What's the percentage of people that are gay?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH

I answered 3% but I think the number may actually be lower than that.

Keep a record of every Gay Pride event in the world, and the number of people in attendance at each of these events, THEN come back and try to claim that there's only 3% of population that is gay.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun

Keep a record of every Gay Pride event in the world, and the number of people in attendance at each of these events, THEN come back and try to claim that there's only 3% of population that is gay.

I have no need to do so since the question is irrelevant to me. I dont give a **** what makes anyones **** hard . It's none of my business.

If I went by the proportion of my friends who are gay I'd have to give an answer like Wittlich but I dont believe the 10% number. From a biological standpoint, for 10% of a mammalian population to be 'non-breeding', it would require a noticable advantage for the species to maintain such a population. Unless you're gonna tell me that gays have hidden superpowers, I'm afraid that it doesnt make sense. Of course if you included bisexuals and adolescents who may be unsure of their orientation in the number it would be higher than 3%.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
If I went by the proportion of my friends who are gay I'd have to give an answer like Wittlich but I dont believe the 10% number. From a biological standpoint, for 10% of a mammalian population to be 'non-breeding', it would require a noticable advantage for the species to maintain such a population. Unless you're gonna tell me that gays have hidden superpowers, I'm afraid that it doesnt make sense. Of course if you included bisexuals and adolescents who may be unsure of their orientation in the number it would be higher than 3%.

This relies on a false implication that homosexuals don't breed. I can introduce you to about a dozen who have kids from previous marriages. Many gay people, particularly men, do not realize they are gay or live in denial until they have already married and sired children. A perfect example is the nearly-elected Episcopalian Bishop. Among his staunchest supporters are his former wife and his daughter.

The problem with claiming any number is that we have no idea how many homosexuals are closeted, but it's certainly a large number--I'd guess, based on experience, about equal to the number who are openly gay. As molly bloom pointed out, even in very liberal areas, you're going to have closeted gays.

My own guess is about 7%, no fewer than 5% but possibly as high as 10%.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


This relies on a false implication that homosexuals don't breed. I can introduce you to about a dozen who have kids from previous marriages. Many gay people, particularly men, do not realize they are gay or live in denial until they have already married and sired children. A perfect example is the nearly-elected Episcopalian Bishop. Among his staunchest supporters are his former wife and his daughter.

The problem with claiming any number is that we have no idea how many homosexuals are closeted, but it's certainly a large number--I'd guess, based on experience, about equal to the number who are openly gay. As molly bloom pointed out, even in very liberal areas, you're going to have closeted gays.

My own guess is about 7%, no fewer than 5% but possibly as high as 10%.

So everyone who starts sleeping with members of the same gender after sleeping with members of the opposite gender was really homosexual all along? And none of them were ever "really" heterosexuals who changed their minds? Does it work in reverse, ie are people who first engaged in homosexual behavior and then switched considered to have been "closeted" heterosexuals earlier in their life?

There is a huge problem with the "homosexuality is genetically determined" argument. It forces people to explain the phenomenon of people changing their sexual preference in terms of them constantly coming around to their "true" nature. Why do so many people switch sides in both directions, and why are they so confused? What's so confusing about what gives someone a boner?

[MrFun]

I used to believe in the theory that genetics exclusively determines sexual orientation, but for over a year, I have not been so sure of that now.

Even if I cannot be certain exactly how sexual orientation develops, I do know that it is not a choice.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sikander
So everyone who starts sleeping with members of the same gender after sleeping with members of the opposite gender was really homosexual all along?

Homosexual? Perhaps not...but certainly at least bisexual, I'd say. It's not as if people wake up one morning and opt to sleep with a different gender. In every case I know of wherein a previously married man is now homosexual, he says he was homosexual all along, but was either so deep in denial he didn't even realize it, or was closeted and thought his homosexual inklings were just a passing phase, something he could keep controlled.

And none of them were ever "really" heterosexuals who changed their minds? Does it work in reverse, ie are people who first engaged in homosexual behavior and then switched considered to have been "closeted" heterosexuals earlier in their life?

It could potentially work in reverse--if there ever were a society wherein homosexuality was the accepted norm and heterosexuality was reviled. The reason these men are closeted and in denial is because of the intense social pressure to not be homosexual, to fit into the norm and follow the expected path. This is a powerful force on people, and that's why coming out is such an emotionally tortuous time for gay people.

There is a huge problem with the "homosexuality is genetically determined" argument. It forces people to explain the phenomenon of people changing their sexual preference in terms of them constantly coming around to their "true" nature.

First, I didn't say anything about genetics, did I?

Second, people "changing their sexual preference" is VASTLY more common in the hetero-->homo direction, not the opposite. All of the high profile "reformed homosexuals" cases admit to still having homosexual desires, they just suppress them. I've met a very few people, largely female, who experimented with homosexuality and later "went straight." They, like the gays I mentioned above, tell me they were straight all along, really, but were extremely confused for a time period.

That isn't to say there aren't individuals whose orientation as really shifted, but I think you're making those cases out to be far more prevalent than they are.

Why do so many people switch sides in both directions, and why are they so confused? What's so confusing about what gives someone a boner?

Again, I think the "switching sides" argument is based on a faulty understanding of what is happening. People are confused because the societal messages regarding homosexuality are so strong and the social pressures against homosexuality so pervasive that it can easily **** with one's mind. I myself lived in a huge denial about until I was a junior in college. Confusion is putting it mildly--it's a daily mind game that really distorts perceptions of reality until one face's the situation head-on.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Again, I think the "switching sides" argument is based on a faulty understanding of what is happening. People are confused because the societal messages regarding homosexuality are so strong and the social pressures against homosexuality so pervasive that it can easily **** with one's mind. I myself lived in a huge denial about until I was a junior in college. Confusion is putting it mildly--it's a daily mind game that really distorts perceptions of reality until one face's the situation head-on.

Yes -- the secret heterosexual agenda is out in the open! Please, oh please spare me from the conversion process of becoming straight! In all seriousness, I agree, Boris; sexual orientation really cannot be flicked back and forth like a light switch. Even with successful brainwashing treatment, the victims will still be gay in denial.

Don't tell people like Boddington's about our secret agenda in converting children to be gay.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun
I used to believe in the theory that genetics exclusively determines sexual orientation, but for over a year, I have not been so sure of that now.

Even if I cannot be certain exactly how sexual orientation develops, I do know that it is not a choice.

I agree with everything you say here. I too am unsure, but I don't think that the idea that some put forward of homosexuality being akin to gender is valid. And I generally agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, though I have known a few women who were sexually ambivalent (aka bisexual) who chose to be with women because they were afraid of men, even though their preference in terms of having sex was to sleep with men. In these cases they went for the gender that was the best bet in terms of having a relationship rather than the gender that they preferred to sleep with.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Homosexual? Perhaps not...but certainly at least bisexual, I'd say. It's not as if people wake up one morning and opt to sleep with a different gender. In every case I know of wherein a previously married man is now homosexual, he says he was homosexual all along, but was either so deep in denial he didn't even realize it, or was closeted and thought his homosexual inklings were just a passing phase, something he could keep controlled.

You obviously know and have known a lot more homosexual men than I have (though I've known a fair number myself) while I know and have known a large numer of lesbians, probably more than you have if for no other reason than I am a lot older than you are. Anyway as far as gay men go, I'll trust your sample size over my own. It does seem to me though that there are large differences between gay men and lesbians. I wonder if the nature of attraction for men and women is so different that it can explain the rather large differences between lesbians and gay men.

For instance it seems that men tend to change less than women, or put another way that women are more plastic when it comes to attraction in general and sexual preference in particular. Whether this difference (assuming that it actually exists and isn't the product of an enormously skewed sample on my part) has to do with nature or nurture or some combination I can't really say, though my guess is some combination of the two.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It could potentially work in reverse--if there ever were a society wherein homosexuality was the accepted norm and heterosexuality was reviled. The reason these men are closeted and in denial is because of the intense social pressure to not be homosexual, to fit into the norm and follow the expected path. This is a powerful force on people, and that's why coming out is such an emotionally tortuous time for gay people.

It does work in reverse, I've seen it. There was a 14 year old boy who was hanging around with a group of gay guys who lived in my building (I was 18). One was a good friend of mine, but the other guys were horrible. Whenever I was hanging around with my friend and the other guys came along they were brutal in their attempts to convince me that I was gay, or barring that drive me away. After a few hours of this treatment over time, I simply avoided them and would have my friend over to my apartment when we wanted to shoot the breeze.

Anyway this 14 year old kid was hanging out with these mean guys, and they were relentless in convincing him that he was gay. I found out that he was being molested by a 30 year old man, and being unable to talk to anyone like his parents or anything he sought out these guys who he thought would understand him. But they didn't understand him, they were simply indoctrinating him into their little world. I had a talk with the kid one afternoon. I told him that he wasn't having a homosexual relationship, but was being molested. I also told him that he was too young to be sure what his sexual preference was, but instead was allowing that man to assign him one. I also told him that those guys weren't his friends (they honestly didn't seem capable of friendship) but that they were so fanatical about homosexuality that they were blind to who he really was. He left and I didn't see him again for seven years.

When I saw him again he was a music student at the University and was visiting a couple of friends of mine who were his professors. He thanked me for having that talk with him, and said that it changed his life. He broke away from the guy who was molesting him as well as the chorus of harpies that were so intent on seeing a fellow homosexual that they couldn't see a 14 year old boy who was being taken advantage of. He had a girlfriend and he was very happy. It made my day to hear that.

Anyway, I think there are tidal forces pulling in both directions. While society in general is obviously more massive, if one is close enough to the sort of fascistic turds that those homosexual fundies were, they can exert enough force locally to cause the confused to turn their way. IMO it is fundies on both sides that cause so many of the suicides that plague young homosexuals. I'll grant you that christian and / or other homophobes have a higher bodycount, but on a per capita basis I'm not so sure they are acutally the more deadly of the two schools of dogma.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
First, I didn't say anything about genetics, did I?

Second, people "changing their sexual preference" is VASTLY more common in the hetero-->homo direction, not the opposite. All of the high profile "reformed homosexuals" cases admit to still having homosexual desires, they just suppress them. I've met a very few people, largely female, who experimented with homosexuality and later "went straight." They, like the gays I mentioned above, tell me they were straight all along, really, but were extremely confused for a time period.

That isn't to say there aren't individuals whose orientation as really shifted, but I think you're making those cases out to be far more prevalent than they are.

Again, my experience is more with lesbians than gay men, so that may account for some of the discrepancy in opinion here. That said, I subscribe to the shades of gray model more than the carved in stone model. A number of my male friends over the years had relationships with other men. The vast majority are in longterm monogamous relationships with women now. It seemed like for a period in their life they felt more comfortable with men, and when that period was over they went with their initial attraction to women. I've met very few men who were bi-sexual in the sense that they went to the bar no knowing which gender they would be coming home with. I've known a few more women who were like this though.

I think the model for "bisexuality" which describes it as "sexually ambivalence" is much more common. Certainly it describes the people I have known much better. These people are in search of something beyond sexuality, and they are willing to go with whatever will give it to them. They are driven much more by relationships than sex.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Again, I think the "switching sides" argument is based on a faulty understanding of what is happening. People are confused because the societal messages regarding homosexuality are so strong and the social pressures against homosexuality so pervasive that it can easily **** with one's mind. I myself lived in a huge denial about until I was a junior in college. Confusion is putting it mildly--it's a daily mind game that really distorts perceptions of reality until one face's the situation head-on.

I see that, and feel for you and everyone in the same position. There is nothing more frightening than feeling something that your entire universe refuses to validate. When you find people who will validate you, the feeling can be quite a high. Some people who cannot understand you either from personal experience or via empathy can be fvcking cruel too. Others simply don't get it, but didn't have maleavalent intentions. In my own journey through life I have found that sometimes the people who "get" me are as cruel and narrow as those who would fvck with me hard. I'm merely fortunate enough to be on the right side of whatever idealogical divide they guard.

[Spiffor]

BTW, a short question to the gays : (one in the same vein as the heterophobia question I asked once)
Is there a social pressure in the gay community for members not to turn back straight ? I'm not talking about members that are accepted as bi, but about members who are accepted as fully gay. Thanks

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


We're plucking them out of thin air based loosely on our personal experiences. Just as you are.

Bizarrely enough, I don't seem to recall posting any figures- rather I mocked the apprent criterion being used by others. If we asked the average Gentile how many Jewish friends they had and then tried to extrapolate from that the number of adherents of Judaism in the world I'm sure we'd get an equally absurd number.

Divorcing sexuality and openness about sexuality from politics and culture and society is pointless. Consider the difference between pre-colonial era India and post-colonial India in terms of sex and sexuality: modern India has inherited the stern Judaeo-Christian proscription on homosexuality from Victorian British culture and law, and yet a brief survey of Indian literature and art (temple friezes at Khajuraho, for instance) will show you that sexuality was not a case of either/or in Indian history. It's significant I think that attempts were made to demolish the Khajuraho temple complex during British occupation.

Might there be constraints on people coming out?

Religion? -Iran, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Ireland, Utah, etc, etc.

Politics? - Cuba, China, the former Soviet Union, etc,etc.

Legal, given that homosexuality was only decriminalized in the latter part of the 20th century in a great many democracies of the developed world.

Familial? Most parents have an expectation that their offspring will marry, provide grandchildren, be heterosexual- in my experience and the experience of a great many of my friends, parents blamed themselves, warned their children they would be alone in later life, lamented that grandchildren would not be on the horizon- and these were understanding parents. Parents who physically abuse or reject their gay or lesbian children are unfortunately common too.

Many bisexual men and women lead double lives- as do gay men and lesbians, for one or a mixture of these reasons.

As for SpencerH and his biological determinist approach to sexuality- zoology hasn't been noted for its 'liberal' approach to issues of sex and sexuality. The great explosion in zoological sciences began in the sexually repressed 19th Century and even in the 20th Century there are plentiful accounts of zoologists and biologists not recording what they see, or imposing their cultural norms on animals.

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

'More interesting to me, though, is the speculation on the sexual origins of language and culture in chapter 2 and the devastating examination in chapter 3 of bigotry in the biological sciences in over two hundred years of observations of animal homosexuality. Bagemihl shows, for example, that in science as in society, there's a presumption of heterosexuality. Field researchers have commonly assumed, with no independent verification, that whenever they see a pair of animals engaging in what appears to be sexual behavior they are observing a male-female pair. Conversely, whenever they observe a known same-sex pair engaging in behavior that would be classified as sexual between a male and female, they classify it in some other way. This protocol largely precludes the gathering of data about animal homosexuality even when it's being observed. In some cases, though, it resulted in published studies being repudiated as much as 20 years later when it was discovered that what was presumed to be heterosexual behavior in a population was really entirely homosexual. (It's an interesting fact that in some species heterosexuality has never been observed by scientists even when they go to great lengths to observe it over periods of many years.) Also, a lot of animal homosexuality that has been recognized as such has simply been excluded from the published reports. As a result, there is still widespread belief among scientists and the public that animal homosexuality is rare or nonexistent.'

http://enotalone.com/books/ASIN/0312192398.html

[mindseye]

Actually, I think much of this discussion is largely irrelevant because it's based on odd notions about sexuality which, though currently in vogue in the States and elsewhere, aren't necessarily accurate reflections of the human condition.

and yet a brief survey of Indian literature and art (temple friezes at Khajuraho, for instance) will show you that sexuality was not a case of either/or in Indian history.

My experience in China has been confirming what I likewise had been growing to suspect. I increasingly believe the whole notion of people trying to wedge themselves into pidgeon holes labeled "gay", "straight", and "bi" is quite unnatural. See, for instance, yesterday's fascinating New York Times article describing the "Down Low" black subculture. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if, 200 years from now, the very notion of "gay culture" is thought odd and archaic, perhaps seen as a temporary historical reaction to oppression, vanishing when discrimination ceases.

Here in China (as in ancient Greece), contemporary western notions of sexuality just don't work well. Until recently, there was not even a Chinese word for "heterosexual". As an example of what I'm talking about, in China a guy who would never normally seek out sex with another guy might enjoy male-male sex under the right circumstances - and not think it was unnatural, or against his "sexual preference" or "orientation". It has been said that sexuality here is as much driven by opportunity as "preference", and I increasingly think there is much to that. In fact, I suspect it may be closer to the the truth for humans in general - or at least closer than artificial designations of "straight", "gay", etc. can ever be. It is certainly closer in keeping with the way the rest of the mammalian world operates (i.e. lots of same-gender sexual activity, but not much of it exclusively).

Of course these are not novel notions, and my own thoughts have not yet gelled completely on the topic, however I cannot help but feel that the whole idea of people thinking of themselves as a "gay person" or a "straight person" is deeply flawed. It strikes me as odd as someone considering their primary identity to be a "chocolate-preferring person" versus a "vanilla-preferring person", complete with elaborate, ritualized, politicized subcultures to support these identifications.

Bagemihl shows, for example (...)

Great points, molly bloom! Let me once again take an opportunity to plug Bruce Bagemihl's outstanding (and encyclopedic) work, "Biological Exuberance - Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (1999, St. Martin's Press).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mindseye
Of course these are not novel notions, and my own thoughts have not yet gelled completely on the topic, however I cannot help but feel that the whole idea of people thinking of themselves as a "gay person" or a "straight person" is deeply flawed. It strikes me as odd as someone considering their primary identity to be a "chocolate-preferring person" versus a "vanilla-preferring person", complete with elaborate, ritualized, politicized subcultures to support these identifications.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are sure some people who hate chocolate or vanilla outright, but most of us can enjoy even the "other" taste to some extent. I'm pretty sure that's the same with sexual activity.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Might there be constraints on people coming out?

Religion? -Iran, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Ireland, Utah, etc, etc.

Politics? - Cuba, China, the former Soviet Union, etc,etc.

Legal, given that homosexuality was only decriminalized in the latter part of the 20th century in a great many democracies of the developed world.

Familial? Most parents have an expectation that their offspring will marry, provide grandchildren, be heterosexual- in my experience and the experience of a great many of my friends, parents blamed themselves, warned their children they would be alone in later life, lamented that grandchildren would not be on the horizon- and these were understanding parents. Parents who physically abuse or reject their gay or lesbian children are unfortunately common too.

Many bisexual men and women lead double lives- as do gay men and lesbians, for one or a mixture of these reasons.

While it's clear that there are many constraints against homosexuality in many societies, the strange thing is that I have never been aware of more openly homosexual behaviour in countries with more open attitudes toward sexuality where I have lived

As for SpencerH and his biological determinist approach to sexuality- zoology hasn't been noted for its 'liberal' approach to issues of sex and sexuality. The great explosion in zoological sciences began in the sexually repressed 19th Century and even in the 20th Century there are plentiful accounts of zoologists and biologists not recording what they see, or imposing their cultural norms on animals.

Is that what it is, "biological determinist approach to sexuality"?

Sorry, the concept is just basic genetics. Based on the recent evidence, it's likely that homosexuality has a strong genetic component (or perhaps you wish to argue that its mostly, or all, choice hmm?). If homosexuality is genetically-based then what I stated is relevant.

As for the bonobos (and yes I'm quite familiar with them) and the rest of the diatribe, so what. Is there a point beyond the obvious that scientists are at least as conservative as the remainder of the society? The concept of "natural selection" is not effected by personal bias, only the interpretation of the data is.

You seem to have read more into my statement than was intended.

Boris

This relies on a false implication that homosexuals don't breed. I can introduce you to about a dozen who have kids from previous marriages. Many gay people, particularly men, do not realize they are gay or live in denial until they have already married and sired children.

I think that this is a difficult point that balances on how we define "heterosexual" and "homosexual"? I am heterosexual, I have no interest in sex with another male. I think thats how most people understand the term. By the same standard, I expect that a (male) homosexual would have no interest in sex with a women, ergo non-breeding.

I agree that there are likely to be many homosexuals in our society that do in fact have progeny and that for some the distinction between hetero- and homosexual is blurred. The question for me is how many of those people should be defined as "homosexuals"?

Thats what I refered to when I said previously "Of course if you included bisexuals and adolescents who may be unsure of their orientation in the number, it would be higher than 3%."

[Ben Kenobi]

Second, people "changing their sexual preference" is VASTLY more common in the hetero-->homo direction, not the opposite.

Boris:

Common in numbers or common in proportion? There are many fewer homosexual people than heterosexuals, so you have to take this into account when determining the shifts.

For example, suppose we have a sample of 1000 men, 100 of whom are homosexual. If 10 of the homosexuals shift the other way, that amounts to 10% of the entire gay population. Going the other way, suppose we have 90 heterosexual men become gay, we have exactly the same proportion, 10% making the shift.

Secondly, all surveys will be self-reporting, so you have the problem of a concrete definition of homosexual. One person's idea may differ from another's.