I've always been unhappy with the way Kinsey and Klein frame bisexuality as a more-or-less combination of heterosexual and homosexual. It makes sense when talking about activities, but is invalid when used for identity. This is especially true for issues of community and lifestyle. To quote Liz Highleyman, "I personally think of myself as all bisexual, and not at all heterosexual or homosexual." Therefore, I present...

The Limoncelli Scale of Sexuality


Bisexual: Equal attraction to both sexes ("50/50 bisexual")


Slightly more attracted to one sex than the other








Mostly attracted to one sex, with a little exception.


Monosexual: Incapable of being attracted to more than one sex (100% hetero or homosexual)

Kinsey's and Klein's scales try to be unbiased so they don't promote a particular agenda. However, that is not possible because the way we measure things affects the way we think.

Scales that mark heterosexual as 0 are likening it to "normal". Subconsciously people think of these scales in terms of measuring how far from normal (heterosexual) one is. Also, while it attempts not to, it has the unintended affect that it institutionalizes two "ok" sexualities at the extremes and adds some freaky weird thing called "bisexual" that is in the middle.

The Limoncelli Scale of Sexuality instead makes no pretenses in its agenda. Its agenda is to promote a bisexual-centric way of thinking. Therefore, it puts the bisexuals at the top position, which subliminally indicates that that is the "normal". Then it measures how far away from normal one is by placing non-bisexuals in the disastrous "far from normal" position of "6". However, it does still put the vast majority of the bisexuals in the middle, but that's ok... from what I hear they like that kind of thing.