Kinsey scale test

Post Reply New Topic

It's not unheard of. The English musician, now-radio DJ, Tom Robinson, is exclusively gay, but is or was married to a woman since the late 80s or early 90s. I bet there are others too. It suggests to me a bit of pansexuality in there somewhere on the part of the gay man.

4, predominantly homosexual, more than incidentally heterosexual.

Expected result: either 4 or 5

It's not inaccurate.

Is there a name for it, when you are sexually attracted to your own sex, but emotionally attracted to the opposite sex?
Max

^The term would be heteroromantic homosexual (for a man). Some people dislike this kind of separation of types of attraction, though. But identify however you want.

No. There cannot be pansexuality in a gay man, for it goes against the very definition of what a gay man is. If a man likes more than one gender then simply put he is not gay, due to the fact that gay/ homosexual refers to exclusive attraction to the same sex.

However yes, some gay men do get married but often unhappily and due to shame or societal pressure. Especially in the 80's and 90's when it was generally less accepted.

I do not believe that a Kinsey 6 (exclusively gay) can be happily married to someone of the opposite sex. Often the stories you hear of Kinsey 6's marrying someone of the opposite sex end up in divorce. Which makes sense considering that relationships require an element of physical attraction to keep them going, otherwise kissing would be very awkward indeed. This matters less with age and in long-term relationships, but it is still an important factor to consider.

One time I came across this article where a woman who identified as a Kinsey 5 (Mostly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual) ended up breaking up with her fiance because the attraction she felt towards him was too infrequent to keep the relationship going, and she didn't think it was all that fair on her fiance.

https://ask.metafilter.com/152625/Honey ... a-Kinsey-5

Now, there are some people out there that view romantic attraction and physical attraction as separate. Personally I am not one of them.

The way I see it is if you could happily have a long-term relationship with either gender, you are bi or pansexual.

It doesn't matter if you have a slight preference towards one sex or the other, if it is possible for you to maintain a long-term relationship either way regardless of gender then you are better off identifying as bi or pansexual.

Kinsey 1's and 5's fall into this middle ground where they would struggle to keep a relationship going with someone of their non-preferred sex, yet still feel occasional attraction, so it is often brought into question how they should identify.

I think it's important to consider how we use labels and what for, usually it is to give others an understanding of what we are looking for in a potential partner, and if the attraction you feel to a certain gender is so infrequent that you'd struggle to have a relationship with that gender...then maybe you'd be better off identifying "mostly/ almost gay" or "mostly/ almost straight". But it's up to you, really.

I have never felt physically attracted to a female. With one exception, I even feel a mild revulsion for the female body. I have always felt physically attracted only to males. But I became friends with a beautiful soul, who just happened to be a woman. I loved spending time with her. She made me feel loved. I didn't have it in me not to love her back. Over the past 30 years that love has only grown. Sex works because I would do anything to make her happy. Making her happy makes me happy. Why should sexual preference be the sole way we choose a mate? Isn't loving who a person is even more important? And do relationships based solely on sexual preference last any longer than relationships based on romantic preference? I'm gay, but I choose to live a hetero life. It works for me.

I wouldn't have sex with a person I'm not attracted to. I wouldn't be able to take the "first step.'

But I do see what you mean. I have had sex with somebody when I was not exactly "in the mood."

Gay men can be happy in a marriage to a woman, and vice versa----provided both know that sex is out of the question. I have known partnerships of this nature. Sexless, but satisfying nevertheless. Intellectually satisfying, frequently.

It's not necessarily even a "hetero life", but rather a life devoted to that one person, regardless of gender.

Thanks PBL,

That's exactly what it is. Sometimes the person that someone is, trumps sex and sexuality.

What if it was someone who made you feel really loved; someone with whom you enjoy spending time ; someone who was very sensual, and someone who you wanted to know that you loved them too? I just feel that who a person is counts so much more than what sex they are, and the gratification to be had out of a sexual relationship with them.

I know what you mean.

But if He can't rise, sex won't happen.

I can do other things, I suppose, to gratify the lady. But it would be difficult should I not be physically attracted to her.

I once had a very nice woman virtually beg me for sex---in a physical, erotic sense as well as with words. Nothing doing. I felt bad for her. I liked her very much. But I just wasn't turned on by her.

I've had that happen to me MANY times-----when I felt the attraction, but she didn't. MANY times. I know the feeling all too well!

Expected result for my sister: X, meaning asexual.

Actual result for my sister: X, meaning asexual.

Just as we thought.