Saturday, February 6, 2010

Putting the Puzzle Together: Madame Curie's Turn

By Madame Curie

A few days ago, my husband and I were discussing the Kinsey scale. I have traditionally placed myself as a 4, since I have been attracted to two people in my life - him and my high-school girlfriend - and am generally physically more attracted to female than to male anatomy. However, Mr. C pushed me on this, causing me to recall a number of other things that I had not previously considered. As such, I think it is probably only fair to him that I go through the same analysis that he has. In so doing, I will note at the onset that I am going to be far less explicit in my writing than Mister C was. I am also not going to do a "Pieces of the Past" series, because it would violate the privacy of far too many people.

As a refresher, the Kinsey scale is as follows:


0 Exclusively heterosexual 0
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 1
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual 2
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual 3
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual 4
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual 5
6 Exclusively homosexual 6

As my husband did, I will also employ the Klein grid to characterize my sexuality in various aspects of my life.
(1) Sexual Attraction: To whom are you sexually attracted?
I am going to assume that they mean "physically" here, which is a difficult distinction to be made since, for me, sexual feelings are fairly intimately tied with emotional connectiveness. Without question, I am physically 'sexually attracted' only to women, and (aside from Mister C) have actually been physically repulsed and nauseated by any and every man I have kissed or been intimate with. So, I am giving this one a 6, with the very, very notable exception of my husband.

(2) Sexual Behavior: With whom have you actually had sex?
I am going to rephrase this as "With whom have you actually had intimate physical activity with where you enjoyed said physical activity?" I give myself a 3 for this one - equal men and women.

(3) Sexual Fantasies: About whom are your sexual fantasies?
I don't much think about physical anatomy of the person I am with in my fantasies - I generally only think about the emotions at play, and those drive the sexual feelings. However, the one notable exception is in my sexually-related dreams, where I exclusively dream physically about women. Always. Additionally, the thought of male anatomy in a sexual fantasy for me has the effect of cooling my libido faster than a -80 C freezer. So, this is probably going to have to be a 6 as well.

(4) Emotional preference: Who do you feel more drawn to or close to emotionally?

Women and gay men. I've almost never felt emotionally drawn to a straight man. Or a traditionally "masculine" men. Those guys just are off-putting to me. Part of me has to wonder whether my emotional attraction to gay men has been a sort of subconscious defense mechanism to avoid becoming physically involved. I do know that the times that I thought I was physically attracted to a straight guy, when he acted on it I quickly figured out that I wasn't really attracted to him.

I count the "gay men" in this group as making me "incidentally heterosexual". Thus, this one codes as a 5.

(5) Social preference: Which gender do you socialize with?

Women and my husband: 5.

(6) Lifestyle preference: In which community do you like to spend your time? In which do you feel most comfortable?

I'm comfortable in both heterosexual and homosexual communities. So this is a 3.

(7) Self-identification: How do you label or identify yourself?

The short answer to this one is that I don't tend to label or identify myself. But, if I am being honest with myself (which is hard on this topic), I would have to say that I more identify with being gay than straight. Well, much more, actually. Its not so much my husband's masculine nature or body that I am attracted to as his emotional and intellectual connection with me. But I can't deny that physically and emotionally speaking, I have tended to hang out with gay guys and hope that nothing physical happens, or hang out with girls and not mind if anything happens. So, this again is probably a 6.

In terms of physical attraction, I would say that I am a 6 - exclusively homosexual. Luckily, I am not repulsed by my husband. I have felt repulsion towards men many times in the past, and it is not something that I would ever, ever, ever want to associate with him. However, I do recognize that a large part of that attraction is the emotional and intellectual bond that we share, which fuels the physical attraction. There are also... other things that come into play that would not come into play for anyone else. In terms of emotional attraction, I am probably a 5 - predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual.

Given that I am emotionally and physically attracted to my husband, the number matters much less than the actual truth that our marriage is outstanding. Until, of course, he starts residency and I don't see him for days on end. Or until he falls in love with another man. Although I recognize that there may come a day in the future when we are unhappy, or when either of us is no longer the other's "exception," the best I can do is enjoy today, hope for tomorrow, and do my best to stay emotionally attached to my husband in the future.

I don't want to trade today's happiness, just to "protect" myself from a potential future heartache.

2 comments:

  1. Madame Curis thus spoke:
    "I don't want to trade today's happiness, just to "protect" myself from a potential future heartache."

    LOL! I hope you realize just how profound that statement is! Excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. " . . . for me, sexual feelings are fairly intimately tied with emotional connectiveness . . . " This exactly describes my female attractions and DH.

    I have however experienced animal lust directed at the opposite sex, but as much as I felt that I never had the desire to act on it because it felt icky. But the others, well those were powerful drives of a different kind.

    ReplyDelete