The Kinsey scale inherently excludes enbies and is actually a pretty poor barometer of human sexuality because it loses the nuance of it all.
What do I propose we replace it with? Nothing. There isn't a need for a scale like it.
I'm not even gonna fucking lie it's actually downright CREEPY how obsessed humanity is over what other people like to do with their genitals and their sexual preferences. Introspection is good. Worrying about your own is important. Worrying about others is actually really fucking gross and has an implicit aura of "can I fuck this person?" when the reality is that's none of your concern unless you're gonna ask them out. And in that case, just *ask.*
@Elizafox I mean I get it though
Rejection hurts really bad, to the point you want to know the answer is yes before you ask.
It’s like cats. They get really nervous when they come up to you and if you ignore them they won’t come back for hours, sometimes days, because they feel rejected.
@awilfox the problem is rejection can happen regardless
I'm not saying markers like "lesbian" aren't good to identify as, but it can't solve the issue of rejection.
I feel like society at large demands conformity where it shouldn't or it can't. This is one example. People are lead to believe normalcy is healthy, then they seek that norm. Look at weight... People tend to assume everyone of a certain height and age should have a given weight. But you can't even be sure of their metabolism. I find it frustrating that people will continue to be raised thinking health and happiness are supposed to be predictable formulas...
@Elizafox The Kinsey scale can clearly be improved upon. Unfortunately scientific study of human sexuality doesn’t happen in capitalism. So Kinsey may be the best we’ve got until the revolution.
@tibius tbh? we don't really need it at all. human sexuality has way more nuance than can ever be studied. What you know about someone's sexuality tells you nothing about whether or not they'll sleep with you.
@tibius I'm pansexual, but I very much have a type. This type can't really be easily put into words. "I know it when I see it." And I resist putting myself on any scale that doesn't acknowledge that. But I don't think any scale that can measure who I love can exist. 🤷
@Elizafox Doing science about human sexuality has nothing to do with figuring out whether someone will sleep with you or not so I have no idea where that came from. I think science is good, but I guess opinions differ!
@tibius "I like sex," I'm not sure what more science can be done on that. I'm not sure science can ever truly encompass all of the orientations out there. And being blunt, being someone's type is part of that, whether or not we admit it.
@SallyStrange @tibius I still think sexual orientation scales that can encompass attraction to gender, even if we limit ourselves to this, is still a fool's game. Gender is very diverse. You're gonna need a lot more points on your scale to include that alone. Factor in things like /levels/ of sexuality (very sexual to asexual), and I think a scale isn't worth the effort.
Research is fine. Putting people into ill-fitting boxes, I'm not so fine with.
This is a Mastodon instance run by the Interlinked Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit devoted to eliminating discrimination. We are an instance that blocks authoritarian political violence, ultra-nationalism, fascism, the alt-right, Stalinism, and authoritarian ideology in general. It's intended to be a safe place for those tired of violent rhetoric as well as a place safe from discrimination.