100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual
90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual
80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual
70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual
60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual
50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual
40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual
30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual
20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual
10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual
0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual
That is my very own sexual orientation scale. I use it a lot in my counseling practice. What is odd is that everyone seems to like it a lot, and almost everyone gives me an almost immediate answer to where they are on the chart. This implies that most people know their sexual orientation at least deep down inside and few people are legitimately going round and round about their sexual orientation.
In my practice the only people I met who were going round and round about their sexual orientation were mentally ill. It doesn’t seem to be something normal people do. I think most adults know their orientation very well, but quite a few simply cannot admit it to themselves. Hence you see formerly married men “discovering they are gay” at age 45. They are not discovering a damn thing. They’ve known all along. The only thing that changed was they stopped lying to themselves.
I like this better than the Kinsey Scale.
We really need another scale for romantic orientation.
I have known some lesbians who identified as 25-75 but identified as lesbian because they said that while men might be fun for sex, they could only fall in love with a woman. So it looks like self-labeling for sexual orientation can be based as much on romantic attraction as sexual attraction.
I have known women who had sex with both men and women but identified as straight as they only had relationships with men. They told me that relationships with women were straight up insanity time.
In fact, a number of bisexual women have confided in me that they did not like relationships with women because they were too nutty, which is something we men have been saying forever now. They told me that relationships with men were much more stable.
Woman = chaos + drama is how the equation works. All men have woman troubles. If you have a woman, you have woman troubles, period. Maybe you don’t if she’s mute, but even then she probably is capable of murderously dirty looks. Mute women have the advantage of knowing when to shut up and plus they can never give you the silent treatment. I think more men should look into relationships with mute women. It sounds like a neglected demographic. Generally the man is a stabilizing influence to the drama + chaos and women from partriarchal cultures are encultured or even terrorized into acting sane and decent most of the time.
Now you have two humans. One is drama + chaos and the other is drama + chaos. Ok, what do you think the result of that is? A Type 3 emotional hurricane I would say.
