carl chicago
Two but that scale disappoints. Where are the animals and dead people? It needs more dimensions to encompass all variations of human sexuality.
Wow. This gave me a good laugh.
Rogue Faery
Somewhere between a 2 and a 3, closer to 3, I think.
It's called the Kinsey scale, by the way, named for a famous sexologist (Alfred Kinsey) who published some groundbreaking studies in the late '40s/early '50s. More recent researchers consider this scale only a third of the makeup of sexual identity (the other two being biological sex and gender identity).
That being said, I'll go the extra step and add that I am biologically female and identify as female.
Don't want to get into too heated of an argument over sexuality, but I will make one quick statement. I really don't believe you should define sexuality solely based on "attraction to males" or "attraction to females". Some people only want to have sex with men, but find breasts arousing. Some people only want to have sex with women but find penises arousing. I personally have a hand fetish, and while I'm generally only attracted to female hands there are some men with effeminate enough hands that they turn me on. But one glance up the arm at the face and I'm flaccid again.
But going by the very bland description of sexuality, I must fall on a one. I really just don't want sex with men. At all. I don't really care if someone else wants to be gay, get married to someone of the same sex, or even have gay sex in my living room. I just don't want to be involved. Or watch, really.
As for biological gender, definitely male. One X, one Y, and a well-formed p***s.
As for gender identity, I never once thought of myself as female, however I'm not a "macho" man. I'm really weak =(
100
100
200
