scale of 1-5" even though you can't stand peanuts, because almost everyone the dude who made the scale ever studied liked peanuts at least a little bit. "

My choice was affected by the statistics of the matter, not based on them. I was acknowledging the fact that since 0 is less common than 1, it makes sense to choose 1 with a lack of evidence either way.   Knowing what you like to eat is a much simpler task than knowing the precise nature of your sexual orientation. One's food preferences are much easier to determine, and more simple psychologically, than sexual orientation, and there isn't a web of stigmas and social pressures associated with peanut consumption. "

1 as far as I'm aware.... 
eh, whatever

I'm a 2.
<.<
>.>

I would have to say that I'm a great big fantastic 
 

I like girls. 

2 probably
 
I'm not attracted to males, but that doesn't mean I won't appreciate someone who has put effort into the way they look.

Probably a 2... might be a 3 though.

I'd say a 2 or 3.

2 or 3

i'll go for a 1 or 2 because although i'm completely straight and shudder at even kissing another man, i'm ok with joking about being gay with my friends, I can recognize an attractive man when i see one, etc. 

2 or 3 I'd reckon. I mean I class myself as heterosexual but sometimes you're on the train and you see the man with the most fascinating facial hair ever...

7.

" @Termite said:

" I like how everybody thinks they're at a 0, although the OP clearly states that almost everybody Kinsey profiled got at least a 1. Everybody's letting their homophobia get ahead of their reading ability.  "

On the contrary; their reading ability is exactly what they're making use of. Beyond "0 = Exclusively heterosexual" and "6 = Exclusively homosexual" no explanation for the scale is offered. What does it matter if almost everyone Kinsley profiled got at least a 1? Am I supposed to ignore the only information I've got -- that 0 means exclusively heterosexual, and that I've never been physically attracted to a man (with the exception of one that looked like a woman, and that I was only attracted to until I found out the truth) -- and instead base my choice on statistics? "

I guess 1?  I've never been attracted to a male but I've can look at a dude and gauge whether or not he is an attractive male, so I guess that's a 1?

" @jadeskye said:

" @Cube said:

" 6 for Freddie Mercury. "

Lol yes. "

The guys who say they wouldn't go gay for FM are probably really gay.  I am very much a straight man, but god damn. "

By the way this topic is terrible and OP should be ashamed.

kinsey was a sexual deviant and a child-molester-enabler.

" @Cube: No 6 for Harrison Ford! "

" @Daveyo520 said:

" @Cube: No 6 for Harrison Ford! "

Freddie Mercury > Han Solo 
  
 
Indiana Jones>The lead singer of Queen

Not true, Freddie actually existed and packed that much awesome (also fudge).

If you have the ability to look into a mirror and determine your own level of attractiveness, you have standards for male beauty and you are not a zero. Stop being so insecure, internet.

well... there was this one time. We were camping and ---.  
 
It's hard to believe that so many would put '0.' If you so much as notice that some guy is more attractive than you or if you wish you were as tall as some other guy, then you'd be at least a 1.

"If you so much as notice that some guy is more attractive than you or if you wish you were as tall as some other guy, then you'd be at least a 1. "

" @MadeinFinland said:

"If you so much as notice that some guy is more attractive than you or if you wish you were as tall as some other guy, then you'd be at least a 1. "

How does noticing something about someone of the same gender increase your homosexuality? What if you are 0 and you wish that you were as tall as some particularly tall girl. Does that then make you -1 on the scale - ie. some kind of Xtreme Heterosexual? "