• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Kinsey Scale (Credible or Psuedo)

What Do You Consider As Your Sexual Identity?

  • Heterosexual

    Votes: 33 67.3%
  • Homosexual

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • Bisexual

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • I Consider My Sexuality "Fluid"

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • Total voters
    49
Too much of everything is put down to sex. It is a factor, but a minor one.

Oh, what am I talking about! Sex is the be all and end all. :D
 
The idea of sexuality being fluid is certainly (and finally!) a ground-breaking one in modern history in the western world.
We've been caged in stereotypes far too long, for religious reasons mainly, and it is a bit preposterous to apply such rigid labels to a human being.

Me, I see myself as a 5.
 
Agreed. It took long enough, even though there has been plenty of evidence throughout history that such is the case.
 
Its interesting how we've embraced this concept of Sexual Fluidity, could it be that if we wrote educational texts to include Homosexual and Bisexual relationships as a norm, that more people would be inclined to experiment and develop a Sexual Fludity?

If this were the case, there would be no need for the Kinsey Scale as a means to determine someones base sexuality, instead the Kinsey Scale would be applied to measure someones current Sexual Preference, if indeed Sexuality is fluid in the majority of people
 
... the Kinsey Scale would be applied to measure someones current Sexual Preference...


I have that attitude to all systems of human classification.

The assumption that things remain constant is just that ... an assumption, which should not be made without proof. And that isn't just a proof for a majority, nor something as wooly as a statistical correlation within a sample, but proof for each specific case. Fluidity should always be default.
 
Stupid question here. Could someone explain the difference between being bisexual and pansexual?

I've read somewhere that AJR played Garak as "pansexual," and I'm not sure how that differs from bisexuality.

As for asexuality...my understanding is that there's apparently a continuum there, too. Some asexuals, for instance, are capable of experiencing aesthetic and romantic attraction to one or both sexes, but are incapable of being sexually aroused by seeing or being in contact with an attractive man or woman. I've heard this described as "heteroromantic" or "homoromantic"--a clear preference for who is aesthetically most attractive and who is seen as a possible partner for life, but without sexual arousal.

The degree to which such people need or can tolerate various sexual acts differs. Some may be able to tolerate it because they see it as part of a marriage that they value more for other components (the romantic love, the friendship, raising a family, etc.), but others can't or have no interest in the romantic aspects either.
 
Stupid question here. Could someone explain the difference between being bisexual and pansexual?

I explained it above Nerys.

The problem is that people have distorted the meaning of homo- and hetero- sexuality. The correct meaning is sexual attraction to the sex-specific body parts, and not who you happen to have been with.

Bisexuality is where a person feels sexually attracted to both male and female anatomies.

Asexual people can desire sexual gratification and can have sexual encounters, but won't feel any sexual attraction towards their partner's body.

Pansexuality, is the orientation in which gender plays a non-role, and where sexual attraction is solely governed by aspects that are not characteristic of either gender.
 
. . . And for most people, specific tastes within their Kinsey categories are mostly influenced by experience, from their relationships to parental figures to their exposure to media characters to specific and random life experiences. My taste in women would certainly be different if there had been no Lieutenant Uhura. :rommie:
Nichelle or Zoe?

So being pansexual isn't when you eat bread during sex? :guffaw:
No, being pansexual means you think this dude is hot.

Pan.jpg
 
Strictly heterosexual. I do have a mancrush on David Duchovny though... but I would throw up if I had to do anything sexual with a guy.
 
In my experience, I know that what I find attractive definitely changes and adapts over time, but to extend as far as gender preference? In my experience, I can't see how that could ever happen for me personally.
For a bisexual I could definitely see their preferred gender being "fluid", just as any other attraction preference can change, but as a straight guy, I don't see it happening.
 
I find attraction itself to be fascinating. It's interesting to see just what factors cause someone to become attracted to another person.
 
. . . And for most people, specific tastes within their Kinsey categories are mostly influenced by experience, from their relationships to parental figures to their exposure to media characters to specific and random life experiences. My taste in women would certainly be different if there had been no Lieutenant Uhura. :rommie:
Nichelle or Zoe?
Nichelle. Zoe was a long way from being born when I was in my formative years. Zoe is incredibly hot, though.
 
I find attraction itself to be fascinating. It's interesting to see just what factors cause someone to become attracted to another person.

Yes. And how weirdly objective those factors can seem from the inside, even when you know logically that it's entirely subjective.

I mean, you know that bit where you really fall for somebody hard and, like, even stupid things like the way s/he holds a spoon become ridiculously sexy? And you honestly can't understand how every other person in the world doesn't see it?

The meta-critic in the back of my head always really enjoys that part.
 
Last edited:
I find attraction itself to be fascinating. It's interesting to see just what factors cause someone to become attracted to another person.

Yes. And how weirdly objective those factors can seem from the inside, even when you know logically that it's entirely subjective.

I mean, you know that bit where you really fall for somebody hard and, like, even stupid things like the way s/he holds a spoon becomes ridiculously sexy? And you honestly can't understand how every other person in the world doesn't see it?

The meta-critic in the back of my head always really enjoys that part.

Exactly. It's cliche, but loving someone's laugh. You hear a girl or a guy snort, loud, and your friend says to you, "don't you love that laugh? It's like beautiful chimes!", and to you it's the sound of a Honda 4 stroke with a bad timing chain. It's so very subjective, and that makes it all the more interesting when it happens. I've had it happen to me, where I have found the behavioral traits of someone so very attractive, and other people think I'm two sandwiches short of having both oars nailed down.
 
I would have to say that I am asexual in terms of feeling anything in response to any person's anatomy other than aesthetic admiration. However, I have a very clear preference for men--that is who I could imagine marrying and having a family with. The term I've seen for this is "heteroromantic."
 
I would have to say that I am asexual.

The common opinion is that asexuality is rare and unusual, but it describes something like 5% of adults, so is really not that rare. Low levels of sex hormones can explain some of those cases.

However, some people can believe they are asexual when in fact they are just suppressing sexual feelings, say if they believe sex to be dirty or ungodly.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top