The Alfred Kinsey Scale(Continuum)

[Groundhog]

Kinsey wrote:</p>
<table style="border-style: none; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: transparent;" class="cquote" align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 35px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;" valign="top" width="20">€œ</td>
<td style="padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top">Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.


While emphasising the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)</p>
</td>
<td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 36px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;" valign="bottom" width="20">€</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>




<table>
<tr>
<th>Rating</th>
<th style="text-align: left">Description</th>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color: #ccccff">
<td style="text-align: center">0</td>
<td>Exclusively heterosexual</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color: #ccddff">
<td style="text-align: center">1</td>
<td>Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual</td>

</tr>
<tr style="background-color: #ccfffa">
<td style="text-align: center">2</td>
<td>Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color: #ccffcc">
<td style="text-align: center">3</td>
<td>Equally heterosexual and homosexual</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color: #faffcc">
<td style="text-align: center">4</td>
<td>Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual</td>

</tr>
<tr style="background-color: #ffddcc">
<td style="text-align: center">5</td>
<td>Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color: #ffcccc">
<td style="text-align: center">6</td>
<td>Exclusively homosexual</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color: grey">
<td style="text-align: center">X</td>
<td>Asexual</td>

</tr>
</table>


Luv those rainbows

[Road Runner]

Buggery was the world used in the English legal system up to about 150 years ago to describe all forms of sex other than 'normal' sex.  ie other than male -> female vaginal sex.

So anal sex with a female, or male, or even sex with animals was described as an act of buggery in the court and not as sodomy or besteality.
Not sure about oral sex  -  I don't think the English legal system had heard of it  

Today as KL says it has become used as a slang word to describe anal sex  -  usually male to male.  Or as a swear word.

RR.

[Guest]

(ziggystardust @ May 09 2007,18:01) I suck cocks, and I get fucked sometimes, and I am not gay. Period. For me, it is an unambiguous fact.

Dice:
"There's no such thing as bisexual. Either you suck dick, or you do not suck dick. There's no in between."

[Guest]

(ziggystardust @ May 09 2007,18:01) If you want me to judge you I can start posting every 2 days about how fucking post-ops is a psychological trick to hide gayness by covering the gay act with a faux female, a view shared by many psychologists.

Mr. Academic-Boi,
You are going to have to list some references for this whopper...

You can't just pull facts out of thin air without compromising your credibility. The ball is in your court. List the references... which psychologists and where are these views published?

[Tomcat]

Any matters relating to sexual feelings and awareness are hardly ever going to settled here no matter how much mud is slung around, its just to complicated a subject to be answerd in a paragraph

IMO the Neuroscientists will nail this down over the next five ,ten or twenty years and everything will be known how the brain really works and how it entangles itself with genes and culture to make you what you are.

Mind you i doubt if it will be much fun thereon after, perhaps its better not to know and just accept we are a bunch of queer buggers...

[Guest]

I think you may be right Tomcat.

From what I've read, the focus in sexual biology now still is on sex determination genes, versus sexuality, and they still have about 5years to go on that at least.

They have to crack that nut, pardon the pun, before they move on to the next challenge, which is sexuality, as there is likely a relationship there too.

[moe666]

Ah who really gives a fuck. When its time to get off I don't really care who it's with.

[Road Runner]

(moe666 @ May 09 2007,20:40) When its time to get off I don't really care who it's with.

Actually that is not how your brain works.

In short if you don't get turned on by your partner you fantasize about someone who does turn you on as you come.

RR.

[Guest]

(ziggystardust @ May 10 2007,01:05) I think you may be right Tomcat.

From what I've read, the focus in sexual biology now still is on sex determination genes, versus sexuality, and they still have about 5years to go on that at least.

They have to crack that nut, pardon the pun, before they move on to the next challenge, which is sexuality, as there is likely a relationship there too.

You are so FOS with your pseudo-academic assertions. You don't even have the cojones to admit that you have nothing to substantiate your outrageous claim "...how fucking post-ops is a psychological trick to hide gayness by covering the gay act with a faux female, a view shared by many psychologists."

You pretend to be such a defender of Ladyboys, whining how referring to them, including "[your] May", as men is "so wrong". Then you go and refer to a post-op as a "faux female". What about all your post-op friends? Is this what you tell them, or is the two-facedness for real?

[Stewart]

(sangabriel @ May 10 2007,11:03)

(ziggystardust @ May 10 2007,01:05) I think you may be right Tomcat.

From what I've read, the focus in sexual biology now still is on sex determination genes, versus sexuality, and they still have about 5years to go on that at least.

They have to crack that nut, pardon the pun, before they move on to the next challenge, which is sexuality, as there is likely a relationship there too.

You are so FOS with your pseudo-academic assertions. You don't even have the cojones to admit that you have nothing to substantiate your outrageous claim "...how fucking post-ops is a psychological trick to hide gayness by covering the gay act with a faux female, a view shared by many psychologists."

You pretend to be such a defender of Ladyboys, whining how referring to them, including "[your] May", as men is "so wrong". Then you go and refer to a post-op as a "faux female". What about all your post-op friends? Is this what you tell them, or is the two-facedness for real?

I wonder what would happen if we took a poll on who is more FOS - Ziggy or Sangabriel?

[Tomcat]

What is FOS. A new swear word .. or what?.
a hasty reply.... if you please...

[kahuna]

(Tomcat @ May 10 2007,22:21) What is FOS. A new swear word .. or what?.
 a hasty reply.... if you please...

i believe it is an acronym for "Full of Shit" TC....

[Tomcat]

Oh well

Thats this thread gone pear shaped then.

[stogie bear]

We'll see... If it does drift off course anymore we'll shift it to The Fish Box!

[stogie bear]

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. While emphasising the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.

I'll bet this was looked upon with awe and respect in it's time. But knowing what we know today it comes across like a teenage school report stating a simplistic and rather naive outlook.

As for the Kinsey scale! Well - this too - is a very childlike and one dimensional way to measure the sexuality of humankind. Still - in it's day, like quartz watches, it must have been very educational!