Ah, but bisexuality by its very nature is trying to have it both ways :) And mostly, we succeed.
Seriously, I believe that page to be semi-serious. He's making a serious point that it is problematic that with any sexuality scale, one or other of the numbers get defined as "normal". The only way to do it non-judgementally would be to use completely random numbers, like 45 - straight 78 - 50/50 bisexual 93 - gay
(ok, so they're not very random - I'm not good at picking random numbers from thin air)
Anything that goes either side of 0 is a problem, because people see "0" or "1" as "non-deviant". It could well be that Kinsey intentionally made 100% homosexuality "as deviant as it comes", but that doesn't work nowadays.
To be honest, I don't even know where I stand on the Kinsey scale. There is a particular subset of humans that I find attractive - specific enough that close friends can tell if I'll find someone attractive - but godknows how they fit into physical gender boxes. Almost everyone has a "type" they go for, and (a) kind/s of sexual activity (or lack of sexual activity) that they prefer doing. I sometimes question whether it's any more useful to categorise people by "people who like males" and "people who like females" than by "people who like blondes" and "people who like brunettes"?
I think the only way to map something as complicated as sexuality in a non-judgemental way is to use more dimensions, but then it gets too complicated for "most" people to understand, and it does away with the "neatness" that is a single number.
Yeah, I started wondering about a +/- scale with bi as 0 as soon as I saw the Limoncelli scale - but I also figured the problem with that is that non-geeks assign bad connotations to negative numbers. Regardless of whether you defined 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual to be the negative number, some people would get badly offended. And if you're honestly trying to be non-judgemental, the last thing you need is people getting offended.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
the conclusion is... I have no conclusion
Date: 2005-10-03 11:03 pm (UTC)Seriously, I believe that page to be semi-serious. He's making a serious point that it is problematic that with any sexuality scale, one or other of the numbers get defined as "normal". The only way to do it non-judgementally would be to use completely random numbers, like
45 - straight
78 - 50/50 bisexual
93 - gay
(ok, so they're not very random - I'm not good at picking random numbers from thin air)
Anything that goes either side of 0 is a problem, because people see "0" or "1" as "non-deviant". It could well be that Kinsey intentionally made 100% homosexuality "as deviant as it comes", but that doesn't work nowadays.
To be honest, I don't even know where I stand on the Kinsey scale. There is a particular subset of humans that I find attractive - specific enough that close friends can tell if I'll find someone attractive - but godknows how they fit into physical gender boxes. Almost everyone has a "type" they go for, and (a) kind/s of sexual activity (or lack of sexual activity) that they prefer doing. I sometimes question whether it's any more useful to categorise people by "people who like males" and "people who like females" than by "people who like blondes" and "people who like brunettes"?
I think the only way to map something as complicated as sexuality in a non-judgemental way is to use more dimensions, but then it gets too complicated for "most" people to understand, and it does away with the "neatness" that is a single number.
Yeah, I started wondering about a +/- scale with bi as 0 as soon as I saw the Limoncelli scale - but I also figured the problem with that is that non-geeks assign bad connotations to negative numbers. Regardless of whether you defined 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual to be the negative number, some people would get badly offended. And if you're honestly trying to be non-judgemental, the last thing you need is people getting offended.