I got a four, what did you get?
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual.
what the fuck does “are you sexually submissive” have to do with how gay you are????????? i’m seriously asking
Alfred Kinsey (who set the scale) was into some kinky stuff. I think some of what he extrapolated about sexuality was a little fucked up.
oh i assumed this was an adapted version but if this is the original unchanged then okay yeah
that’s fucked up though, does that mean he thinks if you’re a woman ad sexually submissive that makes you more hetero???? fuck that
I’m “F - The test failed to match you to a Kinsey Type profile. Either you answered some questions wrong, or you are a very unusual person.”
Considering I literally just broke a Kinsey test with answers essentially amounting to nothing more spectacular than “gay-leaning pansexual who wouldn’t enter into all orgies no matter what,” I’m going with it’s outdated and working with some pretty reductive ideas about sexuality.
#iiiiiiiiiiii’m pretty sure i gave the clearest possible ‘kinsey 5’ answers you could give #kinsey 5s are magical unicorns who defy the laws of sexuality pass it on
it must be true because it did the exact same thing to me
the weird thing is, i went back and started changing one answer at a time to see if it would give me a different result, and the one that switched it from F to 5 was “you would find a threesome awkward specifically because of the presence of the woman.” which, like. what? if my specific problem with a threesome was the sexual involvement of a woman, wouldn’t that make me…not predominately attracted to women?
real kinsey 5s are just too magical and unique for this test, apparently
I hate to break this to you but there are lesbian relationships that involve penis because there are trans lesbians with penises. There are lesbian relationships where everyone has penises in them.
Sorry* to burst your transmisogynist bubble.
*Lol, I’m not sorry.
I love this post
(Source: punlich, via stealst)
The Norton Shakespeare Comedies, Much Ado About Nothing (via eighttwotwopointthreethree)
Everyone tags this with “not all men” but one of the things that is so powerful about Much Ado is that you do have, like, the one romantic hero in Shakespeare who gets it and actually figures out that the whole culture of cuckoldry panic is toxic and damaging and actually steps back from it — I know Greenblatt has a much darker reading of the play, because he’s a New Historicist and they always do, but the fact that Benedick is the only man in the play (other than the Friar, but he’s not part of the play’s whole bro complex) who believes in Hero’s innocence is a pretty big deal, given that even Hero’s own father doesn’t believe her, because “would the two princes lie, and Claudio lie?” And it’s very much a play about learning to be a good ally to women and recognizing that patriarchy is destructive — which I think is why Benedick comes off as pretty much the only romantic comedy lead in Shakespeare who feels worthy of the heroine. The flip side of the quote above is that the play is pretty optimistic about the possibility of a feminist heterosexuality, not that Shakespeare would have put it in those terms because he wrote the play in 1599ish but ykwim, and it requires listening to women and accepting their experiences as valid.
(Source: allison-s-crossbow, via officerbobrovsky)