|An example of the Kinsey scale for human sexuality (Asexual was not originally included)|
A new scale has been making the rounds on the internet lately with many claiming it to be a solution to the Kinsey problem. The scale, seemingly originating on reddit, is called the purple-red scale and looks as follows:
Right away you can notice this scale is more complex than the Kinsey scale above. It sheds more light on the diversity that exists within asexuality - particularly showing that there are aromantic aces and romantic aces. On top of that, it also gives attention to those who are hypersexual - a group often either considered ill (similar to asexuals) or at the very least deviant.
There's certainly value in this type of scale. It shows some real growth in how people have come to understand sexuality. The mere fact that its getting attention is quite exciting! Not too long ago asexuals were still struggling to be recognized as an actual sexual orientation (not that they aren't still fighting for this recognition).
That being said, its not enough to just praise and focus on some improvements. As a feminist, a queer activist, and someone who understands what it is like to be disadvantaged; I can't just sit by when things are still leaving out or misrepresenting entire groups of people and sadly this scale is almost as inadequate as the Kinsey scale. It's always important to remain vigilant and critical.
The new purple-red scale has added in level of sexual attraction. In more colloquial terms it basically just added how big your sex drive is into the scale (though again, it isn't really that simple). Again, a great improvement, but not at all enough. The distinction between romantic and aromantic asexuals is important but the scale misrepresents others in the asexual community - demisexuals.
This is of course not the only flaw in the scale. Let's be honest, the 'sexual attraction' side is the only new bit - it's really just a Kinsey Scale 2.0. Nothing else has really been changed.
That instantly raises a big red flag to me. Just like with everything else we have had to deal with, we seem to still be trying to stuff and limit our identities into teeny tiny boxes. Guys, it didn't work for gender and it's not gonna work for sexuality. We really should get over this whole need to box everything up. We've already started recognizing that humans are not simple creatures. Rather than just trying to make bigger boxes; why even bother to confine ourselves?
Speaking of gender - look at that Kinsey scale on the right. In most modern discourses sexual orientation is described as what gender a person is attracted to. Not sex. I've talked about the distinction a little bit in my intro post to sexuality and while not a huge deal...it certainly is a bit odd. Particularly, this chart fails to account for how sexuality is affected by the gender of our partners. It ignores trans experiences, completely erasing them from the picture. It erases all nonconforming gender identies. Agender, genderfluid, genderqueer, there are innumerable genders out there and their experiences of sexuality are not reflected here.
Even accepting sex as their basis of attraction the scale is still erasing identities and experiences. What about people who don't fit in our narrow definitions of 'male' and 'female'? Intersex people are often left out of LGBTQ+ discourse and this is just another example of that. Seriously, if you can make the effort to get an understanding about an often-erased group such as asexual people, is it really so much to ask that you learn about other erased groups?
And what about the nonsense of saying 'of the opposite sex'? That reeks of heteronormativity and sexism. Why are male and female considered opposites? Accepting another binary is completely ridiculous. They aren't opposite, just different. Saying they are opposite implies (or at least plays into) a whole plethora of assumptions that we make not just about sex but also gender and we can really just do without all that. Its not something I need to be reminded of when trying to illustrate my sexual identity.
Another problem with using the Kinsey scale as presented above as part of this chart is that it doesn't accurately represent bisexuals (and following from my point above about the infinite gender variations, it also inaccurately represents pansexuality). An important criticism pointed out by the bisexual community is that this scale makes them out to not be their own sexual orientation, but rather a mixture of two absolutes. Bisexual people are not half-heterosexual and half-homosexual. This idea that bisexual people need to quantify how attracted, or how often, they are to each gender (or sex) is ridiculous. It isn't about how much, because for bisexuals the people they enter relationships with are those they are attracted to. Period. They are fully attracted to the people they have relationships with. Measurements like this tend to give the idea that they are less attracted to someone because of their gender/sex.
Really, criticisms of the Kinsey scale are wide and varying. Thats why many academics, scientists, and even the person who created the purple-red scale (whoever they may be) have tried creating new scales. This is just another step in the process, but the purple-red scale - while a a step in the right direction in some aspects - just isn't very revolutionary or even that exciting for me.