On a vaguely related note, I would like to punch the gender binary in the face a lot

[pheonee]

A lot of people know the Kinsey scale (a numeric representation of sexual orientation, with 1 being totally straight, 7 being completely gay, and everything else in the middle), but I've always felt it to be lacking and too stark a simplification of human sexuality. So I made this.

Comments

[twilightsocks]

Hey, I like this a lot! Good for you.

[pheonee]

Yay, thanks! ^_^

[2nutsforwords]

I like the idea, but I'm not quite sure how it works? Idk.

Also, you should call it the "(Your last name here) Grid" :P

[pheonee]

Well, you know how the Kinsey Scale runs linear along a single plane? This is just the 2D version of it. Maybe 3D. Um.

The thing is, romantic and sexual attraction, while related, are not the same thing and many people find that, while they love their SO very much, they're not interested in sex. I've also seen one guy who was sexually and romantically attracted to women, but only sexually attracted to men. He could have sex with a guy; top, bottom, sideways, whatever; but he couldn't date a guy. No romantic feelings: only sexual.

The Kinsey scale also does a bad job of including asexuals (who exist!) and pansexuals (who also exist and aren't the same as bisexuals!). So I tried to fix that.

Yeah, it actually confuses me too, but it's slightly less confusing than the Kinsey's version.

Also, you should call it the "(Your last name here) Grid" :PBut then it'd end up being called the Li Grid. See, this is one of the few reason I don't like being Chinese: 2-letter surnames are bad for naming things after. Or signing things

[2nutsforwords]

Noooo, I understand that part completely XD Trust me, I'm, uh, also bi/pansexual. I just don't understand how you mark the grid. Why do you need two dots? Is one for your attraction to ladies and one for menfolk? Or one for sexual and one for romantic, etc.

[pheonee]

One for sexual, one for romantic xD;;

Just because one of the things that bothered me the most about Kinsey's version is that there was no taking into account the difference between sexual and romantic attraction.

Me: Okay, so I think I'm gay, because penises are the most unsexy thing imaginable for me. But I've also formed crushes on guys and I can find them hot, so what then? I suppose I'm bisexual? But at the same time, I'm utterly uninterested in having sex with anyone! Imagining it makes me :|! So that probably makes me asexual, right? Then what's with the nervous tummy feelings around particularly awesome guys/girls/some of my classmates are so androgynous IDEK?! Gah! Damn you Kinsey!! Ox

[tomoyoichijouji]

No wait, I just noticed that there are TWO markers. x_x That kind of threw me off, because you'd think there would be just one marker -- you'd have to be sure that people have two. And having it in color makes it not work in b&w books -- I suggest something more like shapes instead? A dot and a cross maybe?

[pheonee]

Well, romantic and sexual attraction aren't necessarily the same thing, though I think for most people they do land in about the same place. For me, I'm nearer to asexual than sexual but form romantic attachments easily, so mine are separate.

Hm, you're right about the colours, though I kind of figured it was just a quick internet thing. I'll see if I can make it a bit more obvious in greyscale. :3

[tomoyoichijouji]

Oh no, actually I was amending my quickly deleted comment that sexual =/= romantic and asexual =/= aromantic -- I didn't notice that you HAD distinguished the two until after I posted the comment, thereupon my confuzzlement XP

[pheonee]

Maybe having both my dots on the pansexual line was a bad idea for demo. xD;;

Found you thru zerrat

[aznphoenixx]

JSYK, the Kinsey scale isn't the only measure of sexuality.

Sandra Bem, the developer of "Bem Sex Role Inventory" mostly delves into androgyny, but it can be applied to sexuality as well. Since sexuality overlaps somewhat with gender studies.

Whereas the Kinsley scale is...sort of a continuum, I would wager, there's also one similar to what you've drawn, but instead of one line, there's two, to make something of an X-Y coordinate. However, it doesn't cater to asexuals/pansexuals. And that's the main criticism.

Partly because since sexuality is so fluid, test and measures are struggling to play "catch-up" to it.

[izilen]

Hm. I hope you don't mind a random comment on an old post on your journal!

I think your scale is a really good idea (<333!), except for the fact that colour coding the dots is probably not as clear as it should be. I think I understand, though.

Taking my care, for example: I, identify as mostly asexual, and I don't feel any preference, in sexual terms, for either gender. I am fairly romantic, and my romantic attraction is geared towards guys. Would that be accurately represented by the four pointed things here ( http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb102/IsabelDFL/pheoneeskinseyscalemine.jpg )?

(Please forgive me, I utterly fail at HTML)