MALE Dataloungers: Where are you on the Kinsey scale?

[quote] Dataloungers

Oh, dear.

I don’t think the Kinsey scale exists. It’s like a 1950’s way of trying to explain sexuality. To them, someone straight-acting would be in the middle of the spectrum and a total fem queen would be a Kinsey 6, but in reality, they are both gay. Mannerisms shouldn’t dictate your sexuality.

r2 The Kinsey scale has nothing to do with masculinity or effeminacy. It only measures desires and attractions.

R2 Middle of the scale doesn't mean straight acting. it means attracted to women abour equally as to men. If a total queen likes to fuck girls too, then he is in the middle.

about*

I’ve never been sexually attracted to women but I’ve often been mesmerized by a beautiful woman in an aesthetic sense. Does that make me a 5?

r6 I don't think so. You can also be mesmerized by animals, buildings, and works of art, after all.

[quote]Middle of the scale doesn't mean straight acting. it means attracted to women abour equally as to men.

Tell it to the illustrator of that pic.

The heterosexual looks gray, lonely and sad :(

The Kinsey scale makes no sense. It says if you’re incidentally gay (like in prison) then you are a 2 or above. But if these people never went to prison then they would be a 1? Shouldn’t the rating be something innate and something that you’re born with that cannot be changed? Just because one commits a crime and goes to prison doesn’t mean his rating should be changed. It shouldn’t be based on actions.

r10 Oh stop it, each one of your takes is worse than the last.

There are 10% straight guys here?

Yeah... right!

r12 What, you think there are more? less?

I'm a 7: Fabulously, outrageously homosexual.

Where you are on the scale should not be based on actions. If you’re a gay for pay porn star, doesn’t mean you’re a 3. You could still be a 1 since you still desire females and have no attraction to males.

I often notice how fabulously attractive some women are when they dress well and look after themselves!

That doesn’t make you a 5, R16. If that was the case then all gay fashion designers and Ru Paul would be a 5 too.

You're entitled to your opinion, r17; but this is my truth!!!

Dr. Kinsey has stated her boundaries.

I started out about a 2 and now that I'm older I'm about a 4 or 5.

I am 5 in that I have had sexual experiences with women but no penetration and identify as gay and have even though I have had said sexual experiences with women since Identifying as gay

r21 BRAH!!!

That stupid OP graphic associated masculinity with heterosexuality and femininity with homosexuality.

r23 What's feminine about the men on the right of the graphic?

R24, For a host of reasons, wearing briefs is considered feminine or not masculine. Outside of my playing sports, few mainstream men wear jockstraps in sports, and it’s becoming unpopular in sports too

“Outside of playing sports”...

So the gayer you are, the less clothes you wear. Got it.

Maybe #6 is just an exhibitionist ?

r25 I think the jockstrap is depicted for sexual reasons, not as an indication of their everyday attire. I don't seen any hint of femininity in any of those drawings, but there's obviously an attempt to equate heterosexuality with grayness and a "closed" nature, whereas the gayer the men become the more "open" and bright they are. Which is a fact, obviously.

R15 how can someone pretend to be gay in a porn film? Wouldn't that be a problem? How are you going to be able to pull it off (literally)? LOL

But in all seriousness, the success of a scene in porn is based on erections and jizz spraying. So how???

R29, how do so many gay men marry women and father children? Or are you saying they can’t be gay (6) and they are 3s?

r23 In the graph, the further away from 0 you are, the less clothes you are wearing. It has nothing to do with effeminacy, doofus. It's you who are projecting your idea of male nudity and homoeroticism with being feminine.

R6 I love the Miss Universe pageant , where do I fall?

R32, you would be a 3.

I think you’re on to something profound. Society views wearing skimpy clothing as a feminine attribute, even when you’re talking about underwear and swimwear. This mainly in reference to lower body clothing, not upper body attire such as tank tops and muscle slut shirts. Hence, briefs and non-sports jockstraps are widely viewed as feminine or at least not mainstream today.

Oh, speedos are the big example of that very viewpoint in North America.

I think they equate being sexually promiscuous with being gay.

Or it could just be a graph that meant to illustrate the scale and we are overthinking it.

It illustrates gay stereotypes. The gayer a guy is, the skimpier he dresses the stereotype says

This isn't about everyday attire. No one thinks gay men walk down the street in a jock strap. It's about being open and sexually free. The straight man isn't making out with a woman, every inch of his body is covered in gray clothing and his arms are completely folded. It's a lighthearted blatantly pro-gay graphic.

[quote]It's a lighthearted blatantly pro-gay graphic.

With all the homoeroticism in it, it was also clearly drawn by a gay artist.

r21 what counts as a sexual experience if not actual sex? Did you just makeout and/or feel a girl up or go so far as lick pussy? The problem with Kinsey is that he based his scale solely on sexual experiences - his academic background was zoology and he was a hardcore behaviorist when it came to human psychology. He basically ignored attractions and emotions and was extremely skeptical of identity.

I had sex with several girls in high school and college before I came out but it was a struggle to stay hard when it came to intercourse and I had no real physical or romantic attraction to them - I was only doing it to fit in and because I didn't realize being gay was even an option. All of my sexual experiences and relationships have been with men for over 20 years now but according to the original kinsey scale I would be a 4 or a 5 because of those experiences with women when I was young.

The one thing I don't really understand is why some gay men have sexual experiences with women after coming out unless they were just drunk or high. You said you have and I did have a friend once who actually convinced one of his female friends to have sex with him when he was in his early 30s because he was a gold star gay and somehow felt he was missing out or was incomplete. Made no sense to me but I can kind of see that.

Now i'm not so confused when people on this board claim they would sleep with a women - 40.6% of posters are bi!

Does DL show the actual number of people who voted and not just the percentages because that can be misleading if the sample is very low...

r41 40%? I would think the vast majority of people who rate themselves a 5 who claim a gay identity and probably lots of 4s as well. That is part of the problem with the scale - it has very little to do with identity and even its scaling is arbitrary.

R43 But it doesn't matter what people claim to be. A guy can claim to be straight even though he sleeps with other men, he clearly isn't straight. The Kinsey scale is useful as it shows us just how many people are bisexual (i.e. they pick a number 1 through 5), even though if you were to ask them "are you bisexual?" the majority would say no.

Hetrosexual = SOLELY attracted to the opposite sex Homosexual = SOLELY attracted to the same sex Bisexual = Can be attracted to either sex

It's what I've thought for a long time, while I'm a total 6, the majority of people are probably bisexual and if they all just acknowledged this the world would be a much easier place.

I know I'm a 6 because the idea of having sex with a woman is a total turnoff for me, I could never go through with it.

Presumably, 0s feel the same way about sex with another man.

[quote]Does DL show the actual number of people who voted and not just the percentages because that can be misleading if the sample is very low...

Hundreds of people have voted. You can deduce that from the percentages and their proportions over one another.

r46 Where is that tally of hundreds of people shown? And I am not so sure it is possible mathematically to derive an exact or even proximate sample size based solely on percentages for multiple categories but if it is so simple, calculate it for us...

25% of you are 5s? Really? When was the last time you had sex with a woman? (Not asking in an accusatory way - just curious).

r47

[quote]And I am not so sure it is possible mathematically to derive an exact or even proximate sample size based solely on percentages for multiple categories but if it is so simple

It is possible to derive a minimum number, though.

For example, the category with fewest votes - Kinsey 2 - has 1.6% votes. In order to have that result, you need a sample size of at least 61. But there must be more than 61, because the next smallest category - Kinsey 3 - has 2% of votes, and this is not possible that sample size, as you can see below.

1/61 = 1.6%

2/61 = 3.3%

I believe there have been slightly more than 250 votes. This is based on the following calculation:

2% divided by 1.6% = 1.25

Using the smallest numbers possible, one must conclude that 1.6% = 4 and 2% = 5. If that is so, then the sample size must be at least 250.

r44 An arbitrary numerical range is no more reliable than the 3 options of straight, gay or bi. In fact, it is probably less reliable because there are conflicting interpretations of what exactly a Kinsey type scale is measuring - some think it is solely attraction while others say it is a sum of lifetime behaviors. Limiting gay and straight to 1s and 6s and making everything else default to bisexual isn't how most people understand themselves and while self-deception is a real problem with any sort of social science in this area, the overwhelming impact on reporting runs in one direction - bias against homosexuality. Finally, likert type scales are also prone to bias towards the means - a type of desirability bias where people tend to avoid either end of the scales.

Despite what many bisexuals think, very few gay men are secretly bisexuals and are hiding some latent heterosexual attraction - it is more likely the other way around. But whatever...

I consider myself a 5 because I have had sex with a woman r48, sure I was closeted at the time but it seems silly to discount that hetero-sex experience. Not that I would particularly want to, but I'd imagine I could do so again.

R30 I seriously don't think that a man who is able to regularly have sex with a woman without special pills. etc, is fully gay. Even if it's not the best sex in his life and he'd rather be with a man.

Why does anyone take a poll on DL seriously - trolling is part of the game we all play here...

The ability to have sex is irrelevant. It's whether or not you want to have sex with women and you find them sexually desirable.

r51 so all gay men who had sex in high school once with a girl are automatically 5s? Even if they have had sex with hundreds of men? That makes no sense...Past behavior is not an indication of ones inherent desires - especially with all the pressure gay men have to be hetero...

The Kinsey Scale is just a fucking joke. It's what every "bi" person uses to justify their denial: "I don't believe in labels. According to the Kinsey scale BLA BLA BLA."

We disagree on how we define things. That's fine. I don't consider a gayorpay guy to be a kinsey 0, just like I don't consider a gay man who has a sexual history with women to be a kinsey 6. That's my perspective, you are free to have yours.

R55 Considering all other gay men who simply couldn't have sex with girls when they tried, I'd say yeah. There is pressure to pick a side on both sides. It's very obvious on DL, for example. A person with a gay identity is often pressured into being "very gay", "a massive homo" and so on, as if having some attraction to women would mean caving in to heterosexuality.

[quote]That's my perspective, you are free to have yours.

It's not about perspectives or opinions or definitions, the Kinsey scale is about SEXUAL ATTRACTION not past history or whether or not we are ABLE to have sex with one or the other. The only relevant information here is whether or not you are sexually attracted to men or women and if you find either/or sexually desirable. In short, do you ever masturbate while thinking of women?

Man, someone is very heated about this. And amusingly enough you are completely wrong, the kinsey scale was about your sexual history.

To use Kinsey's own words

[quote]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

[quote] That stupid OP graphic associated masculinity with heterosexuality and femininity with homosexuality.

Even though they are simply drawings, I found myself want to have sex with each of the guys in OP's graph, what does that make me.

Please don't say a whore. I know you want to, but don't.

Then there is the Fursey Scale.

r60 That is the problem - it was designed by Kinsey for behavior but has morphed into a measure of attraction or rather some people use it one way and others another so unless a definition is provided in a survey question, it is meaningless.

So a gay boy who's only had sex once in an awkward, unfulfilling fumble with a girl at school, but never been with a man, is a Kinsey 0?

Of course, Kinsey's own sexuality is contested and his own varied sexual history with men and women most likely informed his aversion to categories and identities.

The illustration was done by a gay man.

Will Kohler

Will Kohler is a noted LGBT historian, journalist and owner of Back2Stonewall.com. A longtime gay activist, Will fought on the front lines of the AIDS epidemic with ACT-UP and continues fighting today for LGBT acceptance and full equality. Will’s work has been referenced in notable media venues as MSNBC and BBC News, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Hollywood Reporter, and Raw Story,

r66 I like Will but he I think he was taking the piss with that graphic - he likes to be provocative.

[quote]25% of you are 5s? Really? When was the last time you had sex with a woman? (Not asking in an accusatory way - just curious).

I consider myself Kinsey 5 and it's been over 20 years since I had sex with a woman. While I most definitely do not fantasize about me having sex with women I still get slightly aroused by seeing female bodies and especially pussies in straight porn. I never really watch lezzie porn but if in the mood I might get slightly aroused by it. I do remember wanking to it like 10 years ago and really getting into it but that only happened a few times. When I was in my late teens I absolutely loved making love to women but the desire just wasn't strong enough since I preferred men in every way. I'm not really into one night stands and tend to only want longer relationships which is why I haven't even tried to have sex with women for such a long time. I know it wouldn't be right for either of us.

[quote][R51] so all gay men who had sex in high school once with a girl are automatically 5s? Even if they have had sex with hundreds of men? That makes no sense...Past behavior is not an indication of ones inherent desires - especially with all the pressure gay men have to be hetero...

I've always assumed that if you can have sex with women you are not Kinsey 6. Just like if a straight man gets hard when making out with another man he's not Kinsey 0. Let's not forget that gay community shuns bisexuality and there's a huge pressure for the gay leaning bi men to be completely gay. When I was younger and naive I brought up a few times that I like women as well in a gay bar. I was called disgusting and practically became invisible for some guys. You learn pretty fast to keep your mouth shut.

[quote]The ability to have sex is irrelevant. It's whether or not you want to have sex with women and you find them sexually desirable.

I wouldn't exactly say the ability to have sex is irrelevant. The are tons of gay men who just can't get it up for women. I've had gay friends who've said the idea of having sex with women was totally foreign to them even as teens. Now *those* guys are Kinsey 6.

But like it's been brought in this thread the Kinsey scale itself can be quite confusing. When I place myself on the scale I consider what I've done with women and how attracted to them I am or have been. I was probably Kinsey 4 when I was having sex with women but these days I do consider myself to be 5.

Exactly. When I think of a kinsey 6 I think of a guy who cannot comprehend of ever being able to have sex with a woman. There are those guys out there.

Most of us can't ever comprehend having sex with overweight fugs but give it time and enough alcohol. Same with Kinsey 6s and the opposite sex.

R68 Exactly. I knew I was bi back in high school when people were arguing about being straight vs gay and all I could ever think about was, but why not both, why does it even matter? Socially I knew those weren't the same things, but my inner sense of attraction and sexuality simply saw no difference between girl and boy.

I must be a 6. When I find out that a guy has been with a women, this becomes an instant turn off for me. When I'm with a guy, I'd prefer not knowing about his past sexual history so I don't learn that he has been with a woman.

[quote]Most of us can't ever comprehend having sex with overweight fugs but give it time and enough alcohol. Same with Kinsey 6s and the opposite sex.

No, you're not getting it. Alcohol wouldn't make a bit of difference, I'd still be turned off. It's physiological, not some psychological block.

A man will have sex with anything after three pints and a Xanax. And, no, I'm not talking about spiking other people's drinks.

We were all closeted at one point. There is a reason that some engaged with women sexually during that time, while some guys had nothing to do with women.

R68 You know what, you are not alone. I'm not like that, but I know a few men identifying as gay who are like that. It's like, they have a certain sexual attraction to women but they aren't into one night sex and the whole concept of a hetero relationship is not quite... right for them. They want a monogamous, romantic relationship but they don't really want that traditional relationship with a female, the way it goes, the way the partners behave, you know. And a woman who is different and also okay with you having mostly been with men and also you fall in love and it's mutual and... that's as realistically possible as a unicorn. And since gay men in general dislike these sorts of ideas, those men never bring it up. They just keep living as gay men.

[quote][R66] I like Will but he I think he was taking the piss with that graphic - he likes to be provocative.

Duh!

Many of us dial it up to Kinsey 11.

R74 how could I have sex if I'm asleep??

[quote][R30] I seriously don't think that a man who is able to regularly have sex with a woman without special pills. etc, is fully gay. Even if it's not the best sex in his life and he'd rather be with a man.

So the millions of gay men throughout history who were closeted and married to women and had children because of societal pressure were not really gay men but actually bisexual men on the scale of 3, 4, or 5. Got it. 🙄

R80, why is that so hard to believe? Because bisexuals are scum?

R80 Scale 3 is not likely. When you are close to 50/50 bisexual, you have a high chance to actually find a woman you like and want for herself instead of fancying other men while being with her. Scale 5 - yeah, likely. Can have sex with a woman, but has a really hard time actually finding a desirable woman so the experience is unfulfilling and it's much easier to just be with men.

Kinsey 6 can't get it up for a woman. The idea of having sex with a woman feels weird. There is no sexual reaction, maybe once when you are very young and haven't had sex for a while, but the erection can be lost in the process of fucking. Female genitalia looks and feels weird too. If a woman is cold so you have sex once a month and it's some quick bad sex, well, such a marriage is possible. There were a lot of such marriages in the old times.

R82, you’re making up all those definitions for what a 5 and 6 is. That is not how Kinsey defined them at all. He never said Kinsey 6 means you can’t get it up at all for a woman. This scale is meaningless since people keep making up their own definitions of what each number means for them.

R83 That's simple logic. If your attraction is purely homo or heterosexual, then you will have zero sexual reaction to the partner of the 'wrong' sex, perhaps even revulsion.

Teenage boys are full of hormones and can get an erection from almost any physical contact with anyone or anything - many straight boys will have some same-sex encounters, especially in single-sex environments like boarding schools, incarceration, etc., not from innate desire but for lack of opportunities with girls, but I guess according to this bizarre interpretation of Kinsey, they become 2s (or how about we decimalize as 1.5 or 1.01) are thus are now forced into a bisexual identity for life. Closeted gay men and straight boys who experiment in adolescence are now shanghaied into a bisexual identity indirectly through this reductive and regressive application of an outdated methodological construct that is incompatible with modern psychological theories of sexual identity development.

I guess Ben Carson was partially correct - borderline coercive same-sex activity in prison can actually change a straight person, not into a gay but bisexual one. The one drop rule is back....

r81 So not believing that most gay and many straight men are suffering some bizarre form of false consciousness isn't biphobia - it is comment sense. For the meantime anyway...The queer/fluid vanguard, which basically rejects both gay and bisexual identities, seems to have more currency in elite circles these days that the old style "everyone is bisexual" meme - for the meantime until the next fad hits the media. The worrying trend is the collapse of all identities into this meaningless LGBTism, which may work as necessary political coalition forged from common enemies, but has no coherency as a personal, cultural or sexual identity.

R85, yes, some het guys do experiment. Guess what? Not everyone does. I knew I was into boys pretty early on but didn't want to have sex with most of them, even as a horny teen. There are way more Kinsey 1's out there than people believe or want to believe. BTW, completely straight is Kinsey 0, not 1. You sound like someone who's always hated bisexuals and just is unable to think of anything positive about them.

R86, I've no idea what I just read. And I just noticed you are both R85 and R86. You've also tried your best to piss on both the poll and Kinsey himself in your earlier posts. What's your damage? Did a bi boy break your heart?

[quote]Closeted gay men and straight boys who experiment in adolescence are now shanghaied into a bisexual identity indirectly through this reductive and regressive application of an outdated methodological construct that is incompatible with modern psychological theories of sexual identity development.

Exactly. The Kinsey scale is completely outdated and incompatible with what we now know of sexuality. It was created in the 1940s or 50s when people didn't really know much about sexuality. The people who still cling to that outdated study as gospel are total idiots. I have no respect for them.

R88, and, prey tell, what IS this modern view on sexuality that is so much better than the Kinsey scale?

Silly gays - all that social and political organizing based on a minority sexual identity was not only empirically flawed, it was a waste of time. If straight people just realized that if they so much as kissed a member of the same sex they would have been bisexual, then homophobia would magically be erased and we would be living in this post-gay/straight nirvana...I think Kinsey actually believed that his work would have this revolutionary impact on society not because it validated a minority gay identity but because it invalidated the very nature of a normative heterosexuality. Many people forget that his original research claimed that almost 50% of men had some sexual contact with other men at some point in their life (most of which occurred in adolescence and in prisons), a number we now know to be incredibly overstated due to a statistical methodology that is profoundly flawed in light of modern statistical theories, was the primary claim that was so radical and made international news. The 10% claim was never made by Kinsey even though it is what most people today associate with his work and that is due to the savviness of gay activists in the 70s and 80s who relied on some questionable reinterpretation of kisney's raw data that was published by the research institute that bears his name at the behest of one of the guys who founded the NGLTF whose name escapes me at the moment. The very basis of his data - an exhaustive personal interview technique that could last hours or days administered by a select few of Kinsey's inner circle that consisted of hundreds of potential and often redundant questions - would now be considered unreliable, unethical and tainted by the subjective interpretation of the interviewers if conducted today.

These tired debates seem to be refought every generation between various factions - GLF was the radical front of the 70s and Queer attempted to take up its banner since the 90s but radicals tend to attack their moderate allies rather than the right wingers...Now we have online mobs that rely on a tumblrized pseudo-radicalism and mistake social media for actual activism. I respected but disagreed with the GLFers and the 90s Queers but despair of what passes as gay radicalism today....

Actually, 0 was a separate category for what we many people today would describe as asexuality - the sexuality spectrum or axis, again based solely on behavior, ran from 1 (exclusively hetero) to 6 (exclusively homo). If you are going to rant or troll don't make such obvious mistakes.

KINSEy definitely viewed as a quack or held in low regard in modern academia. In my classes, he was only mentioned as having been largely debunked by later, more reputable researchers.

And -r87 is the same troll that has keeps making these accusations of biphobia and appears to be the only person in this thread making the crazy claims about only gold gays being real 6s so right back at ya!

Kinsey is important historically but most of his work has not held up over time. The same can be said about Freud- he was revolutionary at the time but the great thing about the scientific method is that theories are constantly being tested and revised over time.

I'm not represented on Kinsey.

R94, plus, Jung is sooooo much more interesting and cool than Freud.

R85 Nope, the one drop rule is the belief that having sex with men makes you gay, because bisexuality does not exist. That's exactly the weirdness of the rule. It only allows the black and white, no mix-ups.

R89 That person hates on fluid sexuality in the same breath as they put down Kinsey for being outdated. Fine, the modern theory is that everyone is fluid so we sort of dance around the Kinsey scale all our lives without ever truly settling down in one spot. Bet they'd hate this definition even more.

Also identity and attraction isn't the same thing.

"Identity politics" is a right-wing meme. They try to disconnect "identity" ("I'm gay") from practice ("I sleep with men") in order to undermine the gay rights movement.

What r97 said. Someone doesn't understand the one-drop rule.

The Kinsey scale isn't about a one-drop rule, the entire purpose is saying that sexuality is a spectrum.

I am a Kinsey 6, never been with a woman, never seriously kissed a female but did kiss two just joking around it was so uncomfortable. I can't imagine ever having sex with a woman, I dated a woman for a couple of months while in the closet after she pursued the shit out of me for months, I really liked her as a person but I just could never bring myself to even kiss her.

There is no amount of drink or drug that could ever make me want to do anything sexual with a woman. Just for reference and I feel some of you will make assumptions, I am not at all effeminate, but I doubt that makes a difference either way.

[quote]Actually, 0 was a separate category for what we many people today would describe as asexuality - the sexuality spectrum or axis, again based solely on behavior, ran from 1 (exclusively hetero) to 6 (exclusively homo). If you are going to rant or troll don't make such obvious mistakes.

Let's see what an online wiki says:

[italic]The Kinsey scale was created by Dr. Alfred Kinsey, and attempts to chart the level of an individual's sexuality over time. The scale shows that it is possible to be between sexual orientations, and that very few people are only one sexual orientation. It measures hetero- and homosexuality from 0 to 6, [bold]with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual[/bold].

In the Kinsey reports of 1948 and 1953, [bold]Kinsey added a grade for asexuality as well; this separate category, X[/bold], was created for those with "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions."[/italic]

[quote]And -r87 is the same troll that has keeps making these accusations of biphobia and appears to be the only person in this thread making the crazy claims about only gold gays being real 6s so right back at ya!

First of all I'm not the only one here saying Kinsey 6's are totally gay. And secondly, you call me a troll? For what? For saying that Kinsey 6's can't have sex with women? R102 is another proof guys like that exist, and I've had many of them as friends over the years. I've also met many gay men like me who are in fact bisexual but the attraction to women is so low that we just call ourselves gay because in reality that's how we live our lives.

You said in your earlier post that you used to have sex with women when you were younger but couldn't get fully hard. I'm not a Kinsey expert but it sounds like you're between 5 and 6. It does sound like you can't stand that anyone would categorize you as bisexual, which is probably why you've been attacking people in this thread constantly. It's really you who's trolling here, not me. I'd imagine you might be one of those gay men who keeps bitching about bi men like they were the scum of the earth. And you used to have sex with multiple women yourself when you were younger? Quelle surprise.

Is the Kinsey scale perfect? Probably not, and I'm not even claiming I use it correctly since I tend to take into account the attraction as well, not just sexual acts that have happened. Still, people seem to able to place themselves on the scale fairly easily, although some might lie about it.

R103 I might have said it already, but the pressure for gay leaning bisexuals to admit being gay is even greater than the pressure for straight leaning ones to give up men. Because the first one is seen as an identity breach.

It's the same for bi women. Lesbians hate them with a passion. No man will ever diss a woman for being bi as hard as a lez woman will.

[quote]I am a Kinsey 6, never been with a woman, never seriously kissed a female but did kiss two just joking around it was so uncomfortable. I can't imagine ever having sex with a woman, I dated a woman for a couple of months

If you've kissed two women and dated one for months then you are at least a Kinsey 4.

R104, only if one is trying to live within the “professionally gay”, conventionally gay communicity. Today, a large number of non-straight men live outside the “gay community,” and find community and socialization with other bi and “mostly straight” men. Most of these men are oblivious or don’t care about what “Capital G gays” think about them. They view themselves as “non-gay.”

A gay person who doesn't identify with some nebulous notion of a "gay community" or "gay culture" is still gay. They fancy men and masturbate while thinking about fucking men, ergo THEY GAY.

I doubt guys turn gay by being in prison environment. Any sex in prison is about exercising power. If u ever been attracted to a guy, u r gay .

I'm not gay I'm just a human being who happens to be attracted to human beings of the same sex!

YES, or bi, or mostly straight, depending upon their attraction to females. But someone here was making comments about how “officially gay” folks feel about bi or biish men, and that’s where self-identity is pertinent.

All this talk about "labels" is odd. A label is a descriptor that we use to identify everything to each other. The word "label" is a label. When you start rejecting labels, where do you stop? I'm not a gay man, I'm a man who just happens to be attracted to other men. I'm not a man, I'm just a human being who happens to have XY sex chromosomes. I'm not a human being, I'm a biped who just happens to be a member of the Homo-sapien community, etc, etc.

[quote]Today, a large number of non-straight men live outside the “gay community,” and find community and socialization with other bi and “mostly straight” men. Most of these men are oblivious or don’t care about what “Capital G gays” think about them. They view themselves as “non-gay.”

I still view myself as gay but about 99% of my male friends are like this. They're also all homophobic, so I totally ignore it while ensuring not to say anything that offends them. It's basically the same as the 90's but not AS bad.

A lot of us view ourselves as non-gay. We hate all that Liza Minano crap, can't stand musicals, Cher, or Goldren Girl. We don't lisp, or have limp wrists. We range from Kinsey 1 to 5 and don't associate with the 6 total flamers.

r113 And yet, here you are...

R108 So if I had two girlfriends and one boyfriend, I'm still gay by your definition?

The Rise of the Non-Gays

What was your own vote, Troll 5049?

Most days I'm a 1, occasionally a 2.

I'm a 6 on weekdays and a 6 on weekends.

Then what are you doing here, R118?

I wonder what Ted bundy was. He had intense compulsion to kill women. Are there good natured gays? Most seem very angry.

I am a hard 6 (no pun intended). I have never found a single woman sexually attractive—ever. Beautiful, yes, and I've marveled at women's beauty, but I've never had any sexual impulses toward them—I've only ever wanted to be with men in a romantic and/or sexual context. I've felt this way as long as I've had "romantic" feelings, beginning in elementary school. This is why I call bullshit on the people who like to propagate the myth that "everyone is a little gay"—that is just not fucking true. The overwhelming majority of people are thoroughly heterosexual. There are some people who float in-between, but it's rare, and then there are us who are wholeheartedly homosexual.

Another hard 6 here. Tried to be a 1 in my mid teens, got honest with myself, progressed from 1 to 6 in the space of three weeks (although in reality always was a 6.

I dont even notice women generally. I dont dislike them, but they dont register with me unless they are extremely androgynous, even very beautiful women dont generally have any impact on me. I will be more mesmerized by a well restored C3 Corvette or TransAm than a woman

And yeah, the graphic isnt an accurate reflection of reality. Most days I dress/act/ look like the 1 in the graphic. Its only in certain environments like the bathouse or gym I let loose and act like the 6 in the graphic

gold star gay = A gay person who has never had sex with the opposite gender

Platinum Star Gay = A gay person who was born by cesarean section and has never touched a vagina.

Straight bros, explain yourself.

While we are at it.... why the hell are there so many posts about various female stars/ celebrities/ models on here of late? What the actual fuck, I thought this was a gay forum

LOL R124, I guess I am a platinum star gay then—I was breach and had to be born via Caesarean, and I have also never touched a vagina.

I get what you're saying, R122, but I feel like the notion that "everybody's at least a little bit gay" might be (a little bit) true. Every straight guy loves at least one dick--his own! In all seriousness, I wonder if that opens the door to curiosity in some guys who are basically 100% heterosexual otherwise.

Sure R128, but I still think there is a difference between enjoying the dick attached to your own body versus one attached to someone else's. I feel like the "everyone's a little gay" idea is a fantasy that we as gay men like to indulge in because it gives us the sense that we could possibly have all these straight dudes. It's an attractive idea (hence all the "straight guy's first time" porn scenarios), but it's not been reality in my experience, no matter how alluring (or hot) it might be. If a straight guy is "a little gay," then I don't think he's really straight—he's probably bisexual, or possibly gay.

I've tried messing around with women in the past, but my dick won't cooperate. I sort of like boobies, but as soon as the twat is unveiled, I lose my boner.

[Quote] 25% of you are 5s? Really? When was the last time you had sex with a woman?

Only Gold Star gays are a 6.

Does anyone really believe that 4% of posters here are a 1? Yeah right.

[quote] Does anyone really believe that 4% of posters here are a 1? Yeah right.

While there are a few straight men you come here, I suspect that straight women just ignored the "Male Dataloungers" and answered anyway.

[quote] Total heterosexuality - 4.3%

Sure, Jan.

I don't find it inconceivable that some straight men are on here.