I almost hate to get into this but what is the current thinking on the biological vs environmental contributions towards homosexuality? I’d be much surprised if there was a hell of a lot of environmental influences but I’m not up on the latest.
Well aside from the fact that this was a joke and did not require correcting, het porn could ALSO have men involved.
Sorry, Mockingbird but you mis-spelled pole 
No one knows the cause of sexual orientation or even if it’s a clear dichotomy (ie, whether there is a continuum of sexual orientation). This paper presents a summary of some of the twin studies done to date. Twin studies are often used to tease out genetic and environmental factors.
Also keep in mind:
I think you are reaching, however, if you think scientists in general are biased against any particular conclusion about homosexuality. If you have some actual evidence that they are, let’s see it. Hopefully this thread will not degenerate into a 20 page thread about what someone’s personal beliefs are and how he cannot reconcile them with scientific evidence…
There’s a perception that gay people are disproportionately represented as “well to do”. Truth or fiction, I don’t know.
I’m not a sociologist, but I know one thing that’s been hypothesized is that lower socioeconomic groups emphasize gender roles more than higher socioeconomic classes. In a poor household, you find jobs implicitly labeled as “women’s work” and “men’s work”. Women don’t fix the broken lawnmower and change the oil in the truck. Men don’t cook dinner or do the laundry. In poor or working middle class households, men are expected to support the family, while it is considered more acceptable in middle and upper-middle class families if men and women makes similar amounts of money–or even if the man makes less than the woman.
From what I’ve noticed, boys brought up in poorer households tend to get a heavier dose of masculine socialization. Being “soft” is one of the worse things you can be, especially in the inner city.
One might expect the more rigid gender socialization of certain social classes to not nip homosexuality in the bud, but to cause repression of homosexual tendencies. A guy who grew up with a father who’s hobbies include NASCAR, football, and wrestling (all typically lower class interests) is going to feel much more different about his homosexuality than a guy who grew up with a father who’s hobbies include cooking, bird-watching, and piano playing (interests which lie in the domain of the middle and upper middle classes).
Additionally, religious fervor–especially of the fundamentalism Christianity stripe–is more prevalent among poor people. If you’re told all your life that homosexuality is a grave sin, and your entire community is vocal about this belief, you’re not going to feel very comfortable revealing your sexuality. I grew up in a Pentacostal church, and it seems to me that the pastor regularly condemned homosexuality from the pulpit, with lots of encouragement from the “amen” section of the congregation. Most of the congregation was poor and working class…or people like my parents with working class backgrounds.
I’ve only been to more “well-to-do” churches a few times, but I don’t imagine such condemnation is the norm in these places.
It’s my belief that gay people arise at equal rates across all social classes, but that they aren’t equally out of the closet.
I can’t think of any good reason for sexual orientation to have a role in social stratification beyond workplace discrimination. That is less of a problem now than in the past, so it seems natural to assume you’ll find the percentage of homosexuals in any particular social stratum to be about the same as any other, these days.
Having said that, I could see how some people might be under the impression that gays might rise to higher social strata, on average, than their straight peers. In every city I’ve been in that has a “gay” neighborhood, that neighborhood tends to be relatively affluent. In the two cities I’ve lived in with easily identifiable “gay” neighborhoods (Dupont Circle in DC, The South End in Boston), properties in these neighborhoods command high price tags, compared to some other neighborhoods (say Anacostia or Mattapan).
Why this is, I haven’t a clue.
FWIW, I’ve known plenty of poor Gay people and homeless gay people. When I was working in Dupont Circle (D.C.) there was a group of homeless gay guys who used to hang out in the circle, drinking 40’s just like the straight guys.
Of course its hard to live the stereotypical “queer eye” “Will and Grace” lifestyle without cash. But not all gay people live like that.
The answer to the perception of gays as well-to-do people is two-fold, but relatively simple.
-
As I mentioned above, an increased probability of having a college degree. In today’s world you do not generally rise very far without that piece of paper. The reason for that actually is the same reason for the second factor.
-
Most gay couples are DINKs (Double Income No Kids). All DINKs, straight or gay, tend to have more disposable income than their counterparts with children. Thus they’re going to seem wealthier, though they’re actually making the same amount of money. The difference is that their money isn’t getting sunk into diapers, day care, school fees, Boy/Girl Scouts, etc.
Very, very true. I do encounter that alot. But then again a disproportionate number of gay men are also family caretakers too, because of said reason. Their time, energy, and income may go into supporting and caring for elderly and disabled family members.
One of the more interesting things that I have found, from a sociological viewpoint, is that class structure also relates to recorded history. We know almost absolutely nothing about poor gay men simply because nothing was or is recorded about them. Most gay historical figures were rich and/or famous. Few were openly gay. Those that were usually suffered because of it. Look at Oscar Wilde for example. Imprisoned and ruined simply for being who he was. That was the lesson taught to the general public then.
Des Moines, Iowa, for example. Look at the soil around Des Moines: You can’t build on it, you can’t grow anything on it! The government says it’s due to poor farming…
In the cites John Mace quoted he mentioned ‘types’ of homosexuality? What does this mean? What is a type of homosexuality? Does this just mean homosexuality and bisexuality?
I also suspect it’s an “us against them” excuse to resent gays. Imagining them as effete, wealthy snobs is much the same as the old “all Jews are rich and run the media” stories.
I expect that in the days before it was safe (ish) to come out. It was only the famous who would be known homosexuals. Actors, writers, the occasional royal, artists etc. all of which are considered somewhat high class people. Also there has been a long time association between British Exclusive Private Schools and Top Universities with accepted homosexuality (though perhaps they were considered straight but experimenting).
I seem to remember a study that showed that gay men were more likely to live in households with incomes higher than the national average, while lesbians were more likely to live in households with incomes lower than the national average. This was ascribed to the fact that men tend to make more money than women, on average, so two men are more likely to have a higher income than two women (or a man and a woman). Does this ring a bell with anyone?
Nah… I prefer to be a bit more subtle and less crass than that.
It isn’t as if I cover my body with potato chips and call myself the Frito Lay.
Well, not anymore.
First you must define class
then define homosexuality. :o
I can’t provide any citations, but I was going to mention that fact. I found it in a journal article I read while researching for a paper on gender issues in city planning. The extra wealth gay male couples possess is very likely just the result of the income disparity between men and women. Lesbian couples, then, are on the other end. IIRC, if anything, gay people do tend to be slightly poorer since a lot of them end up somewhat marginalized by society.
I would argue that there are types (or, if not nice neat categories, then at least differences) of homosexual “mindsets” and activity. Just as there are for heterosexuals. I can think of several gay people I know off the top of my head whose sexual histories/identities are quite different: (1) openly gay since childhood, dating gay men throughout college (2) married for 12 years, had two kids, got divorced, then finally began having gay relationships in his 30s (3) openly gay since college, never really dated girls … but still, to my knowledge, has never had sex of any kind with anyone, even by age 50 (4) very hetero all through childhood and high school, dated many girls, became a transvestite, married a straight woman, became a pre-op transsexual, divorced, dated men, now dating straight women again, though he’s still pre-op (5) woman who was straight through high school, had a few lesbian experiences during college, thought she was bisexual, has since decided she’s just straight after all and has been married to a man for several years.
It’s a long, weird road, people. Just as it’s a mistake for the gay-bashing types to assume that all people are the same (i.e., straight), and that gay people should just cut out the crap and step into line, I think it’s a mistake to assume that gay people are the same and born 100% gay and the only difference between them is when they come out of the closet. People get where they’re going by many routes, and what they feel and do one year may be completely different from what they feel and do ten years later. So birth has much to do with it, but so does environment and experience.
As an informed non-gay layman who grappled with the question Bodswood raises years ago, there is a reason behind the misperception, beyond those so ably stated already.
In the days when “coming out” was more fraught with problems and repercussions than today, the people who lived openly as gay tended to be those who could afford to do so, not being dependent on a paycheck controlled by a possible homophobe, support from perhaps-homophobic parents, etc. So a stereotype was engendered.
In addition, the “liberating” effect of college made self-acceptance of one’s homosexuality more palatable in the days when it was generally frowned on – so college-educated gays were more inclined to be open about their sexuality (and gained a greater deal of acceptance from their friends and acquaintances, also largely college educated).
Net result: for 20 years or so, openly gay people tended to be of higher income and more educated, by and large. It was an artifact of self-selection as to whether to be openly gay during the period when gayness was becoming more acceptable but had not made the inroads it has today – but it did result in the misperception that Bodswood asks about.
I hope it’s clear that these are just the popular myths that are cited to support the popular myth that gay men are more likely to be wealthy. In fact, gay men are less likely to be wealthy than their straight counterparts, and lesbian women even more so; the reason for both of these is a combination of systematic discrimination and a tendency to receive less familial support during early adulthood. Both of these factors tend to reduce access to both college (especially higher-status colleges) and higher-status jobs.