1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Not all bisexuals are Kinsey 3"

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Vav, Jan 17, 2016.

  1. Vav

    Vav Guest

    The Bisexual Index | Bisexuals aren't all Kinsey 3s
    I do believe the title, but I don't believe Kinsey 1-5 is automatically bi. It's pretty stupid to put mostly gay and straight people in the same category as people who are consistently attracted to both genders. I rate the Kinsey scale like this.
    0 Straight
    1 Mostly Straight
    2 Bisexual
    3 Bisexual
    4 Bisexual
    5 Mostly Gay
    6 Gay
     
  2. gbxx33

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Brunswick
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    The way I see it is that people can use whatever label they feel comfortable with. Someone who is a Kinsey 5 may prefer to identify as gay, whereas another Kinsey 5 may identify as bisexual. Bisexual people can experience heavy leanings towards one gender or another - but as long as they identify as bisexual, that's what they are.
     
  3. DougTheBicycle

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    As gbss33 said, it's up to the individual. It's not our place to determine what the scale means to everyone. It's flawed, anyway.
     
  4. Chip

    Board Member Admin Team Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    4,750
    Location:
    northern CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I also agree with gbx33. Someone who is a Kinsey 2 can certainly label either as straight or bi depending on what's more comfortable. Same with a Kinsey 4.

    I think the argument gets a little harder for 5s and 1s, but still, if bi is how that person sees him or herself... It's really not anyone's place to say differently.
     
  5. BlueLion

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Spain
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I agree with Chip. In that case (5s or 1s), there is a bit of bisexuality in that person, according to Kinsey scale.
     
  6. Vav

    Vav Guest

    I guess it is ultimately your choice how you identify. I just don't like how that website implies that if you have any sort of attraction to your unpreferred gender you're automatically bisexual. I also believe not all Kinsey 1s or 5s are created equal. There's a chance they've deeply fallen in love with someone of their unpreferred gender. It would make more sense for them to identify as bi in that case. Or maybe they're frequently attracted to a lot of people. If I were slightly but definitely attracted to guys and extremely attracted to girls that might make me Kinsey 5. I'd probably also identity as bi if my attractions were like that.

    My attraction to guys isn't definite and doesn't seem strong enough for a satisfying relationship. In this culture saying you're bi basically tells people you're comfortable being with men. Those factors make it very uncomfortable for me to identify as bi. I also feel uncomfortable identifying as gay because I'm possibly into men.

    I feel uncomfortable identifying as questioning because people round that off to bi a lot of the time. Maybe people are getting less ignorant about this, but people also like to round off mostly gay to bi. The best I can do is tell people I'm not interested in dating. Another thing I did was come as something vague to someone and tell them I refuse to date guys online because of creeps. I don't always do this, but I also tell some people I'm asexual since I don't feel attracted to people frequently and I'm not interested in dating men.
     
  7. warholwendy

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2014
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Midwestern US
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I'm not a huge fan of Kinsey scale tbh. Just say what you think you are you know

    You'll see on here I have my orientation as straight/gay because romantically I'm more into women but sexually I'm all about that cock, yo. In practice/IRL though I'd just say bisexual because that doesn't require any explanation unless they're one of those "bisexuals don't exist" type.
     
  8. biAnnika

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Northeastern US
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    We define a number to be negative if it is less than zero. I think it's pretty stupid to call numbers like -1 and -2 negative, when they are *barely* negative and put them in the same category with numbers that are *really* negative like -1,000,000 and -500,000,000,000. But here we are, aren't we?

    The definition of bisexuality is that a person is bisexual if they have sexual interest in both males and females. It's a definition. If you do, then you are; if you don't, then you aren't. Not really up for debate. By that definition, Kinsey 1 and Kinsey 5 is indeed bisexual, whether or not such a person identifies (inwardly or outwardly) as bisexual.

    Of *course* people can *identify* however they like. But be warned that -5 doesn't really identify as negative, and would prefer that you stop calling it negative.
     
  9. Vav

    Vav Guest

    I have a lot of trouble with the concept of attraction. Since my attraction to men is possibly non-existent I prefer not to call myself bisexual. I just don't belong in the same category as someone who actively enjoys dating men. Attraction isn't as black and white as those numbers you were talking about. When you get to higher math it's harder to categorize numbers like that anyways. I would appreciate it if bisexuals didn't insist on calling everyone who isn't exactly gay or straight bisexual.
     
  10. LooseMoose

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    oh dear- I remember this site, I was actually really upset when I discovered it, because it makes it look like it appropriates the entirety of the Kinsey scale for the label 'bisexual', and it does look a bit like it wants to make bisexuals out of people who might not neatly fall into one or the other box.

    I completely agree with the points made by gbxx33 and Chip- that really people who are at the edges of the scale can label as either gay or bi, depending on what makes them comfortable.

    What is good to remember is that people have different reasons for putting themselves on a particular point of the scale, and given those, it will make sense to adopt different labels in each individual case.

    I usually think of it in terms of 'quality' v. 'quantity' -

    eg if the quality of the attraction and experiences is broadly the same in intensity, and a person could be equally happy with both genders even if their attraction to people of one gender is much less frequent-
    their Kinsey 1, or 5 will reflect the frequency of attraction distribution, and with this they will probably best suited to identify as bisexual, because they are still capable of being happy with people of both genders.

    If on the other hand their Kinsey 1 or 5 reflects the differences in quality of attraction-
    eg:
    "I find both men and women good looking but my crushes/experiences/attractions consistently show that I experience everything much stronger with one gender"

    - this Kinsey 1 or 5 has a clear difference and preference in how they experience each gender, and they could not be "happy with either"- only with one, hence they are probably better suited to identifying as straight, or gay respectively.


    To be honest I find the 'rewriting of the Kinsey Scale' by the above mentioned site and similar actually harmful, because it removes the nuance out of sexuality, it removes the self-determination from placing yourself in the scale and deciding for yourself which label suits you best, instead it slaps a big 'bisexual' label on your forehead, even when you are not.

    It is part of the problem in certain circles which propagates a very purist view of what it means to be gay, where any residual attraction outside of your orientation implies bisexuality- implies liking both- implies being a Kinsey 3.
    99.9% gay people as 'still bisexual' and 'not gay enough' etc., when in reality who can know themselves 100%?
     
  11. LooseMoose

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Your thinking is actually mathematically incorrect. (and we are still talking about positive numbers here.) Take this example:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...



    numbers are continuous, and we routinely exploit this quality in real life by rounding up, and using limits, instead of irrational numbers etc.

    5.999...is so close to 6 that it will be treated as as 6 in most cases & not as a 5 *mathematically* - because it is much further away from 5 on the number scale.
    In fact the exact value of 5.999... *IS* 6

    you can check it here 5.999...= - Wolfram|Alpha

    (why did you bring the argument to negative/v. positive numbers? The Kinsey scale is in positive numbers - you have changed the nature of the scale- do you really think of sexuality in such black and white terms?)
     
    #11 LooseMoose, Jan 19, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2016
  12. biAnnika

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Northeastern US
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Oh lordy. The negative numbers thing was an *analogy* designed to make clear-cut the nature of a definition, which seems to throw a lot of people here. I in no way implied that the Kinsey Scale accommodates negative values.

    I am well aware that real numbers are continuous, and I have proved that .999... = 1 for myself and have no difficulty with that concept. Indeed, if someone is a 5.999... on the Kinsey Scale, then they *are* a 6, and I would never suggest otherwise. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a 5.999... who identifies as *bisexual* is doing so erroneously or misleadingly (possibly "misleading" for good reasons, possibly out of ignorance, or possibly just to avoid characterizing themselves as gay).

    But although 5.999... = 6, it is most certainly also true that 5.999 < 6 (note the lack of ellipsis on the LHS), and therefore, 5.999 is not *equal* to 6.

    BUT, that is a statement about mathematics, and I indeed do *not* think of sexuality in black and white terms. (You'll notice that my example was *not* that -0.0000001 does not identify as negative...that was intentional.) I am perfectly fine with a Kinsey 5.999 being characterized as gay rather than bisexual...I've never seen a theory suggesting non-integer Kinsey numbers, so in the absence of such a theory, I simply assume that rounding to the nearest integer best fits the spirit of the 0 to 6 scale. The issue posed by the OP was not one of whether a Kinsey .3 should be grouped with Kinsey 0's, but one of whether a Kinsey 1 should be seen as bisexual. My point is simply that they are, by definition, and that such grouping is no more silly than it is grouping -1 with the negative numbers.

    If a numeric analogy is too confusing, because it also uses numbers, then consider that in US politics, a Democrat is defined to be someone who has registered with the Democratic Party. My partner's brother has done so. He identifies strongly as a Libertarian, but he wants to be able to vote for Sanders in the democratic primary. It is absolutely ok for him to identify as a Libertarian...I'll not say a word against his identification...but if he suggests that he actually *is* a Libertarian, he will be incorrect. Similarly, if a friend of his, after hearing his views, says "you're no Democrat", that person will be mistaken, at least about literal fact (what such people mean, of course, is "you don't exemplify traditional democratic values"...I do wish people would get back to saying what they actually mean).

    So yeah, I don't see sexuality as black and white at all (sheesh, hon, I'm bisexual). But I do see definitions as definitions. There are clear-cut definitions and murky definitions, and I allow the murky ones their murkiness. But "having some degree of sexual interest in both men and women" is pretty clear-cut to me.

    To Vav (OP), I appreciate your plea "I would appreciate it if bisexuals didn't insist on calling everyone who isn't exactly gay or straight bisexual." I don't speak for all bisexuals, by any means, but I for one do not call everyone bisexual who isn't exactly gay or straight. However, I *do* call Kinsey 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5's bisexual, because they are, by definition. That may not be *best* description for them...but it is *an* accurate description for them...I don't try to force them to identify that way; again, I'm happy to let them identify however they want.

    If you want to say that the Kinsey Scale doesn't apply to you, or that you don't know exactly where you are on it, I'm cool with that. If you want to suggest that there are other dimensions to sexuality aside from M/F attraction, and that you'd prefer to use a term that celebrates your position along one of those dimensions (whether or not the Kinsey Scale also applies to you), I'm very cool with that. But not believing Kinsey 1-5 is bisexual is like not believing that all dogs are of the species canis lupus.
     
    #12 biAnnika, Jan 19, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2016
  13. LooseMoose

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I am sorry, but I struggle with seeing the parallels between this and sexuality.. is it based on action? As in: he acts as a democrat, hence even though his thoughts fit more a libertarian, he is not really one?

    If so, then we open up a whole big can of worms, because it would imply that gay people who are straight married are only 'identifying as gay', when 'really they are straight', because they act straight? I might have misunderstood your point.

    No- it is not that clear-cut to me, because, as I have said in my previous post people put themselves on the Kinsey scale for various and differing reasons and your definition reduces everything to the sexual attraction level- however attraction does not work like that for some people, it is multilayered.

    In my case I am probably a 4 emotionally, a 5 sensually and a 6 sexually -as in I have 0 interest in actually being physically with a man, and I am not attracted to the male sex as such. For convenience-sake I usually place myself at a 5, but I am not fully- functional bisexual, because I lack the sexual component in my attraction. On the other hand I cannot deny that *some* attraction exists, so "mostly gay" works just fine for me.

    If I called myself bisexual, it would be misleading, because it would imply that I am capable of being with both.

    You telling me that I *am* bisexual is like me telling you are gay- it feels false, and it erases some kind of strongly felt truth about my experience. It makes me angry.







    As said before each individual will have different reasons for placing themselves on a particular place on the scale - some will be a Kinsey 1 or 5 and bisexual, and some will be straight or gay respectively, because of the way *their* attraction works.

    Saying that *all* are bisexual or *all* are gay/straight respectively is claiming that you have special x-ray vision and can actually tell people exactly what their experience is.


    Each individual should have the right to decide which label fits their particular experience best, you saying that they can 'identify as they like, but by definition they are bisexual', essentially smacks of compulsory label-slapping, and looks like you are sarcastically questioning the legitimacy of their orientation and accusing them of being cheats.
     
  14. biAnnika

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Northeastern US
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    My posts seem to perplex and upset you. You might want to stop reading them. I am simply trying to illustrate the difference between satisfying a definition and internalizing a label. He is a Democrat...not because of any actions...in fact, he is a Democrat *despite* some of his actions and beliefs...because he fits the definition of a Democrat! It is certainly meaningful and valid for him to say he identifies as a Libertarian, because that also adds something to the conversation...gives you more information about him than you had before...but he remains a Democrat.

    This is your inference; not mine. I don't get your logic any more than you seem to get mine. Gay people in hetero marriages (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "straight married") do not satisfy the definition of "straight", so are not straight. Yeah, you missed my point.

    No, I do not reduce *everything* to sexual attraction. However, the Kinsey Scale considers only sexual attraction. And bisexuality refers only to sexual attraction. Your objections sound to me like saying "I don't like the classification of blondes, brunettes, redheads, etc., because it makes everything about hair color, and I'm more than just that." No. I am a woman. A bisexual woman. A brunette bisexual woman. But yes, those hair classifications *do* only refer to hair color; if you want to consider length, density, etc., you need to add or consider other scales.

    If you don't like the Kinsey Scale because it only considers sexual attraction, or because you don't think it applies to you, then fine; don't use it. But don't disparage it either, because it does measure something that is useful for lots of people.

    I hear you saying "If I don't round, but consider all real numbers between 0 and 6, then I'm less than 6, but significantly more than 5." Ok. I think we both agreed earlier that it makes sense in that case to round to 6? And in that case, especially since you rounded, I see no issue with "mostly gay". What's the problem?

    Agreed. Who is trying to make you call yourself bisexual?

    I never said you were bisexual. I don't tell *anybody* what they are. I can only hear what you *think* you are...or rather, only what you *tell* me you think you are.

    Let's be clear here. There can be a difference between what a person *is* and how a person *identifies*. Plenty of gay people identify as bisexual for a while out of convenience, or out of confusion. Plenty of bisexual people identify as gay or straight for a while for similar reasons. Plenty of Kinsey 1 bisexuals *know* they are bisexual, but identify as straight because it just makes more sense, given that they primarily want to attract opposite-sex partners. And no asshole identifies as an asshole, even though they may be one. Identity does not equal membership.

    I have said repeatedly that people can identify freely however they like. But if a person *is* a Kinsey 1 through 5, then they *are* bisexual. By the definitions set by friggin' Kinsey! I think he knows how to interpret the scale he created.

    I do not claim to have access to what a person *is*. I haven't a clue what you are, or whether you are anything. But if you are a Kinsey 1 through 5 (however you identify), then you are bisexual. If that angers you, I suggest you read about implications, premises and conclusions, because that sentence is not a statement about you at all.

    This is ridiculous and frankly an offensively inaccurate accusation. As I said at the outset, my posts seem to upset you. I suspect it will be more productive for both of us if you simply ignore me.
     
  15. LooseMoose

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    It is not clear from what you are saying *why* him fitting the definition of a democrat- member of the Democratic party-should mean that he *is not* a libertarian.

    And why he cannot simultaneously fit the definitions of democrat and libertarian, or be both- because they are based on different criteria- Democrat = member of the Democratic party, Libertarian = a person who holds a certain set of beliefs.

    I don't see why they are mutually exclusive, but in your post you make it look as if they are, and furthermore formal membership of a party, trumps a set of beliefs in defining a persons political position.

    I this is analogy has moved beyond the topic of labels btw.- it does not make sense in the context.


    The problem is outlined in the quote below- because it simply contradicts what you said just above. Above you said "mostly gay" works fine for a Kinsey 5, below you say 5 *is* bisexual. You are contradicting yourself.

    You have never had the experience of being monosexual, and as such you cannot relate or understand the fact that monosexual people have not just attraction to one gender/sex, but also some level of repulsion/discomfort/difficulty with the other sex.

    People who are on the edges of the Kinsey scale, but are not fully a 0 or a 6 often have some attraction to both but this can be mixed with the typically monosexual discomfort to those of not their preferred gender.

    Bisexual people don't have that, they feel comfortable with both, this is what the word means.

    Hence insisting that the Kinsey scale be interpreted as 'bisexual' all the way in the middle is just inaccurate in so many cases- because for some Kinsey 5s or 1s their attraction/repulsion pattern is more similar to 0s and 6s, than to bisexuals.
     
    #15 LooseMoose, Jan 20, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  16. YermanTom

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Co Wicklow Ireland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I have always thought that the Kinsey scale is a very rough tool for examining sexuality. It can be useful for examining sexuality on a statistical or societal level. But on a personal level it becomes less useful, due to the complex nature of our emotions and desires. For most of us all that matters is who we love at this point in our life's. For most "bi" people that I know it is a very graduated scale between straight and gay. Where they are on that scale can vary depending on the number of good looking people they meet or who they are in love with at the time.
    As the prisoner ('60s TV show) says: "I am not a number I am a free man"

    e1fe7743399dd2d498dfe6d2aa879e85.jpg
     
  17. Chip

    Board Member Admin Team Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    4,750
    Location:
    northern CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I disagree. Most people who are Kinsey 5s would probably not self-label as bisexual, and very few people who are Kinsey 1s would label as bisexual. The "technical" definition is not what matters here; it is how people use and interpret this scale.

    If someone who is otherwise straight has had a single same-sex experience then, technically, s/he would be a Kinsey 1. But I seriously doubt that the dude that once got drunk and had sex with his friend... Or the kid who masturbated with his best friend one time when they were both 14... but is other wise totally straight, would identify as bisexual. And I don't think any competent professional would label someone bisexual in those circumstances that way either.

    Which... Is why it is up for interpretation depending on the specifics of the circumstances. Trying to argue a technicality here is not helpful to overall understanding of where someone is, and trying to turn a spectrum into a trinary is not helpful, either.
     
  18. biAnnika

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Northeastern US
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Chip, I don't think we actually disagree. I've done my best (again and again) to make it clear that I am only talking about the definition of bisexuality, not about who should accept or use which labels. The scenarios you give, furthermore, (the kid who masturbated with his friend, or the dude who got drunk and had sex with his friend, etc.) do not fit the definition...so not only do I agree that they probably wouldn't identify as bisexual, they outright probably *are not* bisexual, and hence I would *hope* no competent professional would label them that way.

    If you see me as trying to turn a spectrum into a trinary (and certainly if you see me as "label-slapping", then either you are not reading closely, or I am being uncharacteristically obtuse in explaining my position. I've said my piece here, and I stand by what I've said (though not by what others have made of it). I'm done.