The Alfred Kinsey Scale(Continuum)

[Road Runner]

(stogie bear @ May 10 2007,20:36)

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...

As for the Kinsey scale! Well - this too - is a very childlike and one dimensional way to measure the sexuality of humankind.

I maybe well wide of the mark  -  but I think that Kinsey's intention was to provide a way that the ordinary person in the street could measure their sexuality against a simple scale.

Childlike and one dimensional?  -  Yes!  -  unfortunately that was pretty much the level of sexual knowledge of many people in western so called civilized countries in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

RR.

[brocklanders]

I admitted that it was simplistic in my first post but the idea is correct IMHO. Basically there is no black and white with sexuality, especially when considering ones attractiveness to ladyboys. I know many here would like to lump us all together but it really doesn't work that way, especially to the outside world.

I know that may seem hard for some of you to believe but many of us cringe when we hear about guys getting buggered or swallowing. It's not homophobia, it's just that it seems disgusting for some of us and something I definately can't see enjoying in any way. Doesn't make me better than anyone else...actually it makes me more confused but one thing is for sure, keep that bloody cock away from me. You can call me cockaphobic and I will accept that moniker but not homophobic.

[Guest]

(Stewart @ May 10 2007,22:04)  I wonder what would happen if we took a poll on who is more FOS - Ziggy or Sangabriel?  

What are you a fucking academic trying to settle this with a scientific opinion poll?... I'll make it easy for you... I am often full of shit, sometimes intentionally for the sake of hyperbole or to point out the absurdity of something else, but usually simply because I like the taste of shit.

I don't put on airs and I have never moderated Academia and I have never gotten a boner pretending to be a fucking academic.

I am a sarcastic bitch and that is fine with me.

[Guest]

(brocklanders @ May 11 2007,05:26) You can call me cockaphobic and I will accept that moniker but not homophobic.

Why would you say that you are cockaphobic if you have sucked cock before?

For someone who has buggered as many people with erections as you have to say they are cockaphobic is a bit like a wino saying they are wine-a-phobic. "

[Groundhog]

(Road Runner @ May 11 2007,05:09) ....but I think that Kinsey's intention was to provide a way that the ordinary person in the street could measure their sexuality against a simple scale.

Childlike and one dimensional? - Yes! - unfortunately that was pretty much the level of sexual knowledge of many people in western so called civilized countries in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

RR.

Absolutely RR. We are talking of the US 60 years ago, when homosexuality was a crime, and was not discussed in polite company ...

... yet presumably there were as many homosexuals then as now ...

Kinsey wasn't absolutely right, but he was revolutionary ... his work seems dated because it is. But in the context of his day, it must have been enormously difficult

He could not have done it at all without the backing of Herman B Wells, IU's president, who stayed single and lived with his mother all his life ... so draw your own conclusions ... almost any other university in the US would have stopped funding for this project ... and probably have brought Kinsey up on conduct charges

[Guest]

(Road Runner @ May 11 2007,05:09) I maybe well wide of the mark  -  but I think that Kinsey's intention was to provide a way that the ordinary person in the street could measure their sexuality against a simple scale.

Childlike and one dimensional?  -  Yes!  -  unfortunately that was pretty much the level of sexual knowledge of many people in western so called civilized countries in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

The biggest enemies of Kinsey's work are some of the most obnoxiously Christian people in the USA.

The Family Research Council, a religious, Christianist, traditional-family-values bunch of pricks, have screamed the loudest against the idea of a continuum with respect to sexuality or gender.

Andrew Dice Clay, a parody of the close minded homophobe, used terms like "transhomos" and indicated he was no believer in a continuum by saying "...What's with these bisexuals? Let's get this straight: you either suck dick or you don't suck dick!"

I say let people define themselves anyway they want. If it is with a continuum, that is fine. Just stick to classifying your damn selves.

What is truly obnoxious are academics and know-it-alls who call post-ops "faux men" or "99% male" and try to insinuate how another person should be defined. These blokes are just as obnoxious as the hypocrites like Brock who make up names like "cockaphobic" even though they admitted to sucking cock.

[Guest]

(Groundhog @ May 11 2007,09:10) He could not have done it at all without the backing of Herman B Wells, IU's president, who stayed single and lived with his mother all his life ... so draw your own conclusions ...

What a motherfucker!

[kahuna]

(brocklanders @ May 11 2007,05:26) I know many here would like to lump us all together but it really doesn't work that way, especially to the outside world.

You really believe that the "outside world" actually differentiates between someone who has sex with a postop v someone who has sex with a preop?  

I was a member of that "outside world" until fairly recently and I surely didn't make that distinction...

I don't believe that the general "outside world" knows or understands anything about the "inside world"...

Damn, we don't know or understand it and we're in the middle of it...

[Stewart]

(sangabriel @ May 11 2007,08:35)

(Stewart @ May 10 2007,22:04)  I wonder what would happen if we took a poll on who is more FOS - Ziggy or Sangabriel?  

What are you a fucking academic trying to settle this with a scientific opinion poll?... I'll make it easy for you... I am often full of shit, sometimes intentionally for the sake of hyperbole or to point out the absurdity of something else, but usually simply because I like the taste of shit.

I don't put on airs and I have never moderated Academia and I have never gotten a boner pretending to be a fucking academic.

I am a sarcastic bitch and that is fine with me.

I wish I had more friends like you

[stogie bear]

I'm trying to find a post that Ziggy made about someone that he worked with... This person might light of his homosexual preference and made jokes about it at work thinking that it would make people feel more comfortable or relaxed about the situation...

Well, sorry - this doesn't work for me.

If I'm working the last thing I want to be faced with is another mans sexuality worn on his sleeve. I don't care if he thinks being gay is a bit of a joke or what - keep your cock in your trousers and save the jokes for 5PM on a Friday when you are in Benninegans slurping back the beer...

I very much doubt that telling jokes at the expense of his work colleagues is having the effect that he thinks it is.

I'd personally find this unacceptable and would definately complain to him about it.

I don't think I'm a prude, but I do think that your/his/anyones sexual preference has no place being discussed or joked about at work. This guy sounds like so many mincing 'happy on the surface, but bleeding inside' wankers that I have had the misfortune of not smacking over the last few decades.

Be a fag at home, OK? Have a little fucking self respect and dignity...

[Guest]

(brocklanders @ May 08 2007,08:36) someone fucking a preop or postop, especially the passable ones.   /   compared to guys that want stunning passable ladyboys regardless of cock size.

what the f**k, do you know how fuct up your theories are? Why the hell dont you fuck a girl instead of a man that became a girl? Why go thru the trouble and stigma in your own mind? Jeeeez, brocklanders, i´d dare to say you might be the Rock Hudson of this board, hands down.

[stogie bear]

I admitted that it was simplistic in my first post but the idea is correct IMHO. Basically there is no black and white with sexuality, especially when considering ones attractiveness to ladyboys. I know many here would like to lump us all together but it really doesn't work that way, especially to the outside world.

The problem with the Kinsey scale (and there hasn't been anything better devised since) that it actually does work in a simple way... Some people are homosexual and some people aren't and a lot of people are in between!

But this doesn't do anything to explain what people are attracted to in a partner so really it's like saying some bread is white and some bread is brown and some is sort of a mixture of white and brown... But what about baps and rolls and toast???

We (most of us) can be pidgeon-holed to a certain extend but it takes a lot more than a few degrees on a seven point scale to define anyone.

And if you add to the mix the amount of people who fall into multiple categories of sexual desire and/or attraction then you may as well through this rubbish out the window altogether.

It's simply too complicated for a chart to define.

[Guest]

(ziggystardust @ May 09 2007,18:01) I suck cocks, and I get fucked sometimes, and I am not gay. Period.

Is this irony?

And faux male? That might just be the most stupid label on lb´s ever.

[brocklanders]

Ah San Gabriel...you got the wrong guy...never sucked cock before.     Just because a ladyboy inadvertantly shot a load on me, doesnt mean that I enjoyed it nor does it mean that I sucked cock.   Maybe you should reread my report.

And for Rick, do I have to continue to discuss why I choose to be with ladyboys sometimes instead of women...i think I have made the list hundreds of times and it has nothing to do with cock.

[Guest]

(brocklanders @ May 11 2007,10:23) Ah San Gabriel...you got the wrong guy...never sucked cock before.     Just because a ladyboy inadvertantly shot a load on me, doesnt mean that I enjoyed it nor does it mean that I sucked cock.   Maybe you should reread my report.

You're right. You never wrote that you had sucked "cock" before. But how about dick?

Nah, I guess I misinterpreted this... but then again, if I wrote that I don't like to drink beer, you would probably assume I had at least tried it...

"...I just dont like to suck dick..."