Hrmmm 5, maybe 5.5? It’d be a 6 if it weren’t for those misguided encounters with boys in my teens 
Max
0 to 1
IOW, falling though the cracks, as usual…
Another 0. Although with a little push I could become i. Completely sexless.
If I believed in God I’d make a damn good priest.
A one. I’ve found men attractive before. Yes, in that way. Might be a two if I weren’t a virgin. But I’m still firmly heterosexual, consistently finding women more attractive than men.
4.5
Would probably be a 5, if not for the French judge.
What? No one’s claiming to be a 6.9?
Also between a 2 and a 3… I’ve ‘passionately’ shared a kiss with females, and would definitely consider sex if the person was right… but most of my encounters have been with men.
- Given the opportunity, probably a 2.
Two! Booyeah!
1, maybe 1.5
Affectionate hugs are no problem, but that’s really about it.
5
I have had 1 sexual encounter with a guy, my other partners have been female. I do find some men attractive but I have not yet found a guy I could fall in love with.
I consider myself a 6. Although I canoodled with women in my younger days, it was done strictly as an experiment to turn myself into a rip-roarin’ heterosexual. Unfortunately, I didn’t enjoy it one bit, and had to get through it by thinking about pro wrestlers.
I’m a man-lovin man.
0.5 I’d say - I simply like girls too much 
But I’ve found men kinda attractive, but more in a “I wanna look like him” way.
// blinx
0 to 1. In theory, and maybe in group if the woman is the focus (and I was somehow talked into group).
Maybe in group? Gaa! First I have to find one woman!
I don’t know where I fit in a scale that is so patently one-dimensional.
6
(Surprise, surprise)
2
I’d be a 3.5, I think. Not quite enough to be a 4, but close.
I could have written this post!
Guess that makes me a 0.
I guess i’d be a 3.5, but I agree with Mangetout (I always read that as Mange Trout). It’s a one dimensional scale.