Talk:Klein Sexual Orientation Grid

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a template-based chart or charts illustrating the Klein grid,… possibly with examples showing relationship to Kinsey scale? be included in this article to improve its quality. Useful templates may be found in Category:Chart, diagram and graph formatting and function templates. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

[Untitled][edit]

A Google Images search on "Klein grid" shows variants on a theme. I'd like if someone qualified in the field could opine on which variant would be optimal for this entry (and in fact whether it could be achieved by a simply-HTML table (or Wikitable) —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still think the page need a diagram? Is the HTML table enough or it could be usefule a visualization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzopositano (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand[edit]

This is only a initial entry (stub) it is hoped that those who have agreater understanding of this field will swiftly update this entry.

Thank you CyntWorkStuff 19:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference, exactly, between this scale and the Kinsey scale? It seems to me they are exactly the same scale, one beginning at 0 and the other at 1. 85.194.50.194 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffrence between the two scales are that the Kinsey scale only takes into account a person's sexual peference. On the other hand, Klein's scale takes into account social interaction, attraction, and other factors which make up a person's sexual identity.--Snoopy753 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

this totally needs to be merged with the kinsey scale article. I'm to lazy to do it myself but would someone pleeeeeeeeeease take care of this. - Arch NME 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who is studies sexology, I can tell you that if you did any research you would find that there is a big diffrence between the two scales and should have two DIFFRENT entries.--Snoopy753 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinsey scale and the Klein grid are two different things, although they each use essentially the same scale and each purports to "measure" sexual orientation in some way. Kinsey measured only one factor (or variable) on a continuum between the bipolar values of exclusively heterosexual and homosexual. Therefore the Kinsey scale is one dimensional with only one index number, such as 1.4 on the scale, sometimes called a person's Kinsey number. On the other hand, the Klein grid measures seven factors (or variables, or vectors), and three time periods for each factor. A scale for each of the seven factors (behavior, attraction, identity, etc.) would result in seven index numbers, one for each factor. Adding in three time periods for each factor results in 21 index numbers. The scale used by Kinsey and Klein both have seven integer points, and references have them variously as 0-6 or 1-7, but mathematically they are the same. However, the names of the value points differ. Kinsey used "Exclusively Heterosexual" and "Exclusively Homosexual" as the end points, whereas Klein used the terms "Other sex only" and "Same sex only" as his end points, labels which are less semantically loaded. There is a big difference between a scale and a grid.

Initially I was completely in agreement with Snoopy753—that is, keep the articles separate. But as I thought about it, there seems to be some value in merging them under a new title, for example, Measures of Sexual Orientation, as well as pull out the section on "Measuring an individual's sexual orientation" from the WP article Sexual Orientation and merging that as well. Then one could report on other measurement theories, such as: Karl Heinrich Ulrichs' Sexual Orientation Classification Scheme (1860's), Magnus Hirschfeld's scales (1896), Shively Scale of Sexual Orientation (1977), The Multidimensional Scale of Sexuality (1990), Sell Assessment of Sexual Orientation (1995),and the FACE Sexual Orientation Scale (2000).

So, no to merging them, unless it's done right and at length, and certainly NOT under the Kinsey Scale or Klein Sexual Orientation Grid titles. The Sexual Orientation article is too long anyway, IMHO. This is not an easy task, as there are inconsistencies that need to be straightened out, and the article should contrast the various theories, denote degree of acceptance within the sexology research community (e.g.- has it been peer reviewed and has it been tested in studies), and also provide an historical context for the theories. Also, I would love to know how non-Western cultures view the subject of measuring sexual orientation. The work of anthropologist Margaret Mead might be useful here. Or not. Asian research would be very welcome, as they had a history of homosexuality, although not in the same sense or context as Western cultures. And that's part of the problem in describing or measuring sexual orientation—the differing definitions, contexts, and attitudes across different cultures and times, as well as differing research methodologies and language. As well as the emotional baggage we all bring to this subject. I'm trying to decide if I have the energy and time to tackle this, assuming no one objects, that is. Becksguy 01:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging them. Each should be a distinct article and (it seems appropriate) reference each other a with a paragraph overview of how one leads to the other and (see main article) redirect. Benjiboi 10:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the undo[edit]

I had made some changes to the article. Then, after I read the changes I made, I relieze that I made a mistake and I can not remember off the top of my head the current scale numbers, but I do know that the scale numbers are wrong at this time. --Snoopy753 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing factor[edit]

It suddenly dawned on me.... There is a missing factor in this article: Social preference, as the fifth factor. In all the other websites, including the referenced one, bisexulity.org, the Klein grid has seven factors, not six as was listed here. Seven factors are listed in his book also, The Bisexual Option, chapter 2. QED. So I inserted it, and cleaned up a few items also. — Becksguy 14:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asexuality[edit]

Does the Klein scale account for asexuality? From reading through the article it appears that there is only hetero/bi/homosexual ratings. Whether it does or does not include asexuality should be mentioned in the article, as it is a notable difference between the Klein and Kinsey scales 24.224.147.148 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Methodology[edit]

I had editted the last line: "The KSOG has also been used in studies of conversion therapy." to change 'used' to 'misused'. Reasoning was I had read the source cited, with itself stating disagreements and criticisms from the American Psychiatric Assiociation. Then went to check the conversation therapy article linked and read that it was considered a pseudoscience. From sources gathered, I had misconstrued the 'used' as being previously vandalized. Sorry, for this confusion. 109.153.16.161 (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)UnoCoin[reply]