"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? "
If you find yourself jealous of the physical traits of a female, you're at least a 4. You might as well start taping back dick, really. "
So if you're a male and you're jealous of another male's features, then you're gay; but if you're a male and you're jealous of a female's features, then you're gay...so how does one become straight?
"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. "
This is an anonymous survey on an Internet site where we're all more or less anonymous. If stigmas and social pressures affect your answer, then you've got a problem.
And I really don't think determining food preferences is that different from determining sexual preferences. If as much effort was put into studying taste in food as in studying sexual orientation, I think we'd be talking about roughly the same things (the subconscious, social pressure) -- we just don't think food preferences are nearly as important as sexual orientation, and so we dismiss it as less important, and therefore less complex.
As for the survey, if you aren't in the least sexually attracted to members of your own gender, I say answer 0. You can't account for your subconscious, only your conscious, so that's obviously what you should answer with -- weighting your choice because of statistics doesn't make any sense. If the overwhelming majority -- say 95% -- of the people Kinsley studied were in the 4-6 area, would you pick a 3 or a 4 simply because statistically, there's a very good chance you are in that area? "
Anonymity has nothing to do with it; people's perceptions about homosexuality often come from their environment, but the issue of their own sexual orientation remains a personal matter. A person who has had a homoerotic dream before, because of all the negative things they've heard about homosexuality, may choose to rationalize and say that it doesn't indicate any subconscious tendencies.
Can you elaborate on the social pressures associated with food? Other than the occasional need to lie about liking a dish, a person is generally free from that kind of stuff when it comes to what they eat.
If 95% of the people that Kinsley studied were in the 4-6 area, and I had confidence that the results were fairly reliable, I would indeed take that into account. Knowing that most people are heterosexual, I would find it strange that so many are falling in the bisexual or homosexual range, but I may kick my answer up to 2 or 3.
Really Icemael, I have no idea what your problem is. We can all agree that the scale doesn't give enough specific detail about which score you should get, but the statistics provided, namely that very few people get a 0, provide a context that allows people to make more informed decisions. If you just want to wing it and say that because you're not gay, you're 0, then fine; I think that's pretty silly, but fine. I think the fact that 25% of respondents on this poll chose 0 shows that there's something wrong with the way people are judging themselves. Say, for instance, if you asked the people on some regular forum how smart they were. The options are, "genius, intelligent, average, dull, impaired." If 50% of them chose genius, and a fair number of people had responded to the poll, I think it would be fair to assume that something was amiss.
It's pretty silly, so many of you are probably 0s (if Kinsey's scale has any credibility to begin with) but you're too afraid to look like a homophobe to admit it.
It's okay fellas. It's not your fault you're straight: You were born that way! At giantbomb, we accept people of all lifestyles, including those weirdo straight people.
Being a '2' does not make you 'mostly straight but politically correct and progressively minded'. It means that you hold significant sexual attraction towards the same sex as yourself. That's the implication of what you guys are saying and I hope you realize it.
" 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. "
I'm a 1 I suppose, I can tell if a dude is good looking or not, but I don't really know what the different levels on the graph even mean anyway so this is a waste of time.
" I've never, ever been physically attracted to another man. So 0.
Unless Kinsley counts dudes that look like chicks. In that case, 1. (This one time I saw a picture of a hot Japanese chick, and it turned out to be a dude. The idea of her... him having a penis completely killed any attraction, though.) "
Neither have I, However I do know the difference between an attractive man & an ugly man, That in and of itself is enough to warrant a 1 my friend.
" 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. "
Then I guess I have a case of Stand Alone Complex then. Having any mans private parts in my mouth or ass is beyond sickening to me. Cheers to you if you don't mind sucking or being penetrated by wang. It's not for me.
" I've never, ever been physically attracted to another man. So 0.
Unless Kinsley counts dudes that look like chicks. In that case, 1. (This one time I saw a picture of a hot Japanese chick, and it turned out to be a dude. The idea of her... him having a penis completely killed any attraction, though.) "
Neither have I, However I do know the difference between an attractive man & an ugly man, That in and of itself is enough to warrant a 1 my friend. "
"Anonymity has nothing to do with it; people's perceptions about homosexuality often come from their environment, but the issue of their own sexual orientation remains a personal matter. A person who has had a homoerotic dream before, because of all the negative things they've heard about homosexuality, may choose to rationalize and say that it doesn't indicate any subconscious tendencies."
1 on the Kinsey scale means "predominately heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual"; if you've had a gay dream, then that's a homosexual incident. Period. If you feel the need to choose 0 on an anonymous online test to make you feel better, then you've got a problem, and honestly, I think people with those kinds of problems are a very small minority (especially on this site).
@Termite said:
"Can you elaborate on the social pressures associated with food? Other than the occasional need to lie about liking a dish, a person is generally free from that kind of stuff when it comes to what they eat."
An example: Someone you greatly respect gives you food you can't stand. You pretend to like it, though, because you don't want to seem ungrateful. This happens again and again, and eventually, you've fooled yourself that you actually like it, even though you don't.
@Termite said:
"If 95% of the people that Kinsley studied were in the 4-6 area, and I had confidence that the results were fairly reliable, I would indeed take that into account. Knowing that most people are heterosexual, I would find it strange that so many are falling in the bisexual or homosexual range, but I may kick my answer up to 2 or 3. Really Icemael, I have no idea what your problem is. We can all agree that the scale doesn't give enough specific detail about which score you should get, but the statistics provided, namely that very few people get a 0, provide a context that allows people to make more informed decisions. If you just want to wing it and say that because you're not gay, you're 0, then fine; I think that's pretty silly, but fine. I think the fact that 25% of respondents on this poll chose 0 shows that there's something wrong with the way people are judging themselves. Say, for instance, if you asked the people on some regular forum how smart they were. The options are, "genius, intelligent, average, dull, impaired." If 50% of them chose genius, and a fair number of people had responded to the poll, I think it would be fair to assume that something was amiss. "
My problem is that when you weight your answer, you devalue it. If you've never had a homosexual incident and answer 2 or 3, you're essentially gambling. You're saying "I might be in this area, but then again, I might not" -- if that's your answer, why even answer the poll?
If you answer 0, however, you're saying "Judging by the facts I currently have available, I am definitely in this area" which is an answer actually worth a damn. Especially seeing as that's the only proper answer the large majority of people answering this particular poll on this particular site can give.
It might sound a little crazy I know but: I think all men are ugly and can't ever understand how a woman is sexually attracted to us at all. So I guess I sit at a big fat 0 on the scale.
I do know the difference between an attractive man & an ugly man, That in and of itself is enough to warrant a 1 my friend. "
So basically; if you see some deranged, snot-dribbling, franken-hobo dragging his knuckles down the street and think "hey that guy is indeed quite ugly" - BAM! All of a sudden - bisexual?
It's pretty silly, so many of you are probably 0s (if Kinsey's scale has any credibility to begin with) but you're too afraid to look like a homophobe to admit it.
It's okay fellas. It's not your fault you're straight: You were born that way! At giantbomb, we accept people of all lifestyles, including those weirdo straight people.
Being a '2' does not make you 'mostly straight but politically correct and progressively minded'. It means that you hold significant sexual attraction towards the same sex as yourself. That's the implication of what you guys are saying and I hope you realize it.
"
You don't seem to understand what the numbers represent. You seem to be guessing. Insecure.
Are you afraid if you saw a penis you would get turned on? If it does nothing for you, why consciously avoid it? It should be no different than the chair in the background, just a prop. But you're making an effort specifically to avoid it. Are you not attracted to straight sex? How can a straight person not be attracted to straight sex?
Well I have to say I really don't understand the question the chart ask, is it Completely sexual or my ability to recognize someones sex appeal I don't get it. Because if its just willingness to have sex with another than that is a big Fat ZEROOOOOOOO. I am sure that I fall into the standard 1 but I can't answer that because I don't know what the question is.
I know this sounds extremely stereo-typical man-in-denial, but I genuinely don't find dudes attractive.
0 for me.
EDIT: After reading some of the other comments, I maintain my 0 simply on the grounds I don't find guys attractive. I agree with the statement that my 0 doesn't mean I am a homophobe as well; dude, I get hit on by gay guys all the time and it doesn't bother me.
Log in to comment