Well the fact that different studies in different countries produced different figures seems to me to be a good indication that they are flawed. Is it that the whole idea is prone to error because of the impossibility of pinning down an exact definition of what makes you homosexual, or are people fibbing? People do lie you know. Maybe they don’t believe they will be anonymous. Maybe they are lying to themselves. Maybe they are just having a laugh. Maybe they don’t think it’s anyone’s business but their own.
Unless you are suggesting that nationality in some way influences sexuality? Do you really believe that “it is probably higher in in the UK”?
Human sexuality is not a two-way switch that is either Homo or Hetro. There’s a whole series of inbetweens in the middle. So a glib one dimensional percentage is always going to be up for question.
Okay, everybody thinks they know what the ratio is, and we’ve gotten numbers all over the planet.
Let me address the Kinsey numbers. First, as a competent entomologist assigned to teach a course on human sexuality, Kinsey realized that he had no valid data from which to proceed. His initial surveys were intended to supply that data. However, as a biologist rather than a social scientist, he did not obtain a statistically valid sample – which people were quick to point out. (Question: among which group will there be a greater proportion of sexually active females: coeducational college undergraduates, middle-aged attendees at a religious retreat, random female employees of ten major corporations?) He attempted to address this problem in later surveys.
The debunking of his statistics by the religious right is rife with inaccuracies. For example, they claim his statistics are skewed owing to having included prison populations. While he did survey imprisoned convicts, he did this study afterSexual Behavior in the Human Male was published, as supplemental data. One must also take into account the fact that he was not studying orientation but behavior – and a man whose attraction is totally to females but who is willing to receive sexual release from the attention of another male would therefore (accurately) be reported as part of the homosexual-behavior contingent.
I’d strongly urge that if someone has a link to commonly accepted data, that they post it, and that we refrain from uninformed speculation about what the “real” numbers are – particularly when, as noted, the population includes a wide variety of human responses. What, for example, does one make of the Scriptural case of David and Jonathan? Two young men, deeply fond of each other and expressive of this affection physically, never reported as having had sexual relations in the strict sense, both going on to marry and father children – what do they count as? Take me, happily married for 27 years, as emotionally close to a young man who transformed my life as I am to my wife – where do I fit into this scheme? We have a virgin on the board who reports herself as feeling desire for both men and women but who has not had intimate physical relations with either – where does she fit?
Futile
Why should we expect that sexuality is static across all nations? Do you really believe that there are as many practioners of “le vice allemagne” in Saudi Arabia as in Germany?
All professional social scientists are very aware of the possibility of people lying on their surveys and take great care in designing surveys in order to minimize this. Just because it is impossible to come up with a definition of homosexuality which everyone agrees on does not mean that it is impossible to come up with a definition that can be agreed on by most professionals. A reasonable one would be someone who is primarily attracted to the same sex. Or you could go with Polycarp’s definition of anyone who had friends of the same gender.
I don’t know if the UK actually has more homosexuals in the US but most of what I hear about life in the UK is about public school buggery or home invasions. If you really wanted an answer about the UK I would go with an actual source such as Mr Wright provided.
I think 3% is underrated. I’d suspect closer to 5%, maybe 6% of males are gay.
Here’s why I don’t trust studies, though: if you had come up to me, six months ago, I would have lied to you. I don’t care how you asked the question, or how many times you promised anonimity, I would have said whatever it took to appear “not gay.” That’s what being in the closet is – you lie in any and every situation you have to, mostly in a desperate attempt to convince yourself you’re not gay. So don’t think that closeted men, many of whom haven’t admitted thier sexuality to themselves and all of whom haven’t admitted it to the world, are going to tell some stranger doing a survey.
If you think that’s the case, then you really have no conception of what its like being a closeted gay male.
As always, puddleglum, we seem to have a distinct problem in communicating with each other. My point in bringing up D&J and the other examples was that it would be very difficult to come up with a consensus definition of what the line between “homosexual” and “non-homosexual” is, given the variants in personal attitudes and behavior. As in, “Fix one faucet, and you don’t become a plumber, but…”
In no way was I suggesting that any two people of the same sex who were friends were gay. But leave it to you, who seems to make a habit of misunderstanding what I say, to conclude that.
Polycarp
The clear implication of your previous post was that some people would consider D&J or yourself and your young friend to be homosexuals. My point is that no reasonable person would consider such a loose definition. Each study that was mentioned in the article I linked to had a different definition and consequently a slightly different result. Reasonable people can differ over whether a homosexual is someone who has had sex exclusively with same sex partners in the past year or it is someone who has ever had or wanted to have a homosexual experience. However this does not mean that it is impossible to determine with a reasonable degree of accuracy the percentage the number of homosexuals in the population.
Given the totality of the data I think it is reasonable to say that the percentage is 2-3% give or take a percentage point or two depending on one’s definition.
The entirety of this thread makes it clear to me that the question “What is the exact percentage of homosexuals in a population?” may sound simple and straightforward on the surface, but is in fact a deeply flawed query. Not only is it impossible to determine any sort of answer that doesn’t come with a margin of error sufficient enough to render ones supporting data meaningless, but the premise of the question is weak in that one cannot arrive at a sufficiently objective and concrete enough definition of the term “homosexual”.
So I will assert again that the question is moot, as moot a question as asking about the exact number of homorussians, or homorepublicans, or homocatholics. You just can’t pin it down scientifically in a non-interpretable fashion. Besides, why should it matter? Whether the actual percentage of homosexuals is one-millionth of one percent or 99.999999%, why shouldn’t people of all creeds, colors and sexualities be treated with equal justice under law?
I’m sure there are many more people who will never come out than there are people who are out. There are also gays & lesbians of every age, and from every country. At the company I work for, it’s probably 1%. At a Melissa Etheridge concert, 99%. There really is just no way of telling. As they say, we’re everywhere.
Excuse me, but… isn’t that an ad hominem argument which you’re making? Besides, let’s assume that you’re right – that these people are an ignorant hate group. Does that automatically invalidate their statement on the mere number of homosexuals in the USA?
Would it not be better – and more convincing, and more intellecutally astute – to refute their statistics, rather than attacking their character?
No, it was a rhetorical point, not an ad hominem slam. Ambushed didn’t directly accuse don’t ask of being an ignorant anti-gay neo-Nazi, he/she strongly but accurately pointed out that the data cited came from a strongly biased organization that could not possibly produce scientifically accurate non-prejudiced information, and then supported her/his point with an illustrative analogy. IMHO Ambushed attacked the statistics by the method of attacking the organization’s character – he/she validly refuted the provided statistics by saying that the very nature of the statistical provider calls into question any results that they arrived at.
A baseless ad hominem attack would be: “You can’t trust anything these people say because thay are all philandering murderers.” Something like that would be from left field and out-of-bounds IMHO. However, I wouldn’t object to an ad hominem and/or an ad feminam attack that had a legitimate basis in context. In fact, I’ll even indulge in one myself: The Family Research Institute are a bunch of bigoted pseudo-academics and anyone who subscribes to their misinformation is an ignorant anti-gay neo-Nazi. So there!
For whatever it’s worth, I posted the comments about the British national survey of sexual attitudes (with the link to the Guardian article) precisely because I’d heard discussions over the methodologies used, and the efforts the compilers had gone to to deal with factors like deliberate under-reporting (or, in some areas, over-reporting - apparently a genuine problem with heterosexual males giving their numbers of sexual contacts; I’m sure this surprises nobody).
As the Guardian article shows, the main purpose of the survey was to provide reliable data and guide public policy in the areas of sex education and sexual health. In this context, it’s vitally important to know what people actually are doing in their sex lives, rather than making judgements about what they “should” be doing. I know this is a hot-button issue, and I’m sure that no survey of this type can hope for exact accuracy - but I think I’ve shown why I’m inclined to have a greater degree of confidence in the results of this particular one.
I don’t see any reason why one would expect a higher proportion of homosexuals in the UK than in the US… the two societies are very similar in many respects, out-of-date clichés about public schools notwithstanding. (And what are these “home invasions” of which puddleglum speaks? In this context, the term implies, to me, homosexual assaults on people in their own homes - a crime which has to be rare in any country, and, according to The International Crime Victim Survey, sex crimes are actually more common in the US than the UK.)
To sum up my views on the issue: although it’s impossible to give an exact figure, it is possible to get a reasonable approximation - and there are legitimate reasons (as I, and the Guardian, said, sex education and sexual health) for wanting to know what that reasonable approximation is.
Please tell me your sources! I have a prurient interest. Did anyone else picture the Kids in the Hall sketch about the blow job angel? I know they are Canadian, not British, but the image comes to mind.
People can’t be relied on to self report anything. I’ve read confidential studies that reprt that fewer than 1% of all individuals pick their nose.
Home invasions are the robbing of a residence when the occupants are still in the home. What happened to George Harrison a couple of years ago is an example of this. I mentioned this because it is a rare occurence here in the US and is relatively common in the UK just a public school buggery is rare in the US and was at one time relatively common in the UK. When I read about another country the differences are what stand out.
I will grant that it is much more common for George Harrison’s home to be broken into in the UK than it is in the US.
I will also grant that homosexual activity in public schools must be far more common in the UK than in the US, because there are no such public schools in the US. But if you are attempting to claim that homosexual activity is less common in American single-sex institutions than in British single-sex institutions then you should think again…or, I suspect, for the first time.
