10 Percent? An Interesting Article (long)

Jun 28 23:37 UTC 1999

From mkaiou@hotmail.com Mon Jun 28 19:00:10 1999
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 20:46:41 PDT
From: Leia Organa <mkaiou@hotmail.com>
To: orinoco@cyberspace.org
Subject: I'm back to bolting again....

You don't have to read the whole thing, it's just there if you want to...

topic headline The 10% myth
firestar3
6/26/99 12:58:54 AM

Because gay activists have labored so hard to instill the idea that gays 
represent "10% of America's population" (thus representing a sizeable 
"minority" in society), we will spend a few moments further scrutinizing 
this claim.
Numerous recent studies call into serious question the 1948 Kinsey research 
figures often quoted by homosexual activists to support their "10%" claim. 
In their book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud,{188} Reisman and Eichel point out a 
serious "skewing," for example, of Kinsey's data base by his choice to 
include a high percentage of prison inmates and known sex offenders. 
(Convicted criminals comprised a full 25% of Kinsey's male sample.) Both 
practice homosexual behavior much more frequently than do individuals in the 
general population.

Tom W. Smith's study, Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Numbers of Partners, 
Frequency and Risk (op. cit.), conducted among a full probability sample of 
the adult U.S. household population, reported that "Overall... less than 1% 
[of the study population] has been exclusively homosexual." Jeffrey Vitale, 
President of Overlooked Opinions (op. cit.), which "is compiling the results 
of an ongoing national survey of a panel of about 20,000 homosexuals" 
estimates that "even in California and New York, two well-known [gay] 
havens, the gay population is less than 8 percent."{189}

National surveys of about 10,000 subjects conducted by the National Center 
for Health Statistics and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report less 
than 3% of men as saying they have had sex with another man "at some time 
since 1977, even one time."{190}

The September 2, 1992, Dallas Morning Times (pg. 4C) reported on a 
"University of Chicago study aimed to be the most significant study [on 
American sexuality] since Mr. Kinsey's" and a related study by the National 
Opinion Research Center. The findings: "...An estimated 3 percent of the 
population claimed at least one act of homosexual sex during 1991. Over the 
respondents' lifetime, 4.5 percent claim some such sex... The final 
conclusions from the University of Chicago's study may confirm a figure far 
lower than Mr. Kinsey's. They may also show that American sexual behavior is 
quite conservative. The mean number of sexual partners over an individual's 
lifetime is probably around six or seven"{191}

The same University of Chicago study also reported little-publicized results 
that call into serious question the "innateness" theory of homosexuality's 
origins:


[If] homosexuality [were] randomly (and uniformly) distributed in the 
population [this finding] would fit with certain analogies to certain 
biologically- based traits such as left-handedness or intelligence. However, 
that is exactly what we did not find. Homosexuality... is clearly 
distributed differentially within categories of the social and demographic 
variables...
For example, the study results showed that Jewish individuals were more 
likely to be homosexual (7.7% of Jews claimed to be gay, 3.4% lesbian, vs. 
0.7% gay and 0.3% lesbian "conservative Protestants.") The study also found 
much higher rates of incidence of homosexuality among individuals raised in 
large urban environments.{192}
Science Magazine, July 3, 1992, reported findings of a French study that 
only 4.1% of Frenchmen and 2.6% of women said they'd had homosexual 
intercourse at least once in their lives. Only 1.1% of men and 0.3% of women 
said they'd had homosexual intercourse in the past 12 months.{193} Even more 
recently,


The London Daily Mail released last week what it calls "the most exhaustive 
survey ever conducted into British sexual habits." The most stunning finding 
was that only 1.1 percent of British men said they were active homosexuals, 
a figure similar to the most recent American polls.{194}
It should be evident by now that it's highly likely gay activists repeat the 
"10%" figure with broken-record frequency because they know it is key to 
their efforts to advance their "minority status" claims. Activist Bruce 
Voeller has candidly admitted:

I campaigned with Gay groups and in the media across the country for the 
Kinsey-based [10%] finding that "We are everywhere." This slogan became a 
National Gay Task Force leitmotif. And the issues derived from the 
implications of the Kinsey data became key parts of the national political, 
educational and legislative programs during my years at New York's Gay 
Activist Alliance and the National Gay Task Force. And after years of our 
educating those who inform the public and make its laws, the concept that 10 
percent of the population is gay has become generally accepted "fact." While 
some reminding always seems necessary, the 10 percent figure is regularly 
utilized by scholars, by the press, and in government statistics. As with so 
many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling made it so -- incredible 
as the notion was to the world when the Kinsey group first put forth its 
data or decades later when the Gay Movement pressed that data into public 
consciousness.{195}
In 1993, The New American reported: "Ever since the Alfred Kinsey study, 
homosexual activists have been insisting that they represent about ten 
percent of the the total population. This notion, based on faulty science, 
has been generally accepted as fact by the popular culture. Even Newsweek 
discovered this discrepancy in a recent issue, reporting that `ideology, not 
sound science, has perpetuated a 1-in-10 myth. In the nearly half century 
since Kinsey, no survey has come close to duplicating his findings,' Patrick 
Rogers wrote in the February 15th issue. `Most recent studies place gays and 
lesbians at somewhere between 1 and 6 percent of the population.' The story 
also reported that some homosexual activists now admit that they exploited 
the inflated Kinsey figures for political reasons. `We used that figure when 
most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our 
numerousness,' says Tom Stoddard, former member of the Lambda Legal Defense 
Fund [a sort of gay ACLU]."{196}
Another recent major national survey of male sexual behavior concluded that 
"Nearly one-fourth of American men under 40 have had 20 or more sexual 
partners during their lifetimes, and only 2 percent ever engaged in 
homosexual behavior..." A team of researchers from the Battelle Human 
Affairs Research Centers in Seattle published a series of reports on their 
study in the March-April, 1993 issue of Family Planning Perspective, the 
magazine of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, scarcely a conservative bastion 
regarding sexual issues.


...Only 2.3 percent of the men reported any homosexual activity in the past 
10 years, and just 1.1 percent said they had engaged in exclusively 
homosexual sex. That is far less than the 10 percent figure attributed to 
the landmark Kinsey report from 1948.{197}
Time and Newsweek magazines (both in April 26, 1993 issues) reported on the 
same Alan Guttmacher Institute sexual survey results. Said Newsweek: "Of the 
[3,321 American] men surveyed, only 2.3 percent reported any homosexual 
contacts in the last 10 years, and only half of those -- or just over 1 
percent of the total -- said they were exclusively gay in that period."{198} 
Time, calling the study "one of the most thorough reports on male sexual 
behavior ever," commented:

...[I]ts scientific verdict (men are having too much unprotected sex) was 
overwhelmed by a political one. "It shows politicians they don't need to be 
worried about 1% of the population," says conservative leader Phylls 
Schlafly... Some gay activists are concerned that she may actually be right. 
"Bill Clinton and Jesse Helms worry about 10% of the population," says ACT 
UP co-founder Larry Kramer. "They don't worry about 1%. This will give Bill 
Clinton a chance to welch [sic] on promises."{199}
Kramer's fears may be justified. President Clinton has indeed "welched" on 
several promises to gay activists, including pursuing legal moves to grant 
traditional family rights to homosexual couples:

The White House on May 14 [1996] signaled its support for an election-year 
proposal to allow states not to recognize other states' same-sex 
"marriages," reversing recent pledges to homosexuals to fight the issue.
President Clinton's "evaluation of the bill would be consistent with his 
personally stated view that he opposes same-sex `marriage,'" White House 
spokesman Michael McCurry said.
..."The president believes that marriage as an institution ought to be 
reserved for a union between one man and one woman," Mr. McCurry said.
...The administration's shift on the issue comes as the White House is 
trying to shore up support among Catholics angered by the veto of a ban on 
partial-birth abortion despite his "personal" opposition to the procedure.
The shift angered homosexual groups, which have seen the president abandon 
them on other issues, notably his 1992 campaign promise to lift the ban on 
homosexuals in the military.{200}
More recently, the president reaffirmed his position:

Threatened with protests in San Francisco, President Clinton said Friday 
he's done more for gays than any other president but won't relax his 
opposition to homosexual marriages.
"I can't change that position," Clinton said. "I have no intention of 
changing it."
Clinton's stand on same-sex marriages has riled many in San Francisco's gay 
community, prompting Mayor Willie Brown to suggest Clinton cancel a visit 
Sunday to avoid possible demonstrations....
Clinton said he would not change his travel plans.
"I don't think any president has ever been more sensitive to the fundamental 
human concerns or the legitimate interests of gay Americans than I have. And 
I have been roundly criticized for it in many quarters," he said.
Indeed, press secretary Mike McCurry was confronted with questions about 
whether the White House was trying to stir up gay protests -- or had 
encouraged Brown to make his public warning -- to show Clinton in a more 
centrist position.
"Absolutely not," McCurry responded. Gay men and lesbians were an important 
constituency for Clinton in the 1992 race, voting overwhelmingly for him and 
contributing $3.5 million to his campaign.{201}
Endnotes
{188} Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990.
{189} "Gay Community Looks for Strength in Numbers," American Marketplace, 
Vol. 12, No. 14, July 4, 1991, p. 131.

{190} "AIDS Knowledge and Attitudes for January-March 1990, Provisional Data 
from the National Health Interview Survey," Deborah Dawson; Joseph E. Fitti 
and Marcie Cynamon, op. cit. for April-June, 1990; Pamela F. Adams and Ann 
M. Hardy, op. cit. for July-September, 1990, in Advance Data, Nos. 193, 195, 
198, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, 
Public Health Service, U.S. department of Health and Human Services, p. 11 
in all three documents.

{191} "Study of U.S. sex habits may contain surprises."

{192} Op. cit., citing study, pp. 307, 302-304.

{193} As reported in "Homosexual figures grossly exaggerated," AFA Journal, 
September 1992, p. 9.

{194} World magazine, January 29, 1994, p. 9.

{195} Bruce Voeller, in Homosexuality, Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual 
Orientation (The Kinsey Institute Series, June Machover Reinisch, ed., 
Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 35, emphasis added.

{196} "The Homosexual Numbers," March 22, 1993, p. 37.

{197} "Homosexual activity lower than believed, study shows," Colorado 
Springs Gazette Telegraph, April 15, 1993, p. A-13, emphasis added.

{198} "Sex in the Snoring '90s," p. 55, emphasis added.

{199} "The Shrinking Ten Percent," p. 27.

{200} "Clinton opposes gay `marriage,'" The Washington Times, National 
Weekly Edition, May 26, 1996, p. 8.

{201} "Clinton says gay marriages are wrong," Colorado Springs Gazette 

response 2 of 30:

Jun 29 05:04 UTC 1999

There's a distinction between:
(a) Homosexual
(b) Practicing homosexual
(c) Bisexual
(d) Practicing bisexual
(e) Heterosexual
(f) Non-heterosexual

The article demonstrates that only a small portion of the male population fit
in groups (b) and (d). So? The 10% figure is meant to reflect (a), which is
bound to be a much larger figure than (b) (and probably larger than (b) +
(d)). Plus, the article does noting to demonstrate that (1) (e) is the largest
group and (2) it freakin' matters.

response 4 of 30:

Jun 29 21:26 UTC 1999

I still don't trust statistics.  I am positive many people are afraid to 
speak honestly and candidly.  We are very aware that there are glbts 
heavily in denial, and we may never know just how large that group is.  
Most people really don't answer a survey with perfect truth.

-For example-

When teacher evaluations are done at the end of the quarter, my theory 
is that relatively few people rate the professor lower than a 5 or a 4.  
They bullshit, plain and simple, and are eager to be done with it as 
soon as possible.

From the many issues that we have discussed here, I doubt that people 
responding to a sexuality survey do much differently.  It's almost more 
of a vote than a sample-- those surveyed who are making changes will 
respond affirmatively to their true queerness, while those who may be 
deep in the closet may not.

response 6 of 30:

Jul 1 15:09 UTC 1999

giggle gigle snort

response 8 of 30:

Jul 1 23:37 UTC 1999

For a "we need clear-cut questions and hard numbers" study, you can 
make a good case for questions like "have you had gay sex more than 3
times in the past 18 months?" to figure out people's orientation.  But
your numbers will be loaded with bias from people who would have done
something else if it wasn't for the brutal social pressures of living
in Redneckville, or did something with the gal next door because they
were curious, or.....and which group do you classify the virgins in?

Pigeonholing people based only on their actions and ignoring their
thoughts and feelings works great for lawyers....humans may want to
use a different system.

response 10 of 30:

Jul 2 01:11 UTC 1999

   my point was that statistics can be manipulated to prove almost
anything, and depending on the criteria used can be worthless from the
start.  the guttmacher study might have some value as a study of
relationship longevity among gay men in the usa, but as a poll to find
out how much of the population of this country is gay, it was utterly
useless.

response 12 of 30:

Jul 3 05:06 UTC 1999

My understanding of the Kinsey report is that Kinsey asked:
Have you ever had a homosexual experience?
and that the 10% figure was the percent of men who said "yes".

response 14 of 30:

Jul 3 15:36 UTC 1999

But then it begs the question:  What do you consider a "homosexual" experience
and a "heterosexual" experience?  Does kissing count, or making out?  Or do
the genitals actually have to be involved in some way?  I consider my first
kiss with a man a homosexual experience, but if that doesn't count, I don't
know...being a total virgin, I suppose that would make me asexual...which I
definitely am not.

response 16 of 30:

Jul 6 20:16 UTC 1999

I still say that the best label for people is *human*.  It is entirely
accurate.

response 18 of 30:

Jul 7 01:12 UTC 1999

The meanings of both "people" and "human" are multitude, with lots of
murky gray stuff around both.  I think that bookworm intended things in
the very best way in #16.  However, the word "dehumanize" and the phrase
"not one of our people" may bring to mind some of the less benevolent
uses for those words and concepts.

response 20 of 30:

Oct 2 04:07 UTC 1999

There's never going to be any way to accurately define the homosexual 
population.  Being gay is not like being black or being jewish.  It's 
another kind of demographic entirely.  THe difficulty is, there's no way 
to trace that particular demographic.  Gay people crop up everywhere.  
There's no way to tell if an unborn child will be gay.  Furthermore, 
there's no where to "sign up" for gayness, like there can be for 
organized religion.  If you can't accurately define a group, how can you 
give them any kind of consideration? I'm not saying that we shouldn't, 
but we need to come up with a proper way to coun

response 22 of 30:

Oct 2 15:23 UTC 1999

Actually, while you ARE born whatever race, there are "degrees"... there maybe
blacks and only blacks for seven generations back, or you grandmother could
be white. Ditto religion... you could be an adult convert, you could be
following your mother's religion, you could be following the religion that
everyone in your family has followed for generations. In the latter case, the
only real emphasis I've seen is between "raised" and "converted," but there's
*plenty* of judging and classifying within racial communities based on the
purity of your blood (which sounds like Nazism)(.

response 24 of 30:

Oct 2 22:03 UTC 1999

I guess my point was more that not everyone even has a defined 
sexuality.  There are several people I know that really don't have a 
defined sexuality or care to have one.  It's not that their bi, they 
just either havn't decided or refuse do decide.  Plus, it's rather 
difficult to change your mind about being black or, to a lesser degree, 
a religon. (normally you will stay whatever you are raised, and if not 
that, usually just reject religion altoge