Problems with the Kinsey Scale

Take any sort of sexuality course and you will probably learn about the Kinsey Scale. The scale, ranging from 0-6 goes from exclusively heterosexual (0) to exclusively homosexual (6). It looks something like this:

The scale, produced in the 1940s, was pretty radical for its time. Kinsey was one of the first researchers to suggest that sexual orientation is more than simply:

But rather, that sexual orientation comes on a

Okay, I’m sorry. I’ll close Paint now :P

So basically, Kinsey was formally recognizing bisexuality as an “in between” to homosexuality and heterosexuality. And in fact, Kinsey made another radical claim that is still to this day considered controversial: that most people are at least a little bisexual. He asserted that even having close emotional friendships with the same sex constituted “homosexual behavior” – which most of us have, right? Not to mention all those secret desires out there to get kinky with more than 1 sex (yeah, I’m readin your emails yall ;]). Kinsey’s research indicated that most people fell between the numbers 1 and 5.

The Kinsey Scale remains a useful tool for teaching people about sexual orientation as a spectrum. I personally use it when introducing this concept in a 101 context. It’s a helpful intro tool, but not for any deeper discussion of sexual identity and orientation. Our knowledge about this topic has grown exponentially in the last 70 years – yes, it’s really been that long.

Here are some limitations of the Kinsey Scale.

1. The Kinsey Scale assumes sexual orientation is all about the biological sex of your mate. But…in reality, who we’re attracted to doesn’t always come down to what’s between their legs. For instance, gender identity tends to be a major component for people. While some people may be attracted to vaginas, they may not be attracted if that person identifies as a man. Similarly, some people may be attracted to folks who identify as women, regardless of whether she has a vagina or a penis.

2. The Kinsey Scale only addresses one form of attraction. The scale carries the assumption that sexual attraction is the crux of your sexual identity. In reality, several variables come in to create a completely unique picture of who YOU, as a sexual person, are.

Beyond sexual attraction, people experience romantic attraction, emotional attraction, attraction in sexual fantasies vs actual sexual desires, who you actually sleep with vs who you may want to sleep with, gender expression, etc.

3. The Kinsey Scale only offers “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, “bisexual”, and “asexual” as orientation choices. (“Asexual” was added a tad later with an “X” category hanging off the end). These days, people have really broadened the horizons on how you can identify yourself. The sexual revolution of the 60s/70s, in particular, lead to breaking out of the gender/sexual orientation boxes. People have been creating more terms to better capture their identities. Some of these are:

☂ Pansexual – attraction across all gender identities and biological sexes. Think “gender blind”.
☂ Demisexual – sexual attraction is experienced only when accompanied by a strong emotional attraction. Viewed as a “halfway”/demi point between asexual and sexual.
☂ Homoromantic/heteroromantic/aromantic – attraction is experienced romantically rather than sexually.

The labels can get tiring, but you get the point. I don’t think it’s necessary for a scale to accurately pin every possible orientation label people use to aid the understanding of their preferences. However, an accurate scale would offer exponentially more ways to orient your identity. Sexual identity can’t be smushed into 4 categories just like gender identity can’t be smushed into 2.

Alternatives to Kinsey
The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid produced by Dr. Fritz Klein in the early 90′s is the closest I’ve found to accuracy. It looks like this:

A. Sexual Attraction – physical arousal, erotic desire
B. Sexual Behavior – who you kiss, foreplay, manual/oral stimulation, vaginal/anal sex, etc
C. Sexual Fantasies – sexual day dreams, erotic thoughts
D. Emotional Preference – intimate feelings, romantic love
E. Social Preference – friendships, colleagues
F. Lifestyle – what causes you’re affiliated with, what circles you move in
G. Self Identification – how do you identify yourself?

Past – More than a year ago
Present – The last year of your life
Ideal – What would you eventually like?

For each category, grade on a scale of 1-7. 1 is Other Sex Only, 4 is Both Sexes, 7 is Same Sex Only.

The drawbacks here: some asexuals, trans*folk, and people attracted to trans*folk will still be excluded from this model. That said, it’s an improvement from Kinsey, and I do think it gets the point (mostly) across: sexual orientation, a major part of sexual identity, cannot be reduced to a straight line.

83 thoughts on “Problems with the Kinsey Scale

  1. Great article. It’s difficult when people ask what my sexuality is as I don’t think it fits into a box. It shows that labels are not possible to be completely accurate.

    • Yeah, it’s interesting. Lots of people really love their labels, probably because it helps unite people in their experiences. But like you say, labels are not always going to be completely accurate. Labels are just tools to help you/others understand…a tool to be discarded if it starts to limit you or cause more problems than help! :)

      • THIS IS A QUICK REPLY TO YOUR YOU TUBE VIDEO, EVIL: GOD LOVES IT AND SO SHOULD YOU.
        FIRST THING TO CLEAR UP: GOD BEING ALL KNOWING IS NOT A REFUTATION TO OUR FREEWILL. EXAMPLE, IF I SNEAK INTO YOUR ROOM AND READ YOUR WEEKLY PLANNED JOURNAL, AND NOW I KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING NEXT WEEK, THAT DOES NOT REFUTE ANYTHING, I JUST KNOW, SO WHAT?

        1] YES, GOD COULD DEVISE A NEW PLAN, BUT SINCE HE IS OMNISCIENT, PERHAPS LACY, HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING THE WHOLE TIME, AND STILL DOES.
        2] ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. BABIES, WARS, INNOCENCE, GOD WILL DEAL WITH THESE ACCORDINGLY TO HIS DIVINE UNDERSTANDING. I’M SURE HE’S NOT GOING TO CONDEMN A BABY, OR A PERSON WHO NEVER KNEW HIM. THINK DEEPER?
        3] YOU SAY IF GOD WERE ALL POWERFUL, HE COULD ELIMINATE OUR NEED TO BE STRONGER. WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STRONG IN BRUTE FORCE, BUT RATHER HUMILITY AND WEAKNESS, A OPPOSITION OF OUR NATURAL NATURE BRINGS GLORY TO GOD. YOU SAY IF GOD REALLY WAS THIS AND REALLY WAS THAT, HE THAT ALL POWERFUL, BUT IT IS HIS PLAN NOT YOURS. YOU STILL HAVE THAT MORMON GOD COMPLEX IT APPEARS LACY. IT DISTORTS CLEAR THINKING AND MAKES YOUR EGO SWELL SO BIG THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANOTHER PERSON’S WILL, OR EVEN GOD’S FOR THAT MATTER.
        4] GOD DID NOT NEGLECT TO MAKE THE GOOD THAT WE LACK. WE ATE FROM THE TREE WHICH GOD COMMANDED US NOT TO, AND NOW WE ARE REBELLIOUS BY NATURE, EVIL. CHRIST IS THE SALVATION TO THIS PROBLEM. HIS DEATH SENT US A HOLY SPIRIT.
        5]INNOCENT SUFFER BECAUSE THE DEVIL TAKES THEM OFF OUR PATH. THEY ALSO DIE FROM NATURAL DISASTERS. YES, GOD CONTROLS THOSE TO. THIS EARTH IS A WAR GROUND THAT OUR SOULS ARE IN, AND SOME FIGHT THE WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD, AND SOME ACCEPT IT, THE EASY WAY.
        6]YOU MAY IGNORE THE MORAL ORDER WITHIN YOU PUT BY GOD, BUT IT’S STILL THERE SLEEPING UNTIL YOU WAKE UP.

      • Make labels and categorize is part of the human process of learning, we need to put a name to everythiiiing. I think the problem is to consider everything as black and white.
        I’m totally agree with this perspective about gender (as a spectrum). And this perspective is very hard to explain to most people here in my country, Venezuela. Even a LOT of psychology students have strong prejudices about this perspective and only see “heterosexual/ homosexual” wich is kind of annoying because if you try to explain they say you’re crazy, wrong or something like that. Sex ed here is very poor :(

        sorry for the writing mistakes, normally I speak spanish
        Finally: Laci, I really appreciate your work.

        • It’s okay, my sex ed so far hasn’t even touched on gender identitiy or sexuality (I’m 15). So sex ed isn’t that great in the uk either… Like you, i really appreciate Laci’s work. Big thank you Laci! I found this article really interesting and i learnt a lot, as i do from all of Laci’s stuff.

          Thanks!

          P.S. Writing mistakes? The only one was ‘make’ which should be ‘making’ I am sooo jealous of your language skills!!

      • I have difficulty describing my sexuality (not that I need to, but I feel that I am a good example of someone who does not fit in these scales). While I don’t usually identify with transgender (because I prefer to identify solely as female), I am transgender female. In the gender-binary world I have always been more attracted to females than to males. My partner, Nova, is bigender and female-bodied. Nova’s gender always changes. Nova can be male, female, female and male, or neither (or others). It can be dependent on or be independent of what Nova is wearing. For example, the other day Nova was wearing a skirt, s/he said s/he felt like a boy in girl’s clothes, yet s/he still felt comfortable. This is only a basic explanation of his/her gender, but s/he meets my current requirements I have of him/her as a lover.

        My needs of a lover are more complex than any gender or sexuality labels or scales can describe.

        • That’s very interesting. I never really thought that someone could identify with more than one gender at once, sorry if I sound really ignorant. “S/he meets my current requirements I have of him/her as a lover. My needs of a lover are more complex than any gender or sexuality labels or scales can describe.” In just thought that this was really beautiful. You’re right; people are not simple so we should stop describing ourselves as such. Thank you for opening my eyes to the possibilities that being human holds. :)

  2. Thanks Laci, interesting as usual. Do you think we should work in order to create a more accurate scale or model that depicts sexual orientation, gender identity and so on, or just admit that the spectrum has too many shades and -as i’ve heard once- say that ther is one sexual orientation and one gender identiy per human being? is this simply a lazy answer? -excuse my poor english.

    • Hey Federico, I’m not sure I 100% understand what you mean. More inclusive models that help people to understand sexual identity better would be helpful, but I don’t think it’s a good usage of time to find a model that captures everything and everybody – there are simply too many options. I could be wrong, but I think it just gets overcomplicated and more confusing for people.

      There definitely is not just one s/o and gender identity though! There are millions of identities. I think we should work to expand our horizons on what’s possible, not limit them :)

      • That’s kinda what I meant, trying to find a working model sounds too difficult, if not impossible, so we should teach the idea that there is no point in labeling sexuality, since everyone’s is different.

        • Everyone is different, but not to the point where that general labels don’t make sense. Most ppl fit very well into most sexual labels

      • I believe he means should we say that each person has a different s/o and gender identity relative to themselves, just like every snowflake is different and unique. Perhaps the very core of s/o and gender identity is a more subjective matter? Or perhaps it is objective, just with a ton of different possible combinations and cases and factors and…etc.

      • THIS IS A QUICK REPLY TO YOUR YOU TUBE VIDEO, EVIL: GOD LOVES IT AND SO SHOULD YOU.
        FIRST THING TO CLEAR UP: GOD BEING ALL KNOWING IS NOT A REFUTATION TO OUR FREEWILL. EXAMPLE, IF I SNEAK INTO YOUR ROOM AND READ YOUR WEEKLY PLANNED JOURNAL, AND NOW I KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING NEXT WEEK, THAT DOES NOT REFUTE ANYTHING, I JUST KNOW, SO WHAT?

        1] YES, GOD COULD DEVISE A NEW PLAN, BUT SINCE HE IS OMNISCIENT, PERHAPS LACY, HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING THE WHOLE TIME, AND STILL DOES.
        2] ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. BABIES, WARS, INNOCENCE, GOD WILL DEAL WITH THESE ACCORDINGLY TO HIS DIVINE UNDERSTANDING. I’M SURE HE’S NOT GOING TO CONDEMN A BABY, OR A PERSON WHO NEVER KNEW HIM. THINK DEEPER?
        3] YOU SAY IF GOD WERE ALL POWERFUL, HE COULD ELIMINATE OUR NEED TO BE STRONGER. WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STRONG IN BRUTE FORCE, BUT RATHER HUMILITY AND WEAKNESS, A OPPOSITION OF OUR NATURAL NATURE BRINGS GLORY TO GOD. YOU SAY IF GOD REALLY WAS THIS AND REALLY WAS THAT, HE THAT ALL POWERFUL, BUT IT IS HIS PLAN NOT YOURS. YOU STILL HAVE THAT MORMON GOD COMPLEX IT APPEARS LACY. IT DISTORTS CLEAR THINKING AND MAKES YOUR EGO SWELL SO BIG THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANOTHER PERSON’S WILL, OR EVEN GOD’S FOR THAT MATTER.
        4] GOD DID NOT NEGLECT TO MAKE THE GOOD THAT WE LACK. WE ATE FROM THE TREE WHICH GOD COMMANDED US NOT TO, AND NOW WE ARE REBELLIOUS BY NATURE, EVIL. CHRIST IS THE SALVATION TO THIS PROBLEM. HIS DEATH SENT US A HOLY SPIRIT.
        5]INNOCENT SUFFER BECAUSE THE DEVIL TAKES THEM OFF OUR PATH. THEY ALSO DIE FROM NATURAL DISASTERS. YES, GOD CONTROLS THOSE TO. THIS EARTH IS A WAR GROUND THAT OUR SOULS ARE IN, AND SOME FIGHT THE WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD, AND SOME ACCEPT IT, THE EASY WAY.
        6]YOU MAY IGNORE THE MORAL ORDER WITHIN YOU PUT BY GOD, BUT IT’S STILL THERE SLEEPING UNTIL YOU WAKE UP.
        i’M NOT ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, ETC. BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DEBATE THE GOD TOPIC ONLINE. EMAIL ME AT [email protected] AND YOU CHOOSE.

        • Maybe this is a good moment to put a suggestion forward: How ’bout a (couple of) moderators for the comments here?

            • I’m demi sexual. I can’t have sex if there’s no emotional attraction, not to say I can’t like the female body on its own I just can’t physically connect without emotionally connecting ..lacigreen , your so inspiring without you I may have wondered how best to explain who I am forever

  3. Even when I was in college in the 1960′s, the public had only a very dim idea of the variety of sexualities that existed in the “wild.” So, Kinsey, writing in the 1940′s, must, IMHO, be considered a harbinger, not a klutz. What he did was what a scientist might call a first approximation. His work paved the way for Klein and others. Faulting Kinsey for not getting the Klein scale right away would be like faulting Newton for not coming up with quantum mechanics. Perhaps the best model was propounded by Steve Goodman:

    http://www.musictory.com/music/Steve+Goodman/Men+Who+Love+Women+Who+Love+Men

    A credible performance, maybe not as good as an actual Steve Goodman performance, but you get the idea.

    • I don’t think I ever faulted Kinsey for his work (and if such was the implication, that was not my intention) – on the contrary, he is a very important figure. I tried to convey this in highlighting that he was a radical for his time. This is more of a “we need to move beyond Kinsey” than “poo poo Kinsey” article.

  4. My biggest issue with the kinsey scale is that it ignores quite a few factors that influence one’s sexual identity.. Ones own gender, for example, plays a big part of it – I know transgender “lesbians” who have penises, and gay men with vaginas, etc.which this scale has some issue with. It also ignored desire to have sex in general – a heterosexual asexual individual may desire romantic relationships with whateber “hetero” would be for them, but not want to have sex with anyone. Similarly, a person with a hyperactive sex drive may have a “homosexual” partner, but still identify as heterosexual… it gets really complicated.

    + there is the matter of do you go by your partner’s biological bits, or their actual gender… since this raises the issue of a “hetero” person having a gender-neutral partner who happens to have the same biological parts.

    So I usually think of sexual orientation as a multi-axis scale where
    Ones own gender
    Partner’s gender
    Desire to have sex
    Own Biological sex
    Partner’s biological sex
    Physical attraction
    Emotional attraction
    Each have their own axis, plus an additional axis for every other type of attraction the individual in question experiences. Even this, is not accurate, I’m sure, but it’s the closest I can think of.

    Needless to say, actually modeling this gets somewhat tricky… fellow math geeks can probably get a concept this type of scale, but the point is there are a LOT of factors, and ignoring any of them leaves blind spots…

    • Don’t misunderstand me, though, the Kinsey scale is a great introduction to non-binary sexuality. It’s just not accurate.

  5. I’ve been aware of the Kinsey scale for a while (thanks to the move staring liam neeson). I’ve brrought it up in discussions about sex and sexuality. Living in the south however, I get alot of looks and glares when I introduce the idea that straight really isn’t as straight as people think (this comes up during the gay is a choice debates) I tend to diffuse the situation by telling my friends “if you call me straight im not gonna correct you, but if I go to Jail for a long time im making somebody my bitch” that seems to calm everyone down. Down South its hard to get into a deep conversation about human sexuality without it turning into gay vs straight choice vs biology. well you think this way so you must be (insert label here) im really glad this site exist. just thought id share. great article!

  6. I’ve found myself occasionally attracted emotionally, but not sexually, to men and usually, but not always only sexually and romantically to women who I know well and have developed strong emotional bonds with. Also, I’ve noticed that my sex drive is extremely tied to my emotions and being in a strong emotional state makes me very sexually aroused and being sexually aroused puts me in a very strong emotional state. In short, sexuality, attraction, etc. are confusing as fuck, hahaha.

  7. I love your videos and blog posts :D The best label (in one word) I’ve ever found for myself is “hetero- flexible” :D

  8. Woahh.. That’s a pretty cool scale! It’s new to me! I see your point though, makes sense that it is unnecessary to put everybody in a box, and that we should move past it. I think that scale is important in that it shows that its completely normal to have some sexual feelings for the opposite sex, in whatever form. I think that the concept of sexuality, even for “straight” people not being black & white is something that should be made more well-known than it is. I think that would clear up a lot of confusion people especially teens have towards their sexuality. I think a lot of people think that anything in-between 100% gay and 100% straight means bisexuality, which isn’t always the case!

  9. This is interesting as always Laci. You never end to amuse me. I’m really glade that you’ve done this Laci. You’ve helped me discover quite a bit about myself I wouldn’t have been able to see on my own. I live in a very small town ruled by religious people. This has a tenancy to put a blind spot over the amazing idea’s you’ve shown. I’ve even gotten over my stupid discomfort over sex.

  10. So with this multidimensional scale all you have basically said is, “The heart wants what the heart wants at this moment in time, so don’t judge what someone else’s heart wants.”

  11. Someone buy her Photoshop. Or make her download GIMP. Or send her to art class. Or tell her to start outsourcing her art. Anything that doesn’t end up with twenty minutes of effort in paint in her blogs. Great article though, I don’t even honestly think one could graph this with a three dimensional representation accurately. I’ve only met one person in my life that I’ve known to be asexual. He was a pretty cool guy, but got really upset at everyone asking if he was gay (or something). Keep up the good work, people’s lives depend on it.

    • Photoshop wouldn’t improve anything she does, because it’s her passion that really matters. :) Don’t be so uptight about the graphics.

  12. While I agree with the core of what you are saying but I think it is important to not take these things too seriously and there really isnt any kind of scale that would be able to properly graph or group people’s sexuality in a way that wouldnt be so broad and all encompassing to the point where it is meaningless. You either got to make a chart that encompasses a different option for every person on earth that may ever exist or you need to accept that you will unavoidably leave some people with less common orientations off the spectrum. I think it is better to think of these as rules of thumb wherein people get a general idea of where they fit and have their own individual preferences that a scale is unlikely to ever be able to include

  13. People have compared sexuality to Doctor Who’s explanation of time;
    “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint – it’s more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly… time-y wimey… stuff.”
    I feel like that fits well with your last image.

  14. Cool story bro. It doesn’t fucking matter. You either like men, women, both, or nobody, period. End of story. Laci is just complicating a very simple issue…

    • While it is that simple for some people, for many others it is not. Some people choose to dissect their attractions and make charts, labels, etc., based on their romantic and sexual attraction, gender identity, biological sex, etc. Others prefer a more “go with the flow” approach, but for those people that would rather specify their attractions, we should not devalue the importance of that process for them.

    • Also, if it’s that simple an issue to you, and really “doesn’t fucking matter” there’s no need for you to concern yourself with it.

    • It can be very complex! For example, I will tell you how complex it is for me as a female.

      There are the four main types of attraction a person can experience:
      1) Aesthetic attraction- appreciate beauty of a person on a personal level. For me it is 99% of the time female. I almost never find males handsome (except some models), but with lots of women, I basically get a crush on their beauty.
      2)Romantic attraction- want a romantic/emotional relationship. This is about 60% men and 40% women (right now I am really crushing on a girl who I have an romantic attraction to.)
      3) Sensual attraction- want to touch, hold hands, cuddle, basically want non-sexual contact (I don’t experience this that much but when I do it is usually females. I have very strong sensual attraction for the same girl I have a crush on.)
      4) Sexual attraction- want to have sex. i am almost asexual (don’t experience sexual attraction). Any sexual attraction I feel is for males. I won’t consider myself an apasexual (lack of interest in the act of sex).
      Thankfully, I am Cisgendered (my gender identity and assigned sex is the same), I have a hard enough time labeling my sexual identity.
      I guess if I really wanted to label my sexual identity more simply, I am a Biromantic Asexual.

    • Considering how old Kinsey’s work is, it is a pretty good start for the mid 20th century research. It predates Masters and Johnson’s work.

  15. Yes! Thank you! This is exactly this kind of stuff I would have liked to have seen more of at Momentum Con.

  16. I so agree! And one more axe or part that could be considered and that’s sorta been talked about with demi-sexuality and asexuality is the amount of attraction you have to a certain gender expression. For instance, personally, every so often I may get a crush on a guy, but it’s never near the same intensity as with a women and dissipates much quicker. Because of it, I like to identify as queer, but at times, it’s just simpler or more convienent to refer to myself as a lesbian. :)

  17. I’ll never understand the crazy world of sex and gender. I guess that’s the issue, in part. It’s easier to only have two genders, two (or even one) sexual orientations. But what’s even simpler? Follow your friggin heart. And let others follow theirs.

  18. Put Paint away, Laci! Your male genitals looks like a mushroom! :D
    Was thinking about this the other day while having an argument with a super-christian. He was saying since they haven’t found a gay gene, he doesn’t believe that anyone is born gay and it is therefore unnatural and wrong. As if sexuality is a light switch set to either on or off. Obnoxious, to say the least. ;p

  19. I notice that the two figures in the last panel don’t change to two men (or two women). I originally looked at them and imagined that they were sexual partners, but I realize now that it is a scale considering the sexual orientation of two seperate human beings, a man and a woman, who are not together.

    I don’t know why I find that interesting.

  20. Believe it or not this is the first time i’m hearing about both of these scales. I’m in college now so that’s a bit of a surprise.

  21. Hey Laci, I am not completely sure where I fit. I lean more towards Bi/Pansexual. I am glad you brought the charts, I have never heard of either but, they are both quite interesting.

  22. Coming from a heterosexual viewpoint, and having never thought much about others sexuality besides the well known heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual and asexual, this has been extremely informative. Thank you.

  23. I have asked many people this question and really, no one has provided me with a sufficient answer. Why is gender not in a one-to-one correspondence with our biology? The only answer I have received was, “because it is.” But obviously, being the secular well educated audience we are, this explanation should not suffice. I don’t see how the term “gender” will remain as a valuable identifier if it differs from synonymy with “sex”.

  24. So many labels to choose from, and I still don’t know what I am. :/ I’m identifying as bisexual for the time being.

  25. I think instead of 1-7 where 1 is heterosexual, it should be 1-10 and 0, where 1 is entirely female/feminine attributes and 10 is entirely masculine, with the rest being in between and 0 as agender, using that same Klein graph. Then, it’s not talking about whether you prefer your same gender identity, whatever that happens to be, or something different, it’s about what you like in a person. Feel free to use that.

  26. I know of a chart that I think is the most accurate possible for all ranges of sexual orientation! I found it in a character creation guide for roleplaying characters and fictional characters, and I thought I should share it with you. Here’s the link: http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs47/f/2009/170/3/1/31a8b35b9896973fcead335c4c13674d.png (you’ll have to scroll down a bit, it’s in the section labelled “Relationships”).
    Thanks for the article, it’s much appreciated!

  27. So According to this if we ignore gender diverging from the physical assignment, and we ignore personal flavor in taste(as almost all people are attracted to one specific type or another), you have an accurate idea. It is great for teaching or explaining the basics of divergence from the normal gay-straight argument, but based on what I see here it appears that anything beyond that no scale would be overly effective. Scales generally need to be simple in design.

    The closest you may have would end up being a chart set up like a compass. At the north point you would have male, east heterosexual, south female, and west homosexual. At the (0,0) point you would have Neutral/a-sexual. Inbetween you would have to put the different in between spots, like transgender male, transgender female, a-sexual with a preference for girls/boys. Fill in the blanks on each line in accordance with what each covers until such time as they go in some sort of sensical order and allow for both gender identity and sexuality to be charted.

    The problem with my idea is that it does not take into account that there are some preferences that are mostly just straight, but you want blonde hair. When you get into those kind of details, the amount of work it would take would be frivilous, because if you could chart on that you wouldnt need a chart. Another problem is you would need some kind of dictionary for most of the terms. A vast majority of the population have never heard of sapiosexual, nor have they heard the term pansexual(my mum believes this is just a greedy bi-sexual who will sleep with anyone[which is utter b.s.]).

    In the end people are complicated and while trying to grasp the common trends among them I have learned a very simple lesson. People are unique, any definition you try to add to them as far as preferences and personality will not always be 100% accurate. In fact very rarely does anyone(outside of pretenders or paper-cut outs that have something of a pulse) ever fit into black and whites in these areas.

    I wish you the best of luck in further research.

  28. Thanks Laci, this is very complicated and very interesting and I’m surprised that I did not see the flaws in the Kinsey scale earlier, but it makes sense. Why are we trying to simplify ourselves so much?

  29. Laci, I am 15 and I am Pansexual (i’m pretty sure) and I am proud but my family are very fearful of anyone who is not of ‘The Norm’. A lot of people at my school either don’t know what that means and/or they are discriminative towards me.

    How can I overcome this??

    Thanks Laci <3

  30. Ok I’m confused. Some people have told me that men don’t just care about sex, but then on like TV, the internet and stuff, it seems like its the only thing they care about. I’m only in the 8th grade, and in the 7th grade, this guy told me I had a nice ass. It still bothers me to this day. And I’ve also noticed that abstinence is only enforced on girls, not on guys, which isn’t fair. I know this is really unorganized, but it just seems so confusing, all this stuff about “sluts” at my school, sexual orientation at my school, and I’m like, the only “sex positive” person at my school. I’m too young to be this stressed out by all this negativity. I kinda had this thing where I thought I was a lesbian for a week, and I “came out” to my mom about it, but I’m not really a lesbian. H E L P

  31. You know I have always found the concept that having same sex friends as a sign of slight homosexuality to be completely absurd and tantamount to what I call homofascism, that is, an attempt to spread homosexuality. Dont argue with that, just accept its an opinion, wrong or right. Ive always considered myself sort of extra-hetero or hyper hetero, far hetero? (as far as you can go) because I felt like people who were more wildly into sex were a bit more homosexual than one who is less rabid and more into relationship development. Maybe I do believe in the spectrum a bit :P

    In any case, looking at that second scale and thinking about it more. Ive always been more interested in having other sex friends. Trends have changed recently where most of my friends now are same, while in the past they were other, but that may only be because the lack of others in my life right now. My best friend is an other, and I have no attraction to them (other than as a friend) and I think I still strive for that in social situations. So maybe there is a spectrum and I am 100% hetero, even in the friendships I seek. I find the same sex quite revolting and I do not like some of the common thought patterns of them. hmm

  32. good article… I admit that kinsey’s findings about sexuality really impress me since I believe it fits in many many cases… I also agree with the arguments that contradicts his theory…
    I just fell sorry for the victims of his methods and also sorry for his work been put in doubt because of his methods…
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/oct/10102106
    anyway… i think he made a very good start for the researches about human sexuality…

  33. This scale does not consider those who are sexually attracted only to certain kinds of thinking, certain values, and certain intellectual abilities, utterly irrespective of physical form. Nor does it consider the more general dimension of being repulsed by certain mindsets and beliefs, which in my experience is fairly common, resulting in breaking of relationships when people learn each others’ thoughts no matter how attracted they were initially. Why do these scales tend to only consider emotional responses to physical attributes? Humans are (in large part) intellectual beings, which is why our behaviors don’t simply match our biology.

  34. Howdy! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this website? I’m getting tired of WordPress because I’ve had problems with hackers and I’m looking at options for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

  35. I feel the The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid kinda leaves asexuals out of the loop. It also doesn’t sound much more different than the kinsey scale.

    I’m wondering though what exactly are examples of sexualities that are too complex to be labeled or have appropriate disclaimers to?

    Seeing as most ppl who say “I don’t believe in labels” actually fit pretty in one label or the other I find it a little strange

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>