Ask a female a question.

[MissBarbara]

Reading a novel, I came across the phrase "Kinsey-6 lesbian" but the context was not enlightening. Can any of you educate me?

Thanks,
Remmy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

6 means “exclusively homosexual” on the scale.

I've never heard of that either.

It seems kinda bogus to me...

[_priapism]

Reading a novel, I came across the phrase "Kinsey-6 lesbian" but the context was not enlightening. Can any of you educate me?

Thanks,
Remmy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

6 means “exclusively homosexual” on the scale.

I've never heard of that either.

It seems kinda bogus to me...

Kinsey’s research has been largely discredited through the years, both for its methodology and the conclusions he drew from it.  I suspect “Kinsey 6 lesbian” is more of a literary device than an actual term used by the cognoscenti.

[MissBarbara]

Reading a novel, I came across the phrase "Kinsey-6 lesbian" but the context was not enlightening. Can any of you educate me?

Thanks,
Remmy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

6 means “exclusively homosexual” on the scale.

I've never heard of that either.

It seems kinda bogus to me...

Kinsey’s research has been largely discredited through the years, both for its methodology and the conclusions he drew from it.  I suspect “Kinsey 6 lesbian” is more of a literary device than an actual term used by the cognoscenti.

Thanks.

[psiberzerker]

Kinsey’s research has been largely discredited through the years, both for its methodology and the conclusions he drew from it.  I suspect “Kinsey 6 lesbian” is more of a literary device than an actual term used by the cognoscenti.

So has Freud's, but we still refer to the Subconscious.  "Largely discredited" doesn't mean you throw out the entire foundation, because they got a few things wrong on the first studies of their kind.  So, in Kinsey's Case, the estimated 10% is taken with a grain of salt, but the Kinsey Scale is still largely accepted as a continuum between the extremes of gay, and straight.  We (The LGBT, and sexual therapeutic communities.  Not the "Cognoscenti" intellectual hipsters, and metrosexuals talking about it over a microbrew IPA) have since built on that foundation, and continued studying human sexuality.  Instead of giving up because the first studies got a few things wrong.  Not unlike the Meyers-Briggs, which has also been "Largely discredited."

Invalidate the writer, so you don't have to learn anything.  As if it's wrong, simply because of who wrote it.  That's not critical thinking, in fact it's the exact opposite.  Critical thinking would be reading the studies, drawing your own conclusions, and maybe finding where you are on the arbitrary scale to help cement your own sexual identity.  (The only opinion that matters is your own.)  By the same thinking, we'd have European Americans discrediting Chinese restaurants for serving fortune cookies.  However, that seems abserd, because you don't have this emotional investment in cultural appropriation, like we seem to when it comes to introspection, identity politics, and talking openly about sex.  (On an Incest dominated erotic stories site.)

Or stop using cars, because they kill as many people as firearms, and the first ones weren't much better than horse drawn carriages.  Or rockets, because we got that technology from a scientist who used them to give Nazis Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles to deliver Weapons of Mass destruction, and wage Genocide.  Or the [QWERTY] klaviature, because it was originally designed to be inefficient, so the typing pools of the day didn't jam up the first generation of mechanical typewriters.  Or discredit America, because it was founded by slavers who wrote "All men are created equal" into the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, instead of continuing to bask in the luxuries enabled by multiple genocides.

But no, we're just that absurdly conservative when it comes to sex, and identity politics.

[_priapism]

[psiberzerker]

The Kinsey Scale is not invalid, just because someone called Kinsey's methodology into question.  It's calling female's sexual identities into question, in a thread dedicated to asking women to talk about their sexuality.  (Why it's in Sex Talk.) 

You want me to dumb it down for you even more?  If you don't want to listen to the answers, then what are you even doing in this thread?  If she says she's a 6, she's a fucking 6.  Nobody on Earth is better qualified to answer that than she is.  You don't have any problems with guys rating women on a scale of 1-to-10?  

Then you shouldn't have a problem with females rating their sexualities on a scale of 0-to-6.

[Remington555]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

6 means “exclusively homosexual” on the scale.

Thanks Toe. And I learned a new vocabulary word: cognoscenti (plural of cognoscente) meaning a person who has expert knowledge in a subject.

Remmy

[MissBarbara]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

6 means “exclusively homosexual” on the scale.

Thanks Toe. And I learned a new vocabulary word: cognoscenti (plural of cognoscente) meaning a person who has expert knowledge in a subject.

Remmy

To put a finer point on it, being a member of the cognoscenti doesn't necessarily mean you're an expert. It's more like your "in the know."

[psiberzerker]

Or Cognizant.  If that helps you remember better.

Regardless, nobody knows the rating system used by LGBT people better than LGBT people, and she was rating herself.  So, no cognoscenti know her personal rating, of her own sexuality, better than she does.  By invalidating Robert Kinsey, and the Kinsey Scale, by extension you're subtly invalidating her own sexual identity.  Using a big intellectual word in an Appeal to Authority doesn't really change how she feels about her sexuality.  

"Well, actually..."  That's been invalidated, she can't be a 6, because Kinsey is invalid.  

That's Ignorance, appealing to those in the know, to make her appear ignorant, in absentia.  

[MissBarbara]

Or Cognizant.  If that helps you remember better.

Regardless, nobody knows the rating system used by LGBT people better than LGBT people, and she was rating herself.  So, no cognoscenti know her personal rating, of her own sexuality, better than she does.  By invalidating Robert Kinsey, and the Kinsey Scale, by extension you're subtly invalidating her own sexual identity.  Using a big intellectual word in an Appeal to Authority doesn't really change how she feels about her sexuality.  

"Well, actually..."  That's been invalidated, she can't be a 6, because Kinsey is invalid.  

That's Ignorance, appealing to those in the know, to make her appear ignorant, in absentia.
  

If you scroll back you'll find that "she" is a fictional character, created by a novelist. "She" doesn't actually exist, and even "she" doesn't know her "personal rating."

Wait: "Personal rating"?!?

While your and my personal experiences clearly differ, I've yet to meet any "LGBT people" who employ a "personal rating system." Nor, for that matter, do they look to books written in the 1950s, or the early 1900s, to try to understand themselves better.

Labels are bullshit, and rating systems are even more bullshit.

And, for fuck's sake, can we please stop confounding gender, gender identity, sexual identity, and sexual orientation?

(Wait: Can I say "bullshit" and "for fuck's sake" in a non-1408 thread?)

The "novelist" who described his character as a "Kinsey-6 lesbian" (or who created a character who described herself as a "Kinsey-6 lesbian) is, simply put, a bad writer. "Describe, don't state," right? It shouldn't matter where she falls on some hypothetical, decades-old scale (of whatever viability). Even in creating her as a sexual being, who expresses her sexuality -- whatever it is -- she shouldn't be reduced to numbers.

I would assert that no one is either a 0 or a 6 on that scale, and that everyone falls somewhere in between -- whether they know it or not, or whether they admit it to themselves of not. Most important of all, by forcing people to define themselves, or to place themselves on scale like this, does damage to their process of understanding themselves -- and understanding others.

[IdleBoast]

(Wait: Can I say "bullshit" and "for fuck's sake" in a non-1408 thread?)

You just did, so... yes?

I would assert that no one is either a 0 or a 6 on that scale, and that everyone falls somewhere in between --

I would further assert that most people slide up and down whatever scale you choose, as the mood takes them.  I know I do.

[psiberzerker]

I would assert that no one is either a 0 or a 6 on that scale, and that everyone falls somewhere in between -- whether they know it or not, or whether they admit it to themselves of not.

On that bullshit scale that is meaningless, you're asserting that all the straight guys are secretly a little bisexual, but just don't know it yet?  Interesting.  How did you come to this conclusion, did you ask anyone, or did you just Assert that?

No one, has ever been gay, or straight.  Did I read that right?

Also I didn't mention gender.  Not once, so you're confusing sexuality, and gender for me.

Onto the fictional nature of the character, a 100% lesbian, in a sexual fantasy.  That's a fantasy, right?  Not a real character.  Granted, written by a man, but regardless, we can accept fantasies about Magical Powers of Mind Control, which have no basis on reality. 

I would assert in somebodies' sexual fantasies, the basis in reality is moot.

[MissBarbara]

I would assert that no one is either a 0 or a 6 on that scale, and that everyone falls somewhere in between -- whether they know it or not, or whether they admit it to themselves of not.

On that bullshit scale that is meaningless, you're asserting that all the straight guys are secretly a little bisexual, but just don't know it yet?  Interesting.  How did you come to this conclusion, did you ask anyone, or did you just Assert that?

I said nothing of the sort. Stop putting words in my mouth.

No one, has ever been gay, or straight.  Did I read that right?

I didn't say that either. So no, you did not read that right.

Also I didn't mention gender.  Not once, so you're confusing sexuality, and gender for me.

I'm confusing nothing of the sort. Nor, if you read what I wrote, was I specifically referring to you.

Onto the fictional nature of the character, a 100% lesbian, in a sexual fantasy.  That's a fantasy, right?  Not a real character.  Granted, written by a man, but regardless, we can accept fantasies about Magical Powers of Mind Control, which have no basis on reality. 

I would assert in somebodies' sexual fantasies, the basis in reality is moot.

Yes, that was my point. Thanks for restating it.

[psiberzerker]

Then what the fuck were you saying?  If nobody is a 0 (Straight) nor a 6 (Gay) then what are they, exactly?  Because in case you weren't aware, that's what those numbers you say nobody is mean.

It kinda sounds like you're saying, and I quote:

no one is either a 0 or a 6 on that scale...  everyone falls somewhere in between

"Somewhere in between" would be somewhat bisexual, whether they want to admit it, or not.  Maybe they just haven't met the right guy?  (Says every guy when they're informed by a lesbian, that she's a lesbian)  So, you're going to have to explain how that's not saying that nobody is either gay (6) or straight (0)  There's no other way I can interpret that assertion.  You used very clear, and absolute (No one) language, with no room for variation. 

[Jed_]

Like 0.01 to 5.99, but never approaching 0 or 6 like it’s a physical limit such as the speed of light?

Most things are quantifiable, but this particular attribute seems to be about as unquantifiable as they cum.

[Athos_131]

If you scroll back you'll find that "she" is a fictional character, created by a novelist. "She" doesn't actually exist, and even "she" doesn't know her "personal rating."

Wait: "Personal rating"?!?

While your and my personal experiences clearly differ, I've yet to meet any "LGBT people" who employ a "personal rating system." Nor, for that matter, do they look to books written in the 1950s, or the early 1900s, to try to understand themselves better.

Labels are bullshit, and rating systems are even more bullshit.

And, for fuck's sake, can we please stop confounding gender, gender identity, sexual identity, and sexual orientation?

(Wait: Can I say "bullshit" and "for fuck's sake" in a non-1408 thread?)

The "novelist" who described his character as a "Kinsey-6 lesbian" (or who created a character who described herself as a "Kinsey-6 lesbian) is, simply put, a bad writer. "Describe, don't state," right? It shouldn't matter where she falls on some hypothetical, decades-old scale (of whatever viability). Even in creating her as a sexual being, who expresses her sexuality -- whatever it is -- she shouldn't be reduced to numbers.

I would assert that no one is either a 0 or a 6 on that scale, and that everyone falls somewhere in between -- whether they know it or not, or whether they admit it to themselves of not. Most important of all, by forcing people to define themselves, or to place themselves on scale like this, does damage to their process of understanding themselves -- and understanding others.

Holy shit, all this post is missing is green font.



#Resist

[Dirtymind]

*** Looks at 10 foot pole ****

*** Looks at topic ****

Nope. Nope.

[MissBarbara]

Like 0.01 to 5.99, but never approaching 0 or 6 like it’s a physical limit such as the speed of light?

Most things are quantifiable, but this particular attribute seems to be about as unquantifiable as they cum.

Many things are quantifiable, and many more are not.

You're right: That was my point. This whole exercise is an attempt to quantify something that is, by its very nature, not quantifiable.

And the effects of trying to strictly label people, and to put them in tiny little boxes, is clearly deleterious, or at best counter-productive.

[MissBarbara]

Then what the fuck were you saying?  If nobody is a 0 (Straight) nor a 6 (Gay) then what are they, exactly?  Because in case you weren't aware, that's what those numbers you say nobody is mean.

It kinda sounds like you're saying, and I quote:

no one is either a 0 or a 6 on that scale...  everyone falls somewhere in between

"Somewhere in between" would be somewhat bisexual, whether they want to admit it, or not.  Maybe they just haven't met the right guy?  (Says every guy when they're informed by a lesbian, that she's a lesbian)  So, you're going to have to explain how that's not saying that nobody is either gay (6) or straight (0)  There's no other way I can interpret that assertion.  You used very clear, and absolute (No one) language, with no room for variation. 

What I'm saying -- and I'm not sure I could have made this any clearer -- is:

"Labels are bullshit, and rating systems are even more bullshit."

You write, "You used very clear, and absolute (No one) language, with no room for variation." 

My point was the exact opposite. There's infinite room for variation. And attempting to view the amazing varieties of human sexuality using mathematics is, you guessed it, "bullshit."

[psiberzerker]

"Labels are bullshit, and rating systems are even more bullshit."

So?  So you're here to tell people they're not Lesbians, because labels are bullshit.  Why, now that you've opened our eyes, we can go ahead and abandon such notionas as men, and women, anybody can fuck anybody, yay!  

My point was the exact opposite. There's infinite room for variation. And attempting to view the amazing varieties of human sexuality using mathematics is, you guessed it, "bullshit."

Right, but it's not attempting to view sexuality (Sex therapist, and researcher here) using mathmatics.  Any more than the pain scale (Also a scale of 1-to-10) is supposed to, it's a way for us to COMMUNICATE.  That's what labels are for, so we can say that apple, instead of just point and say "That."  That what?  That lesbian?  Sorry, I forgot there's not such thing as lesbians.

In attempting to obvuscate the point, you've completely overstepped the point of the Kinsey studies:  To better UNDERSTAND all the varieties of human sexuality, and take us out of the dark ages of the early 20th century, when we didn't want to talk about it.

Now, we can talk about it, even knowing that every time we do, In SEX TALK, some fuddy duddy is going to step in to "Well actually," and shut the conversation down.  Or derail it over semantics.  or invalidate the very foundations of research into the varieties of sexuality.

As long as we don't talk about it, your work here is done, Captain Obvious.

The effects of trying to strictly label people, and to put them in tiny little boxes, is clearly deleterious, or at best counter-productive.

It's not a "Tiny little box."  It's a start, we've already added LGBT, and sometimes A.  (For the purposes of Sex Talk, we can kinda leave off Asexuals, because it's not a sexuality, any more than Atheism is a religion.)  I'm sorry, am I confusing you with all these labels again?  It's a Foundation, to build on.  Not to tear down, because conservatives don't want to learn anything new.