A more inclusive way to consider sexuality

I definitely use to be an F but somewhere down the line it became an E. I'm a E3. I'm more mentally and physically attracted to women but more sexually attracted to men. I think a lot of that is availability of viable male partners to female partners.
 
Interesting. I'd say I'm definitely an E2, maybe E1.5. Not that I really feel like I need the labels, especially since this isn't one a lot of people know about.

And yeah, the jump from E to F seems pretty steep - there ought to be a spot for enjoying both casual and not-casual relationships...
 
Another E2, maybe E2.5. My orientation has definitely evolved... or maybe just my awareness and knowledge of myself is what evolved? I've always been an E, but had you asked me 25 years ago, I would have declared myself E0. However, I've always prefered female energy over male energy...just sexually I'm more attracted to males. My current partner would have self-identified as an F several years back...now he's somewhere between E/F, slightly closer to E.
 
Is it weird that I feel this would vary depending on the person/relationship? I would say I'm D or E around 2.5/3, but maybe even B2.
 
No AWonderland, it is not weird.

I'm E1 (somewhere between D and E).

I don't have any problem with the scale, but I wouldn't use it much. I prefer to describe my sexuality using words.
 
Ha, I am an E/F 2/3, very horny, prefer emotional attachment.. more emotionally romantically compatible with women, but love boys' cocks, muscles, beards, sexual assertiveness.

Scale fail.
 
Meh, I'd prefer a less gender-binary version. If we're going by my biological sex, I'm sitting on the border of B1 to C1.

I think that at least the inclusion of the asexual spectrum is a good step forward over the Kinsey scale.
 
I guess I'm an E6 on this - I've no doubt about the 6 part but the letter kinda varies - some relationships of mine have included elements other than sex and others haven't. I wouldn't say either kind was better or worse than the other, merely different.

These kind of categorisations remind me of the old (gay) bear code, where you described yourself with a string of letters and symbols depending on your body size, how bushy your beard was, how hairy your chest was etc etc etc.
 
Slightly tangential - anyone ever hear of the Gender Unicorn? It's a new take on the Genderbread Person. Helps people think about the differences between gender identity, gender expression, sex assigned at birth, sexual attraction, and romantic attraction. I like the inclusion of gender as a non-binary continuum.

Check it out:
http://www.transstudent.org/gender
 
I am generally an E0, but could be F with some and less sexual with others. I'm starting to think this might not be a good scale for poly people. I tend to have relationships on many different levels.

BTW...I don't really get the whole non-binary, genderfluid, etc etc stuff. Seems complicated. Just be who you are.
 
BTW...I don't really get the whole non-binary, genderfluid, etc etc stuff. Seems complicated. Just be who you are.

Well, I think it reflects where we are evolving to, in Western culture. For too long, our culture has made the assumption there are only 2 sexes; denying those who exhibit male and female characteristics in the body of the opposite sex.

After all, many non-Western cultures such as Thailand had, or have, a "third gender." Some Polynesian islands had up to 33 genders identified and accepted. Stupid Biblical cultural Christians who conquered the "New World" found the Two Spirit Natives on this continent to be demonic, and killed as many of them as they could.

So now we come to the point where that culture's influence is lessening, in the face of reality of how people identify gender-wise. And with civil rights being worked towards for all, starting with freeing slaves in the 19th century, allowing black men to vote, then all women, working towards more civil rights in general for "minority" races, for women, protections for children, for the handicapped, gay marriage, and now working on transgender rights (starting with the most basic things like public toilet use!), there is going to be a public discussion about gender identification.

It's not about who YOU have sex with, Angelina. It's not about you getting laid at all. lol Well, maybe some tiny fraction of a percent, it is. But that is not the main point of alternative gender rights and protections. It's about gender variant people not getting taunted and considered "freaks," abused, beaten, murdered, unable to find work, unable to afford surgery, just being terrified to leave the house in general except by skulking in the shadows after dark.
 
People have been trying to categorize sexuality (and gender and sex) for a very long time. And ever since Kinsey, they have been trying to create a scale or a spectrum that includes as much variety as possible. I find this particular version of creating a sexuality grid not to be very useful for me. I don't find the 'define and categorize' approach to sexuality to be all that helpful. I do think labels can be a useful tool to start conversations and that they can also be limiting. I would put this scale more on the limiting side of things personally. Like most scales, it doesn't do a good job of acknowledging or illustrating that people can move and flow over all sorts of points on the scale. However, I do like that it attempts to include the asexual range and different romance needs/wants. But what I really dislike about it is that the distinction between primary sexuality and hyper sexuality is so stark. The description of hyper sexuality is really offputting: "Sex is the be-all-end-all purpose of any relationship. Everything else is just a consolation prize or a means to an end.' This feels very judgy to me with no acknowledgement that having sex for sex's sake, that having sex without romance or commitment can be a healthy, joyful thing to do. (And, yes, sometimes it can be destructive.) This description pathologizes people who have sex to have sex as that description reads like 'sociopaths go here!' It's yet another slyly sex-negative scale. Also the article states that this scale 'represents all possible degrees of sexual attraction'. That's flat out bullshit. I don't appear on this scale. My experiences don't appear on this scale. It is not possible to create a scale that incorporates all sexual attraction or identity. People are so much more infinitely complex than any schema we can come up.


... BTW...I don't really get the whole non-binary, genderfluid, etc etc stuff. Seems complicated. Just be who you are.

Me, either. I have no idea what this means. I have sex with people who make my heart sing. That's pretty much it

It's a privilege to 'just be who you are' and not one our Western society automatically gives to everyone. All the complicated stuff going around gender nowadays is the result of people fighting day after day for decades to be open about who they are, and to be able to safely present their truth to others. It's not a done deal by any means. Magdlyn writes about the risks and what is at stake.

I do not believe for a minute that FallenAngelina or vinsanity0 are intolerant, bigoted or hateful towards anyone, much less gender variant people. I just know that it can be easy to gloss over how much pain and suffering it takes to 'just be who you are' when you may not experience it directly. I've done the glossing over and ignoring myself. I've been lucky enough that people have told me, 'hey, this may not be something you've personally experienced but it's real, there is a long history behind it, go learn.'
 
It's a privilege to 'just be who you are' and not one our Western society automatically gives to everyone...I do not believe for a minute that FallenAngelina or vinsanity0 are intolerant, bigoted or hateful towards anyone, much less gender variant people. I just know that it can be easy to gloss over how much pain and suffering it takes to 'just be who you are' when you may not experience it directly.

I can't support this enough.

I think that perspective COULD be similar to the color-blinded view of race, including that "everyone's human" and "I don't see race." By saying that, you're minimizing the experiences of people who aren't in positions of power, as well as taking away their power to label (or choose not to label) their experience. Same way as if you lumped all LGBTQ individuals into "homosexuals" (or gays or queer persons) versus allowing them to pick which words they want to apply (or not apply) to themselves.

I totally agree that I don't see FallenAngelina or vinsanity0 as intolerant, bigoted, or hateful in anyway (in fact, I think highly of the perspectives you bring to the forum :) ). I do think it's complicated, especially to cisgender individuals like myself who have the privilege of not needing to worry (or worrying less, as I'm female) about how my gender identity may or may not fit with societal expectation and what consequences I may receive for stepping outside those roles.
 
Thanks for not labeling me a bigot simply because I do not understand. I know this can be a very touchy subject for some and I mean no harm.

I guess I always viewed gender as a term for biological sex. I do get the transgender issue of a person being born one way but identifying as the opposite gender. I guess I don't get the in-betweens. That is what seems complicated to me. But now I'm understanding a little more that gender no longer has to do with biological sex, but more about internal identity and attitude toward accepted gender roles.

What also confuses me (not in concept, but in dealing with people on a one on one level) is that these gender designations have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

On top of all that I am somewhat "anti-label" (and yes, the irony of labeling myself ant-label is not lost on me) and it feels odd to me to be labeled cisgendered simply because I am the gender I was born. To me I'm just a guy.
 
Thanks for not labeling me a bigot simply because I do not understand. I know this can be a very touchy subject for some and I mean no harm.

People are just under-informed about gender issues. All we can do is educate. I know it's confusing to cisgendered people for whom it just doesn't cross the radar. Many people, for example, confuse transgendered people with cross-dressers or drag queens. But they are all different distinct categories.

Some people think transgendered people are "gay." But a MtoF person may be gay or straight. If she is interested in women, she is gay. If she is interested in men, she is straight.

Whether she has started hormones or had surgery or not, if she IDs as a female in her brain (soul), she is female. Her "penis" is just an annoyance and seems alien to her. This condition is usually quite apparent at an amazingly young age, generally when the child first becomes verbal around age 2 or 3.

I guess I always viewed gender as a term for biological sex. I do get the transgender issue of a person being born one way but identifying as the opposite gender.

Gender is between the ears, sex is between the legs.

What you've got on your body can seem so WRONG to a transperson. People that insist a penis at birth means male, and a vulva means female, forever and ever, are just misinformed. (And I always feel that the assholes who are the most adamant about this, probably have buried gender questions of their own.)

I guess I don't get the in-betweens. That is what seems complicated to me. But now I'm understanding a little more that gender no longer has to do with biological sex, but more about internal identity and attitude toward accepted gender roles.

I identify as gender-queer. That is, I flow between having male and female urges and characteristics, even though I've got breasts and female genitalia. I've felt this way ever since I can remember. When I was a child playing pretend games with my friends, I would often take a male role. Which was handy when I was playing with my girl friends and we needed a Prince or Peter Pan or something!

Sometimes I cross dress. In college when I was young and skinny, sometimes gay men would hit on me.

My gf says I have a cock. I guess in spiritual terms, you could call it an astral cock. When I Top someone, I can feel male, even if the sub is calling me Mama at the time, lol. I think it has only gotten stronger as I age, since I am no longer cycling hormonally. My testosterone has come to the fore since estrogen production is now so low. I often feel more like a teenage boy than a woman.

On top of all that I am somewhat "anti-label" (and yes, the irony of labeling myself anti-label is not lost on me) and it feels odd to me to be labeled cisgendered simply because I am the gender I was born. To me I'm just a guy.


That is cis-privilege. Thanks for acknowledging that. If you hung out with transfolk more, you'd soon learn to let go of that. Transmen are "just guys" too, for that matter. My gf works at a summer camp for trans youth, and the boys are just boys, the girls are just girls. If you visited there, you'd never know they were born with the wrong bodies for their brains.
 
Back
Top