|
|
|
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
30 responses total.
Heh. Sounds kinda like the "higher" (aka PC) truth of the higher numbers that get pushed for breast cancer. Though the numbers show such wide spreads between national, cultural, etc. groups that 10% could well be the "natural" rate of non-heterosexuality and you couldn't really tell. It's very interesting, in a sad sort of way, that the push for GLBTetc. human rights stands so heavily on the "there are very many of us" pillar. To what degree do those pushing for non-het human rights really see it as a moral issue? (As opposed to a numbers&influence issue, like which state gets to keep a porky military base when the Army is downsized.) Does the average American feel that it's okay to deny rights to any group that is small or that he doesn't think he knows any members of? Maybe he does, and the GLBTetc. rights folks don't want to get a deal like the Amerinds (aka American Indians aka Native Americans aka First Peoples aka ...) got. My impression is that the (generally successful, if not yet finished) pushes for equal rights for women and racial minorities stood mostly on "this is what is morally right" pillars, overcame the hard-fought efforts of conservative religion, etc. What's wrong with the "morally right" approach to GLBTetc. rights? That too many Americans are too busy channel surfing in numbers-are-all-that-matter Capitalismland to regularly attend church? What all is going on here?
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.
That was actually one of the things I found most interesting about this article: I had been under the impression that the Kinsey Report 10% figure was homosexuals and not just practicing homosexuals, but this article seems to imply that Kinsey was only counting practicing homosexuals. Also, the (I think correct) argument that the lower numbers will have a political impact _does_ freakin' matter. :)
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.
there's also the issue of how those conducting the study define homosexuality. i have no idea what criteria kinsey used in his study. however, i do remember a few of the details from the guttmacher institute study, which is the one that claimed only 1% of american men are gay. to be gay enough for the guttmacher study, one had to have been in a committed relationship for a certain number of years (over five or ten, i think), had to have been out to friends and family members for over ten years, and had to have not had any sexual contact with the opposite gender for some absurdly long time. there were more equally stringent conditions, but i don't remember them all. when the study came out, though, i did have to wonder what would happen if similar criteria were applied to breeders.
giggle gigle snort
Whatcha laughin' at, Beebo? I'm sure you are aware, void, that there are theories that place sexuality more along a continuum; the Kinsey scale has been modified and categories include actual present sexual behavior, sexual identification, and sexual behavior in the past. (I believe it was a man named Kleinfelter that did this). The idea is that sexuality can shift somewhat, and that the categories listed may not all match up. In short, perhaps this looks at sexuality as a process, and not an end result or static existence. Some people may be listed as technically bisexual but may choose to identify as gay or even straight. I see the Kinsey-Kleinfelter scale cited quite a bit in bisexuality studies, where apparently the label is not as rigidly defined as straight or gay labels. We've mentioned this before, I think. I do find it fascinating to muse how 'breeders' (I consider it offensive-- sorry) would be defined under similar criteria as the Guttmacher study. In a way, I think it might actually devalue the concept of bisexuality, because the criteria seems so polarized. Technically, bisexuals are often breeders, and they cannot fit into those standards without further specifications in a study. Bisexuals face similarly stringent defintions in some social circles. Some bisexual subcultures still believe if you had not had sexual relations with both sexes, then you are bi-curious, and not technically bisexual. See also item:17 . Adam Corolla is supposedly the layman's voice for the TV and radio show "Loveline," and his assertion that bisexuals cannot be totally monogamous and still retain their identity is ludicrous, or at least in the opinion of most everyone here. Most bisexuals that I have talked to espouse the definition that a person's sex is not a limiting factor in their potential to be their mate; it is simply choosing a soul. Some may prefer one package over another, but in the truest sense, it does not matter. I was pretty mad when I was called bi-curious-- I felt the label invalidated the trueness of my feelings. Julie's had that label put on her, too, by her youngest brother. I wonder how surprised he'll be when we inform him that label cannot apply anymore. In general, I think definitions are moving more towards realizing a person's potential to express sexuality, and away from a restriction to actual relationships. So a person may be gay, lesbian, or bi even if they've never dated.
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.
Amen to that. As I said before, labels are for cans of dogfood, not people.
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.
Now, considering how common homoerotic dreams are supposed to be ...
you could advance another definition entirely, and reap the whilrlwind of
confusing statistics. :)
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".
Then I'd imagine the group I'd call "homosexual" hovers around that
range. Because if you'd asked a group of men how many had had a hetereosexual
experience, you'd find in that count a number of gay men.
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.
Since it is your brain that is responding to being with a particular sex, I would suggest that getting aroused when even thinking about a sexual experience with the same sex be considered a homosexual experience.
I still say that the best label for people is *human*. It is entirely accurate.
depends on who you ask. some of us don't like that label much. *smiles coyly* *is serious*
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.
I know she meant no offense. But if I don't poke, people will think I'm ill and call the medics. ;}
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
I don't think you can do it, honestly. Even if the social stigma
associated wih homosexuality were eliminated so that there was no closet
anymore, you'd still have those individuals raised one way or another who
didn't realise their sexual orientation until years later.
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)(.
In the case of blackness especially, though, that's not how the popular perception works. Consensus seems to be that if either of your parents is black, so are you, no matter how you look.
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
#23> That's how whites think. That's not my understanding of how American blacks think.
Okay, granted my experience here is limited, but of the "white-looking" people I know with black parents, none of them consider themselves anything but black. Who knows. I agree with the the basic idea, so I won't quibble with the example you used...
I'm sure it varies a lot. Irrelevant anyway. =}
All definitions of race are inherently bullshit. Doesn't prevent
people from believin' in 'em.
I guess I agree with you, Jazz.
The problem with "white-looking" people is that, at least historically, one was either white or not. If one had a drop of "black" blood, Jim Crow laws applied. One of the great things about conferencing is that it's never too late to add one's 2 cents. Many surveys and studies fail to normalize results, or further examine questionaires which don't fit. For what I believe are actual examples (though I can no longer remember which study suffered from which problem), consider a questionaire that asks if one is homosexual or heterosexual. A bisexual who checks both boxes doesn't get counted. Nor do the people who don't check any box (while it is impossible to prove, I'd suspect that most heterosexuals would not have a problem checking the appropriate box. Those who are unsure or have something to "hide" are more likely to leave it blank). While a survey may proclaim that only 3% of respondents are homosexual, the lesser published figure may be the % of heterosexuals. Could be that it is 84% while 13% failed to respond or responded incorrectly. One other odd point was that if I remember correctly, Kinsey concluded that only 2% of Jews have had homosexual experiences, yet one of the studies referenced above put that number at 7.7%. What a difference 50 years makes, eh? Which also speaks to the Chicago study. What they are really surveying is who is out, not who is homosexual. No wonder there are demographic ideosyncracies that one would not expect from a purely genetic trait. The most important point, however, is that it doesn't really matter. I think Jews only constitute 2% of the American populations. Should they be denied rights because they aren't 10%? Even if 10% of the population isn't gay, I think we have the political clout of 10%!
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss