Where do you fall on the Kinsey Scale?

Wibbs

Azalea wrote: »

Taking offence is something everyone does when it's something that affects them btw.

Eh no they don't. Or shouldn't, at any rate. Sure, if someone is actively out to get a rise from me or others then I'll call them on it. I don't get particularly "offended" about it mind you.

I certainly don't get offended by opinions held by others. Too often I've noticed the two get mixed up. IE "X has said something personally offensive to me(even by merely disagreeing with my dearly held worldview), therefore X are directly attacking me". Cue emotionals. Eh nope. It's all about the "me". As I said, the Century of the Self Involved.

And that's before we get to completely misreading the situation because offence is set to hair trigger.

Wibbs

Hammer89 wrote: »

You're gay.

:pac: Yeah H I could never quite get how being called Gay is a reason to freak out, even become violent. Now I could see a reaction like this if it was some primitive craphole like Uganda where being seen as gay could get you thrown in gaol, badly hurt or even killed, but in the West? Doesn't really compute.

padd b1975 wrote: »

in response to the most common sense speaking poster on this site!

*post reported for wild levels of inaccuracy* :pac:

padd b1975

Azalea wrote: »

All very vague Padd - could you be more specific?

Taking offence is something everyone does when it's something that affects them btw.

You should take a browse through any threads discussing gay/transsexual related topics-they shouldn't be too difficult to find, they're a very popular subject matter.

Generally speaking, they follow a certain pattern.
Thread opens and there's a stampede of posters to put their tolerance and acceptance of whatever bat-sh1te crazy fad of the week is being championed on the record.
All goes well for a page or two as everyone back slaps each other in an organisation of self righteousness.

Sadly for those types of narrow minded liberals, not everyone will stay on message, and when the differing opinion arrives, the proverbial hits the fan and you get what we saw a few posts up.

It's as certain as night following day.

Whitewinged

Candie wrote: »

Yes, I'm surprised at the word repulsed being used so often. I'm not repulsed, just not interested.
y.

I'm not surprised by the use of this word at all. Although it probably sounds harsh, realistically it is the correct word as repulse is the opposite of attract.

Azalea

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no they don't. Or shouldn't, at any rate. Sure, if someone is actively out to get a rise from me or others then I'll call them on it. I don't get particularly "offended" about it mind you.

I certainly don't get offended by opinions held by others. Too often I've noticed the two get mixed up. IE "X has said something personally offensive to me(even by merely disagreeing with my dearly held worldview), therefore X are directly attacking me". Cue emotionals. Eh nope. It's all about the "me". As I said, the Century of the Self Involved.

And that's before we get to completely misreading the situation because offence is set to hair trigger.

Everyone has something they're sensitive about.

This fashion of "waaaaaa theyre offended, burn them!" is getting very tedious. It only gets applied too when it's a view that the "offence-seeker finder generals" disagree with.

It gets applied incorrectly constantly - just because someone doesn't like something and expresses this, doesn't mean they're "offended" or looking for offence. And do the people who are constantly vocalising how they get pissed off about people being offended really not *see* the irony? Stephen Fry being a well known example.

There are certainly people who look for offence all the time - but they're a minority, and those who are always on the lookout for offence-seekers/finders are nearly as annoying.

Zimmey

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Making assumptions about other peoples sexuality and then trying to ram your view of their sexuality down their throats would tend to annoy people alright.

Also you say we rely too much on labels yet you're labelling everyone as bi and taking enjoyment from the reaction of those that aren't...

I also believe that human sexuality exists on a wide spectrum and individuals can fall anywhere on that spectrum. That means some people will be 100% hetero or gay. Sure some of these people may be bi without realising it yet but you're assumptions of them are based solely on your own projections and have absolutely nothing to do with the individuals you seem determined to label as "bi".

+1 I don't get why someone would talk about a spectrum and not acknowledge that some people can be on the absolute extremities of that spectrum. Or that others that might be slightly on the spectrum might be so barely on it that they basically identify themselves as 100% one or the other.

RayM

padd b1975 wrote: »

You should take a browse through any threads discussing gay/transsexual related topics-they shouldn't be too difficult to find, they're a very popular subject matter.

Generally speaking, they follow a certain pattern.
Thread opens and there's a stampede of posters to put their tolerance and acceptance of whatever bat-sh1te crazy fad of the week is being championed on the record.
All goes well for a page or two as everyone back slaps each other in an organisation of self righteousness.

Sadly for those types of narrow minded liberals, not everyone will stay on message, and when the differing opinion arrives, the proverbial hits the fan and you get what we saw a few posts up.

It's as certain as night following day.

If someone doesn't share your bigoted opinions (and has the sheer cheek to express that fact), it doesn't mean that they're self-righteous. It just means that they disagree with you, and that (shock, horror!) they don't feel that they have the right to dismiss other people's lifestyles as 'bat-sh1te crazy fads'. Seriously, of all the people to throw accusations of narrow-mindedness around...

Zimmey

iguana wrote: »

Why does being what you are stop you from believing that people can be what they are? Being straight doesn't make it difficult for me to comprehend other people being gay or bi-sexual. I can easily accept that all people aren't like me. But I am entirely straight. I can appreciate a beautiful woman and find her sexy and enjoyable to look at but the thought of me having sex with even the most beautiful, sexy, fantastic woman is as appealing to me as the thought of having sex with a horrible, smelly, leery, drunken lech of a man that's just soiled himself. When it comes to kissing someone, touching them sexually, being touched, etc. I only find men (some men) attractive.

Yeah, for me touching a boob is completely non-erotic. And I've never even considered vaginas in any sexual fantasy, which is even more telling.

People love beauty so of course we all love looking at beautiful people. But finding someone beautiful doesn't mean you want to ride them.

Azalea

There's a thread on Feedback about Bible quotes being used in the prison forum to take the piss - a very telling thread. People who would be more conservative are offended by it (even though it's usually folks of that persuasion complaining about liberals being offended) and the more liberal peeps are sneering at them and telling them they're looking for offence (despite being the so-called liberals).

I think the "liberals" are being pretty dickish on that thread and I fully agree with Christians who object to Bible verses being mocked on the prison forum.

My point is: everyone has something they're sensitive about when it suits, so would people ever give the "you're looking for offence" generica a rest - or at least think it through before throwing it out there just to dismiss.

As regards this thread: it's arrogant to say everyone has a bit of bisexuality in them - no, everyone does not. But I think Medusa is simply saying there are people who ruled it out and then the opposite happened for them, that's all. It's very rare though.

Azalea

iguana wrote: »

Why does being what you are stop you from believing that people can be what they are? Being straight doesn't make it difficult for me to comprehend other people being gay or bi-sexual. I can easily accept that all people aren't like me. But I am entirely straight. I can appreciate a beautiful woman and find her sexy and enjoyable to look at but the thought of me having sex with even the most beautiful, sexy, fantastic woman is as appealing to me as the thought of having sex with a horrible, smelly, leery, drunken lech of a man that's just soiled himself.e.

Being with a woman would do absolutely nothing for me but no way would it fill me with that much disgust. Seems extreme!

padd b1975

RayM wrote: »

If someone doesn't share your bigoted opinions (and has the sheer cheek to express that fact), it doesn't mean that they're self-righteous. It just means that they disagree with you, and that (shock, horror!) they don't feel that they have the right to dismiss other people's lifestyles as 'bat-sh1te crazy fads'. Seriously, of all the people to throw accusations of narrow-mindedness around...

"Bigoted"
Your casual cheapening of this term only strengthens my earlier point.
Pretty soon it's going to be in the bargain bin alongside homophobia, racism, and misogyny.

RayM

padd b1975 wrote: »

"Bigoted"
Your casual cheapening of this term only strengthens my earlier point.
Pretty soon it's going to be in the bargain bin alongside homophobia, racism, and misogyny.

Describing your opinions as bigoted is neither casual nor cheapening the term.

Whitewinged

Azalea wrote: »

Being with a woman would do absolutely nothing for me but no way would it fill me with that much disgust. Seems extreme!

It probably sounds extreme but it is how she feels about the thought of being intimate with someone that she has zero attraction for, being intimate with someone that she has no desire to be intimate with and alot of people would be disgusted by that.

I think when posters are using words like "repulse" and things like that, it's important to understand that they are not repulsed by other people's sexuality, they are not trying to put down other people's sexuality, they are just trying to express their own and the thought of going against their own sexuality.

Wibbs

Azalea wrote: »

This fashion of "waaaaaa theyre offended, burn them!" is getting very tedious. It only gets applied too when it's a view that the "offence-seeker finder generals" disagree with.

I applied it because a page back a perfect example came into view, got offended, threw a strop and took to accusing me of christ knows what. Even though I clearly stated my position that their kind do get unfairly treated. In the same bloody post. :pac: You couldn't make it up. I do agree they're rare enough online and almost completely invisible offline, but they're visible enough in enough numbers online to be noticeable. Thankfully not so much on Boards(though one can near guarantee the same names who take "offence" time and time again, as night follows day).

There's a thread on Feedback about Bible quotes being used in the prison forum to take the piss - a very telling thread. People who would be more conservative are offended by it (even though it's usually folks of that persuasion complaining about liberals being offended) and the more liberal peeps are sneering at them and telling them they're looking for offence (despite being the so-called liberals).

Oh I agree and though I agreed that the church gets stick, I'd still say to them build a bloody bridge and get over yourself FFS.

Whitewinged wrote:

I think when posters are using words like "repulse" and things like that, it's important to understand that they are not repulsed by other people's sexuality, they are not trying to put down other people's sexuality, they are just trying to express their own and the thought of going against their own sexuality.

Exactly WW. The idea of a hetero orgy repulses me, but if you want to get down with with a load of sweaty bodies in someone's master bedroom knock yourself out.

NachoBusiness

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually I've come across a good few openly gay GAA guys.

Tmi.

Freak Midget wrote: »

Calling a man 'a little bi' is fighting words.

You can understand guys getting annoyed at that in fairness. Especially if they are 5ft7" or below.

Candie wrote: »

Yes, I'm surprised at the word repulsed being used so often. I'm not repulsed, just not interested.

Well, have to say that I am totally repulsed at the mere thought of a naked man so much as touching me.

Apart from Liam Hemsworth that is. Fcuk me he's a ride.

Sonics2k

Medusa22 wrote: »

I am saying that most people are predominantly gay or straight but with some homosexual/heterosexual tendencies to varying degrees, I don't believe this to be a very controversial statement. Sexuality is fluid, most people are aware of this, most people are not 100% gay or straight but fall somewhere on the spectrum, and like I said previously that could be 99.9 gay or straight, and as I have said, it is MOST people, not all.

I'll happily call complete BS on this.

I was raised by a gay couple and am completely straight. Whilst I can appreciate and acknowledge an attractive male, I do not have any urge to have sex with him/them. Being open about my sexuality and in others was very important.

Sexuality isn't really fluid, but there are many types of sexuality. You're pulling the 99.9% figure out of nowhere at all and are simply basing it most likely on your own opinion or of your own social group.

Medusa22

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'll happily call complete BS on this.

I was raised by a gay couple and am completely straight. Whilst I can appreciate and acknowledge an attractive male, I do not have any urge to have sex with him/them. Being open about my sexuality and in others was very important.

Sexuality isn't really fluid, but there are many types of sexuality. You're pulling the 99.9% figure out of nowhere at all and are simply basing it most likely on your own opinion or of your own social group.

I did say that most people are predominantly gay or straight with some homo or heterosexual tendencies, I didn't say all. I believe that there is a small percentage of people that are 100% gay or straight. So I don't really know what your issue is, I'd consider you to be in the small percentage.

I believe that sexuality is fluid and can change over time.

In fact most of my friends are straight, though I haven't asked them if they consider themselves 100% straight or where they'd find themselves on the Kinsey scale.

Annasopra

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Tmi.

What? I said I am aware of openly gay gaa players. Thats all!

The Bishop Basher

Medusa22 wrote: »

I believe that there is a small percentage of people that are 100% gay or straight.

What is that percentage and how have you come to it ? Is it based on any research ? Or are you just projecting yourself on the world again ?

looksee

Medusa22 wrote: »

I did say that most people are predominantly gay or straight with some homo or heterosexual tendencies, I didn't say all. I believe that there is a small percentage of people that are 100% gay or straight. So I don't really know what your issue is, I'd consider you to be in the small percentage.

I believe that sexuality is fluid and can change over time.

In fact most of my friends are straight, though I haven't asked them if they consider themselves 100% straight or where they'd find themselves on the Kinsey scale.

I am in my seventh decade and have never been anything but straight, I doubt I will start looking for variety at this stage. Anyone I have been in any way close to in those years I have pretty much known whether they were straight or gay, or had 'tendencies' and the vast majority were straight. Certainly nowhere near a 'small percentage'.

You can 'believe' what you like about fluidity, but I would suggest that any fluidity is there all along, either way. Otherwise you are getting close to suggesting that anyone who is gay or straight somehow has a choice in which they will be.

Peregrine

I didn't see this reply.

Medusa22 wrote: »

I don't think it is unfair to say that you don't know if you will ever have sex with a man, even if it's highly or incredibly unlikely. If you told me that you're straight and that you don't think that you'll ever sleep with a man, I wouldn't try to contradict you, I'd accept, respect and believe what you've said.

Sorry but I really do think it's a case of this:

Medusa22 wrote: »

Perhaps it is my own self-centred projections, perhaps I just can't comprehend anything outside of my own sexuality.I should have phrased it better when I responded to taxAHcruel, but I do believe the majority of people are capable of having sexual feelings for the same sex, it might never happen to them, but I believe it is in the realms of possibility.

And I can understand how it might be difficult to comprehend.

A lot of things are within the realms of possibility. It's within the realms of possibility that my fingers will go through the keys as I type this but it's highly improbable. That's a debate of probability rather than sexuality. You were also talking about percentages of sexuality earlier (98% straight, 2% gay etc.). It would be a fallacy to suggest that because there exists a small chance of a straight person sleeping with someone of the same sex within the realms of possibility that it translates to most straight people being 98% straight and 2% gay.

I don't believe that the realms of possibility define sexuality but rather sexual attraction does.

Anyway, I think it's time for me to bow out.

mynameis905, I'll still be waiting for that explaination of your absurd suggestion that a description of my own sexuality is 'overcompensating' or an apology.

Pac1Man

This test will either be very easy or very hard.

Right now I'm both.

Omackeral

Originally posted by NachoBusiness
TMI

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What? I said I am aware of openly gay gaa players. Thats all!

---

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What? Actually I've come across a good few openly gay GAA guys

The wording was funny.....and filthy :P

Medusa22

looksee wrote: »

I am in my seventh decade and have never been anything but straight, I doubt I will start looking for variety at this stage. Anyone I have been in any way close to in those years I have pretty much known whether they were straight or gay, or had 'tendencies' and the vast majority were straight. Certainly nowhere near a 'small percentage'.

You can 'believe' what you like about fluidity, but I would suggest that any fluidity is there all along, either way. Otherwise you are getting close to suggesting that anyone who is gay or straight somehow has a choice in which they will be.

http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/13/debunking-myths-about-sexual-fluidity.html[/URL]

This article outlines some research into sexual fluidity and there are also links to further articles.

The author does say that people are not necessarily bi-sexual, but that many are sexually fluid, and perhaps that is more the case, I am not claiming to be an authority on the subject, I'm just telling people what my belief is.

_Kaiser_

Strictly heterosexual.
You’re straighter than a ruler wearing black socks with sandals. Every sexual thought you’ve ever had has been for a member of the other sex, and that’ll probably never change. Your sexuality is about as fluid as the polar ice caps.

Spot on really.. happily straight

Aurum

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no they don't. Or shouldn't, at any rate. Sure, if someone is actively out to get a rise from me or others then I'll call them on it. I don't get particularly "offended" about it mind you.

I certainly don't get offended by opinions held by others. Too often I've noticed the two get mixed up. IE "X has said something personally offensive to me(even by merely disagreeing with my dearly held worldview), therefore X are directly attacking me". Cue emotionals. Eh nope. It's all about the "me". As I said, the Century of the Self Involved.

And that's before we get to completely misreading the situation because offence is set to hair trigger.

I'm not sure that it is always an *all about me* response, usually what offends people the most is something that offends them and the traditionally (thought not invariably) marginalized group to which they belong (LGBT, women, POC, disabled people, etc.). I'm guessing that you aren't a member of any of these particular groups so don't fully understand how one comment can be genuinely hurtful rather than easily brushed off.

It's similar for me in many ways. If people make jokes or unpleasant remarks about Irish people, white people or straight people I find it pretty easy to ignore them and not be offended because being each of these things hasn't been a consistent problem for me throughout my life. Obviously there are plenty of people who are loudly and disproportionately offended, but they shouldn't be allowed to completely overshadow and invalidate the views of people who have legitimate concerns and opinions.

mzungu

Not on the scale apparently.

You got: Not really heterosexual or homosexual.
You don’t necessarily fall on the spectrum of sexuality, which is okay. Sexuality doesn’t have to be strictly one thing or another thing, and there are plenty of people out there who experience sexual feelings in unique ways, or perhaps don’t experience sexual feelings at all.

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

You should take a browse through any threads discussing gay/transsexual related topics-they shouldn't be too difficult to find, they're a very popular subject matter.

Generally speaking, they follow a certain pattern.
Thread opens and there's a stampede of posters to put their tolerance and acceptance of whatever bat-sh1te crazy fad of the week is being championed on the record.
All goes well for a page or two as everyone back slaps each other in an organisation of self righteousness.

From my experience it goes more like this:

1. Thread opens.
2. Most people express tolerant and accepting views because most people are generally tolerant and accepting.
3. Someone inevitably comes along with some outlandish claim about LGBT people (e.g. "same sex couples are unfit to be parents", "being gay is a choice", "transgender women are just men in drag" etc.) that they are totally unable back up with any accurate evidence or scientific consensus.
4. Person gets called out on their outlandish claims and then proceeds to play the victim, because apparently telling someone that they've said something homophobic or bigoted is "liberal PC bullying" or some such nonsense.

padd b1975 wrote: »

"Bigoted"
Your casual cheapening of this term only strengthens my earlier point.
Pretty soon it's going to be in the bargain bin alongside homophobia, racism, and misogyny.

Yeah, 'cause none of those things are a problem in society at all. It's the homophobes, racists and bigots in society who are the real victims here.
How I long for the days when we could say whatever prejudiced crap we wanted about gay people/black people/women and not get pulled up on it. Where's our Pride parade?

Whitewinged wrote: »

It probably sounds extreme but it is how she feels about the thought of being intimate with someone that she has zero attraction for, being intimate with someone that she has no desire to be intimate with and alot of people would be disgusted by that.

I think when posters are using words like "repulse" and things like that, it's important to understand that they are not repulsed by other people's sexuality, they are not trying to put down other people's sexuality, they are just trying to express their own and the thought of going against their own sexuality.

Yeah, I'd say (at least I hope) that most people who say that they would be repulsed by the thought of being with someone of the same sex are just speaking for themselves, and that's fair enough. I find the thought of scat pretty repulsive but whatever people get off to behind closed doors (as long as it involves consenting adults) is not something I'm going to get myself bothered about. Live and let live, and such.

Yet there are still people out there who think that ANY two people of the same sex is repulsive and wrong. Feeling the need to loudly declare how repulsive you find it, even when you are absolutely no way involved, is just general arseholery (and perhaps, in some cases, a bit of internalised homophobia).

NachoBusiness

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, 'cause none of those things are a problem in society at all. It's the homophobes, racists and bigots in society who are the real victims here.
How I long for the days when we could say whatever prejudiced crap we wanted about gay people/black people/women and not get pulled up on it. Where's our Pride parade?

I bet you're a big Stewart Lee fan.

NachoBusiness

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I bet you're a big Stewart Lee fan.

Not really, I've heard of him but am not too familiar with his work.
Is he worth watching?

Swanner

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Making assumptions about other peoples sexuality and then trying to ram your view of their sexuality down their throats would tend to annoy people alright.

Lucky I did no such thing then is it not? Or did you for some reason decide to ignore the bits I very clearly labeled as just being tongue in cheek and just for fun, and ignoring the part of my post where I clearly delineated where I was being serious?

Samaris wrote: »

Live and let live, just because you're having a go at sexuality in a more "PC" way doesn't mean that you're not implying much the same thing as those idiots that have a go at lesbians.

Except I did no such thing? Or did you for some reason decide to ignore the bits I very clearly labeled as just being tongue in cheek and just for fun, and ignoring the part of my post where I clearly delineated where I was being serious?

Wibbs wrote: »

or worse as earlier TaxAH does as apparently a way to wind people up.

Something I never did at the time - nor it may be noted have I ever aimed to do in my entire posting history on the forum. And in fact in years of seeing people on this forum try to "wind people up" I have noticed they do not generally do so by clearly delineating part of their post as "Do not take me seriously here - I am kidding around" - and "Ok here is my real point...."

IrishTrajan wrote: »

"I know you better than you know yourself".

I doubt you do. It is certainly not something I would ever think or say about or to anyone. I would advise you never do either.

Swanner wrote: »

And while Medussa22 and taxAHcruel are clearly misguided in their view that the entire human species must share the same sexual orientation as themselves

Funny give that what I actually said is the _exact_ opposite of what you just summarised me as saying.

Perhaps a repetition of my actual points will help a few people. The point I clearly delineated as being tongue out of cheek - and entirely separate from the comments I made that I clearly indicated were just messing about.

What I clearly said is that I believe human sexuality is stretched over an entire continuum. Not neat little boxes and labels like gay, bi, straight and so forth that we are often compelled to split people into. And in fact so diverse do I believe human sexuality to be - with so many tangential and even parallel fetishisms and perversions and other indulgences and philia - that even an attempt to blur the lines between those labels with a "scale" like Kinsey is likely doomed to failure.

How anyone can jump from me discussing that level of diversity in human sexuality to a summarisation of my position as "the entire human species must share the same sexual orientation as" me - is truly a mystery to me.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

How anyone can jump from me discussing that level of diversity in human sexuality to a summarisation of my position as "the entire human species must share the same sexual orientation as" me - is truly a mystery to me.

Well it was probably this...

Deleted User wrote: »

Mainly just for fun - I believe that EVERYONE is bi - but some people are just pickier than others. So those people who believe themselves to be straight - have just failed to meet someone who tickles their bells yet

or this...

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree too. But there is some fun to be had by suggesting to them that they just have not met the right person yet

And who knows - that might even be correct. Which Annoys them no end

You can stick that tongue in your cheek all you like and claim it's all mainly for fun but no matter what way you shake it, unless you made it all up, you clearly stated your views and also clearly stated how you take enjoyment from winding straight people up about being bi.

Even if you do it as a joke it's just not cool. To do it for the enjoyment of winding others up is even worse.

Not sure how we were supposed to read anything else in to what you wrote to be fair.

Except I just explained it quite clearly how else you can read what I wrote. Try doing it. And maybe try also doing it in the context of the tone and context and content of all my other posts on sexuality on this forum in the last 6 years too.

And no I not once clearly stated I enjoyed winding anyone up. Ever. I very clearly stated that no one should take anything seriously in the bits that you now want to claim were trying to wind anyone up. But unfortunately it seems to be the bits I "clearly state" that you most want to clearly ignore.

Just done the test there and I got Mostly heterosexual.

You’re mostly straight, but you’re open to new ideas and experiences. Maybe you’ve had a passing thought or fantasy, and maybe you’ve actually thought about pursuing those impulses. Your sexuality is definitely a little more fluid than most.

I thought I was strictly straight Why did you make me do this test Medusa!!

Mesrine65

Where Do You Fall On The Kinsey Scale?

You got: Mostly heterosexual.

You’re mostly straight, but you’re open to new ideas and experiences.

Maybe you’ve had a passing thought or fantasy, and maybe you’ve actually thought about pursuing those impulses.

Your sexuality is definitely a little more fluid than most.

Quel suprise! :eek:

kylith

Mostly straight.

You’re mostly straight, but you’re open to new ideas and experiences. Maybe you’ve had a passing thought or fantasy, and maybe you’ve actually thought about pursuing those impulses. Your sexuality is definitely a little more fluid than most.

Sounds about right.

Wibbs

I have found it almost a rule on interwebs forums that any statement ending in the plain smiley face -> is usually a passive aggressive one to some degree.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought I was strictly straight Why did you make me do this test Medusa!!

You probably are BB. I'd break it down in my Wibbs Test(™) thusly:

If you're a gentleman and you like looking at lady bottom you're straight.
If you like looking at gentleman bottom you're gay.
If you like looking at both lady and gentleman bottom you're bisexual.
If you don't like looking at bottoms at all, you're asexual.
If you're not sure what bottom you're looking at you're probably in Bangkok. Simples.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

You probably are BB. I'd break it down in my Wibbs Test(™) thusly:

If you're a gentleman and you like looking at lady bottom you're straight.
If you like looking at gentleman bottom you're gay.
If you like looking at both lady and gentleman bottom you're bisexual.
If you don't like looking at bottoms at all, you're asexual.
If you're not sure what bottom you're looking at you're probably in Bangkok. Simples.

I am a gent, and I absolutely adore ladies bottoms. Can't get enough of them to be honest

Thanks wibbs you have straightened me out :P

DoozerT6

Schwiiing wrote: »

I'm not on the scale at all apparently.

You got: Not really heterosexual or homosexual.

You don’t necessarily fall on the spectrum of sexuality, which is okay. Sexuality doesn’t have to be strictly one thing or another thing, and there are plenty of people out there who experience sexual feelings in unique ways, or perhaps don’t experience sexual feelings at all.

I got this too. I guess not really seeing myself as someone sexually desirable coloured my answers...to grey

Chain Smoker

"You got: Equal parts homosexual and heterosexual. "

I tried to break down all the terms one time and the closest one I could stand behind was something like heteroflexibleromanticdemisexual
That was the point I got over ever trying to label this sh*t, whatever's grand, who cares

xband

You're not really getting much from that questionnaire!

The bit about friends is absolute nonsense - having gay friends doesn't mean you're gay ffs!

and other questions are about as useful as:

Are you attracted to members of the same sex?
Are you attracted to members of the opposite sex
Are you attracted to members of both sexes?

Sexual orientation is definitely a little tricky to define.

The main thing is whoever you're with, that you're happy.

There's far less, and probably soon won't be any stigma about same sex relationships. So I'm guessing you'll see lots more gay and bi people being open about their relationships as time goes on. It's not that people are suddenly becoming gayer, just a lot more open about something that always was there anyway.

I'm just happy we're moving to a situation where for most of us anyway, this kind of topic shouldn't be a major issue anymore.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks wibbs you have straightened me out :P

No worries head, you can kiss me later.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

No worries head, you can kiss me later.

Ah now Wibbs don't be doing this to me, you know I'm mostly straight, but I'm open to new ideas and experiences . Plus I'm anyones with a few drinks appartantly. But I wanna be straightttttt

ToddyDoody

I started off saying that I wasn't necessary exclusively attracted to people of the same sex, then I got pissed off being diplomatic and ended up with:

"You got: Strictly homosexual.
You’re gay, and there’s probably nothing that will ever change that. As soon as you started having sexual thoughts, you had them for people with the same sex as your own. You’re only ever going to be attracted to people of the same sex, and because of that, your sexuality isn’t very fluid at all."

But I'm pretty sure I'm perceived in real life as being only mildly homosexual.

xLisaBx

Equal parts homosexual and heterosexual, very fluid. I dunno about this scale, I always considered myself to be straight!

mzungu

xLisaBx wrote: »

Equal parts homosexual and heterosexual, very fluid. I dunno about this scale, I always considered myself to be straight!

The scale on that site is complete BS. It did make for a decent thread though, silver lining and all that.

westernfrenzy

It's an odd test, I'll give it that. I'd done it out of curiosity but a lot of the questions are waffle and not necessary. Super flawed in that sense. It's interesting to see the answers of others though.

Fox_In_Socks

Do a line up. Attractive naked men in one room, attractive naked women in another room.

Kind of like water dousing, which way does the hazel twig point.

Lia_lia

Equal parts homosexual and heterosexual.

Not the best quiz really. I'm more straight than that! In an LTR with a man for over 3 years. There were some ladies in the past when I was younger alright.