Measures of homo/hetero sexual orientation

[haurni]

Most people are aware of the Kinsey et al (1948) classification of sexual orientation, in which people are rated (or rate themselves) on a 7 point scale ranging from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). The relative contributions of fantasy and behaviour to 'actual' orientation have been discussed in a number of papers, and variants of the scale exist that attempt to examine these components in more detail (e.g. the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid; Klein et al 1985), but the 7-point unidimensional axis is the basic measuring tool.

Another method (Shively & DeCecco 1977, Vrangalova & Savin-Williams 2012) is to use two independent scales that assess same-sex and other-sex attraction on 5-point scales (e.g. very homosexual to not at all homosexual and very heterosexual to not at all heterosexual), such that the result can be plotted on a 2D grid.

Obviously considering other aspects of non-normative sexuality (e.g. gender identity) further complicates the issue, so I'll keep the discussion to the straight/gay axis for now.

Questions:
a) Is anyone aware of other (preferably validated) methods of rating or characterizing sexual orientation? (references would be appreciated if you have them)
b) Do you find that one or another method better describes your (understanding of your) orientation?
c) Are there other dimensions that you think should be included/considered when attempting to define or characterize sexual orientation (or other methods that you consider more apt than the ones mentioned above)?

It would be interesting if readers would rate themselves on these scales as well. If you feel like including any other potentially relevant information (e.g. trans, asexual, CD/TV) that would be great.

One-dimensional scale:

0 - exclusively heterosexual
1 - predominantly heterosexual but only incidentally homosexual
2 - predominantly heterosexual but more than incidentally homosexual
3 - equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 - predominantly homosexual but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 - predominantly homosexual but only incidentally heterosexual
6 - exclusively homosexual

Two-dimensional scales:

Axis A:
A1: not at all heterosexual
A2: slightly heterosexual
A3: somewhat heterosexual
A4: significantly heterosexual
A5: strongly heterosexual

Axis B:
B1: not at all homosexual
B2: slightly homosexual
B3: somewhat homosexual
B4: significantly homosexual
B5: strongly homosexual

 

[haurni]

I am a cis-male and consider myself bisexual or, more correctly, 'heteroflexible' (I prefer women but have some attraction to men as well).

Kinsey: 2 (predominantly heterosexual but more than incidentally homosexual)

2D scale:
Axis A: A5 (strongly heterosexual)
Axis B: B3 (somewhat homosexual)

 

[John Doe]

Cis-male, A5-B2, CD.

By the way, this could make for an extremely enjoyable variant of Battleship.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A2 B4 transgendered AFAB. (You'd think I, of all people, would have a Label for myself but right now? I don't know what it would be. )

 

[stickygirl]

A2:B3 trans* (frigate)
meh~ forcing myself into a redundant methodology. How can an asexual person measure themselves on that scale? Maybe the researchers excluded them from their results? So on an additional scale of sexual drive 0-5 I'd put myself on 1 right now.

We expect to see these results displayed graphically when you're done!

 

[Safe_Bet]

I am sitting in my A1::B5 corner using my K6 to dig my way out to A0::B6.

I am not just NOT attracted to men, but am pretty much repulsed by them.

(which is why I think most of these scales are bogus, but the underlying "label" is intrinsic.)




P.S. your One Dimensional chart is labeled incorrectly. K6 should be exclusively homo.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm a bisexual female who's been in relationships with both men and women, though I'm off dating and relationships at the moment. Ain't nobody got time for that.

On the Kinsey scale, I give myself a 2.5 (somewhere between predominately hetero but more than incidentally homo and equally hetero and homo). On the two-axis scale, I'd say it's A4 (significantly hetero) and B3 (somewhat homo).

I think the two-axis scale is probably better for bisexuals and pansexuals to measure themselves by. Not that the Kinsey scale doesn't take us into consideration, but the two-axis thing allows us to be a little more specific, I think.

 

[Wolfman1982]

I am at the moment extremely infatuated with a young woman (in her late twenties) If not very much in love with her. And I really do not like labels. Whether or not I am bisexual/omni/or pan sexual. It does not really matter. But being true yourself is much more important, than any box. As Bruce Lee said :

Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless - like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend

But boxes/labels are for those who can not yet let go of them.

 

[Dyslexicea]

Isn't this a bit like those surveys we never answers.

The only scales I care about are musical.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I am at the moment extremely infatuated with a young woman (in her late twenties) If not very much in love with her. And I really do not like labels. Whether or not I am bisexual/omni/or pan sexual. It does not really matter. But being true yourself is much more important, than any box. As Bruce Lee said :



But boxes/labels are for those who can not yet let go of them.

Before you start criticizing those of us in the LGBTQ community who are WAY okay with labels (based upon our ACTUAL interactions with REAL people of different orientations), perhaps you should first step out of your little "I ain't every been with a man. I've just thought about it" white bread, hetero world....

hmmmmmmmm?????

 

[Wolfman1982]

Deleted for the sake of the human kind.

 

[haurni]

For better or for worse, I think it's human nature to try and fit things into boxes as a way of cognitively organizing the world. This certainly leads to problems when you try to force people into binary systems (male/female, gay/straight, etc.). However, it also aids in understanding how things work, provided your categories accurately encompass (a significant portion of) the variety that naturally exists in whatever you're studying.

As a substitute for doing exhaustive research myself I'm asking the Lit community if they know of any other classification systems that perhaps better describe the diversity of human sexuality than a one-dimensional (or even two-dimensional scale). For example, it might possibly be worthwhile to add another pair of scales for male-identified and female-identified, which would (hopefully) encompass the trans / intersex dimension. And stickygirl mentioned the issue of sexual drive, which might also help to distinguish asexuals from those with higher libidos (realizing, of course, that all of these dimensions may vary over time). Therefore, we might use a multi-dimensional scale that includes the following:

1: sexual attraction to men
2. sexual attraction to women
3. male-identified
4. female-identified
5. sexual drive (?)​

I leave open for discussion the question of whether or not sexual drive is implicit in the attraction to men/attraction to women scale. (I'm inclined to think it might be partially related, and/or maybe only for certain groups of people, but that it does not fully describe libido.)

So, to elaborate further, I might rate myself as
- sexual attraction to women: 5/5 (strongly heterosexual)
- sexual attraction to men: 3/5 (somewhat homosexual)
- male-identified: 4/5 (substantially male-identified)
- female-identified: 2/5 (slightly female-identified)
- sexual drive: 4/5 (substantial sex drive)

(Thanks, Safe_Bet! Error corrected.)

 

[Dyslexicea]

haurni, most of you heteros or inbetweeners just don't get it, so I'll say it again."I'm not a lesbian because I have SEX with women, I have SEX with women because I'm a Lesbian." I'd still be a Lesbian even if I suffered lesbian bed death and had no libido at all.

I'll let stickygirl enlighten you but being trans has nothing to do with sex.

As far as studies goes we've been studied, restudied and studied again, and the truth is it doesn't much matter if we participate in these genius's studies or not, they'll draw their conclusions regardless of the facts.

If you haven't figured it out I love my label, labels actually. I'm a lesbian, dyke, queer, feminist woman and I love all five labels.

 

[stickygirl]

There's a trans diagram here that doesn't really work either

You'll notice that the bottom scale has to lump in "Both or Neither Sexes" which is hardly a useful measure.
Labels in linguistic terms are simply short-cuts to a rambling sentence "I am attracted to women sexually ..." "I like to cross-dress but am sexually attracted to..." but the label still needs qualification because we're all individuals. Some lesbians really don't like men in any way - does that mean they are attracted to other women by default, ie there is no third option? Other lesbians tolerate men, even be friends with them, but their heart lies with women. Surely it's the emotional desire that gets lost in all that left brain thinking: if I love someone then sex is an expression of that love - I have no better way of satisfying the need in me and my partner. Maybe that's a predominately female trait?

I gather Kinsey's work was ground-breaking and produced much positive change and understanding of sexual diversity and it's easy to knock it in hindsight.
If research and labelling can push understanding further then fine, but there's an awful lot unnecessary research done my people chasing funds for their PhD.

As for the sexuality of trans* Ha! Good luck! Pandoras Box

 

[Wolfman1982]

To any one who thought I was screwing around with their heads(except for the ones who see the fun in the so-called screwing). Then understand this what I meant by labels and boxes had something to do with my own personal opinion. Cause as far as I can see. Then a lesbian is a woman falls in love with women, and has 99 % of the time sex with women. Cause that is where their love is. A gay man, has 99 % of the time sex with men. Cause that is whom they fall in love with. A bisexual man or woman tends to swing both ways, but they can prefer one gender over another. Even though they fall in love, and have sex with both genders. So if any one, felt offended from what I said. Except for the ones who wanted to get offended. Then I am sorry. Personally, as I said earlier, I have met a sweet young woman who is in her late twenties. And I am happy for that, but that does not mean I have not met quite a few hot men, whom I could have fallen for. Since that was a possibility too. So let me enjoy my happiness for a while.

 

[haurni]

Stickygirl - thanks for your input. Obviously there are a number of different aspects to gender expression / identity (not that I thought otherwise). From what I've read, the dual-attraction scale is 'better' than Kinsey's one-dimensional scale and could probably replace the sexual attraction scale in your illustration.

Dyslexicea - I never thought otherwise. The question I asked was, basically, about sexual attraction to men or women (not necessarily whether one actually has sex with one or the other) and whether or not one particular measurement or classification method was better than another. I tossed libido into the mix in response to a comment by Stickygirl and, as I mentioned in a later post, wondered whether or not it might have some value as a useful variable for classifying different aspects of human sexuality. Maybe for some people or groups it might and for others it might not. I also haven't enough knowledge about trans issues to say whether or not there's any relationship between gender identity and orientation (some studies have implied that there is an asymmetry but I'm not qualified to comment on whether or not that's true or valid). People are going to continue trying to characterize human sexuality for as long as it exists, so to me it seems better that we have measures that accurately describe as many of its different aspects as possible.

 

[njlauren]

The idea that sexual orientation is not rigid is a valuable one but trying to rate it/graph it has a lot of problems with it, because there are so many variables. A women in her 20's might tell you she is almost totally hetero, and in her 40's can fall in love with another woman, and would tell you she is like 100% lesbian....and was it the attractions was there all along, or did she change? (note, I am not taking the position of the religious morons that this is a choice or someone can be 'converted').

Then, too, you have the axis of sexual attraction and emotional attachment. There are a lot of people who predominantly for emotional bonds with members of either their own or opposite sex, yet can have hot sex with either, so 'falling in love' and 'being attracted to' are two different dimensions IMO. Which raises a question, if someone simply can have sex with a same sex partner but is otherwise emotionally bound to opposite sex partners (and is sexually attracted as well), are they really bisexual in some way, or simply different?

Gender identity has nothing to do with sexual identity in the sense they are two separate things. Gender transition can influence things, more then a few M to F transwomen I know when they were living as men were attracted only to women, and when they transitioned, well, they suddenly started finding men attractive. I don't know whether it was as men trying to have sex with a man didn't feel right (whereas doing it as a woman would), whether the attraction was there but as a man that would make them 'gay', or whether hormones or something triggers a flip, I don't know. In my case it didn't change things when I was in transition (before abandoning it) I am emotionally and primarily attracted to women, but can have hot sex with guys....

Gender roles can play into sexuality, for example, in the male gay community with femme gay guys or more masculine ones, in the female gay community, the spectrum from fully femme to stone butch to those in all worlds who are gender queer/non conforming, and that is part of their sexuality IME, or is along with it.

 

[xJustBeLightx]

I think I am A2:B5. The few guys I do find attractive, I have no interest in cock still.

I don't think sexuality is set in stone though. I mean, if you asked 6 months ago, I'd have said mostly het with very little interest in girls. I hate labels, I am me

 

[Dyslexicea]

I think I am A2:B5. The few guys I do find attractive, I have no interest in cock still.

I don't think sexuality is set in stone though. I mean, if you asked 6 months ago, I'd have said mostly het with very little interest in girls. I hate labels, I am me

Label help you define who you are. They also identify you to those who are similar to you. Labels are not a bad thing unless they are used in a hateful way.

 

[xJustBeLightx]

I just meant I hate boxing myself in

 

[Dyslexicea]

I just meant I hate boxing myself in

Nothing wrong with that, it's just mean you don't yet know what label or labels fit.

 

[haurni]

The idea that sexual orientation is not rigid is a valuable one but trying to rate it/graph it has a lot of problems with it, because there are so many variables. A women in her 20's might tell you she is almost totally hetero, and in her 40's can fall in love with another woman, and would tell you she is like 100% lesbian....and was it the attractions was there all along, or did she change? (note, I am not taking the position of the religious morons that this is a choice or someone can be 'converted').

Then, too, you have the axis of sexual attraction and emotional attachment. There are a lot of people who predominantly for emotional bonds with members of either their own or opposite sex, yet can have hot sex with either, so 'falling in love' and 'being attracted to' are two different dimensions IMO. Which raises a question, if someone simply can have sex with a same sex partner but is otherwise emotionally bound to opposite sex partners (and is sexually attracted as well), are they really bisexual in some way, or simply different?

Gender identity has nothing to do with sexual identity in the sense they are two separate things. Gender transition can influence things, more then a few M to F transwomen I know when they were living as men were attracted only to women, and when they transitioned, well, they suddenly started finding men attractive. I don't know whether it was as men trying to have sex with a man didn't feel right (whereas doing it as a woman would), whether the attraction was there but as a man that would make them 'gay', or whether hormones or something triggers a flip, I don't know. In my case it didn't change things when I was in transition (before abandoning it) I am emotionally and primarily attracted to women, but can have hot sex with guys....

Gender roles can play into sexuality, for example, in the male gay community with femme gay guys or more masculine ones, in the female gay community, the spectrum from fully femme to stone butch to those in all worlds who are gender queer/non conforming, and that is part of their sexuality IME, or is along with it.

Everything you say is quite correct and is implicit in any discussion of sexuality. However, as someone with training in the sciences, I like to define and classify things, including myself. I realize that human sexuality is highly fluid both over time and across categories, with the corollary that a few categories do not and cannot describe all dimensions of human sexuality.

I also agree with your comments about emotional involvement and gender roles; I included the latter because some of the scholarly articles I read suggested that there might be a connection between gender identity and sexual attraction in some cases (please feel free to disagree), and I didn't include the dimension of emotional attraction (as well as other things) for the sake of keeping the discussion limited.

My original post should probably have included the addendum "all other things being equal". I guess that by asking about sexuality specifically I deliberately excluded the emotional component on the grounds that (I think) they are probably correlated. I realize, however, that for some people they might not be. For me, they are correlated but not identical - I would find it easier to have sex with a guy than an emotional relationship, so my ratings on emotional attraction would differ (albeit only slightly) from my ratings for sexual attraction. On the other hand, I know a woman who has a strong emotional attraction to men and a moderate one to other women. However, she is asexual, so I suspect that her sexual attraction to either would be near zero.

I did ask what people thought would be other relevant dimensions for classifying the multidimensional and amorphous construct that is sexual orientation. You've explicitly noted that emotional and sexual attraction are different things, and if you feel that the former is especially important in understanding the latter then I invite you to expand on that.