I thought I’d start a new thread to cover this, since it seems to be a favorite hijack on other threads.
A portion of the Kinsey studies are devoted to a breakdown of the population, based on sexual preferences. From everything I’ve seen and read, the Kinsey report was possibly the most well-researched, unbiased, and carefully constructed reports of it’s time. I haven’t seen any study up to the present that comes close in those areas.
One of the most argued results of that study was the percentage of the male homosexual population. The report is often used to denote the “10%” rule, when in fact the report only claims that 4% of white males are exclusively homosexual. The study breaks sexual preferences into seven groups, three of which are predominantly or exclusively homosexual, the other four being neutrally bisexual or prodominantly heterorsexual. The combined numbers for predominantly homosexual adds up to 10%.
Many of the studies that counter this claim, use criteria such as “has had an orgasm during homosexual congress in the last year.”
I’ll go on record as stating that I don’t care if the homosexual population is 0.0000001% or 99.99999%, it really shouldn’t make any difference. I am just wondering what the motives are for attempting to skew the numbers.
What does the right wing gain by trying to make the numbers smaller? Wouldn’t the religious right be better off with more “bad guys” to point at?
Does the right wing only argue with the reports because they make the point that discrimination against homosexuality is socially destructive? If so, why would they argue the numbers, instead?
Other than political clout, what do some gay activists gain by inflating the numbers?
What are your thoughts on the report’s heterosexual-homosexual rating scale and on the seven points on the scale?
What are your arguments for or against the Kinsey Reports? Yes, I’m very aware of Maslow and company. If you wish to use them, keep in mind that one of Maslow’s arguments was that homosexuals are exhibitionists, and are therefore more likely to volunteer for this study. I think he should stick to his pretty little pyramids. (Conspiracy theorists, take note. An upside down pyramid looks a lot like an upside down triangle. And his pyramids are “rainbow” colored)
If you find a study that you feel contradicts the Kinsey findings, please give as much info as you can about its methods and results. Cites such as “Time magazine said it was 3%” don’t fit that bill. If these studies are performed or financed by an organization with an obvious agenda, please save us some time and state that fact.
Can’t help you with the Kinsey numbers, but I can certainly speculate about motivations for cooking them. If there are only a few of (fill in group name here) in the general population, it’s easier to label them as “sick” or at least “weird”, and thereby validate one’s visceral anti-“them” feelings. The larger their percentage of the population, the harder it is to make those labels stick and the easier it is to make the countervailing argument that they’re “normal” and part of “us” rather than “them”.
What I care about is veracity as an end in itself. I believe that social problems are more likely to be successfully oversome when solutions are based on reality.
Being an actuary I am particularly concerned about numerical accuracy.
I think the problem with this is that you’re never going to have 100% (or even 90%) veracity or accuracy with this question. This isn’t something that’s objectively measurable, like marriage and divorce statistics. The bias of the researcher is going to determine the numbers.
A survey that defines homosexuality as “has achieved orgasm in the past year from sexual congress” is going to probably have significantly lower numbers than a survey that defines homosexuality as “has ever had fantasies about persons of the same sex”. And they’re both going to have different numbers than a survey that asks “are you homosexual?”
There is no accepted, agreed-upon way of deriving “homosexuality” from the questions in all the various surveys that have been done. The right-wing pollsters will word their questions as narrowly as possible. The left-wing pollsters will load their questions so as to get the largest numbers. It all depends on who’s funding. And there is no middle ground, even in studies done by prestigious and supposedly neutral medical institutions, because the question is still subjective.
Actuary science is great when it’s dealing with recordable phenomena…car crashes, marriages, divorces, deaths, hospital admittance, earthquakes, floods, etc… It has problems when you’re dealing with things like emotions, feelings, number of sex acts in the last year (who remembers numbers like that?), attractions, taboo subjects with direct weight on the person being surveyed…
Admittedly, the gay movement tends to take the 10% number as gospel. But to tell the truth, it’s just as good as the 1% or the 7% or the 5%. None of them can be shown to be the number. And they’re irrelevant in the context of equal rights anyway.
They prefer the smaller number because they can point it out as a ‘lifestyle choice’. The higher the numbers get, the harder it is for them to pretend that it isn’t natural.
My understanding is that Kinsey had a background in the biological sciences, and guessed that the incidence of homosexuality would be roughly constant across different social groups. Thus it wouldn’t matter if he over-sampled prisoners or college-educated males (in the 1950s). IMHO (and others of less humble opinion) Kinsey was mistaken on this point.
More recent studies using stratified-sampling methods typically find a lower incidence of male homosexuality than Kinsey’s widely cited 10% figure. From what I’ve read, a better guess might be in the 2-5% range.
This was a question I was meaning to ask when I made the IMHO poll about what people personally believed the percentages to be. No matter how you feel about homosexuality, I don’t see why the actual numbers should be so important.
From the Kinsey institute’s website: http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/bib-homoprev.html
Most (not all) of the studies published after Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) report a lower prevalence of male homosexuality than 10%. Judging from the link though, the range I asserted above might be a little low.
flowbark why wouldn’t homosexuality be constant across social groups? Naturally people who would admit to homosexuality are going to vary, but I doubt homosexuality would.
My understanding is that he was very careful to get a cross-section. In fact, he tried to get 100% of each “group type” so his numbers wouldn’t be skewed by people of a specific sexual preference, etc., uniting and coming forward.
I thought I clarified my understanding of that in the OP. Most of the studies that I’m familiar with, narrowed down what was counted as homosexual much greater than Kinsey did. His 10% figure is for those who leaned more towards homosexuality than heterosexuality. Many of the other studies used terminology such as “has had sex with someone of the same sex in the last year” or “has sex exclusively with the same sex” as their definition. By that definition, Kinsey also agrees it’s in the 4% range.
That was actually a question of mine in the OP. As urban1 and ElvisL1ves pointed out, the anti-gay crowd prefers a lower number so that they can keep calling it “unnatural.” In fact, after reading their messages, I was reminded of a term that I kept seeing in some of the right-wing literature. They kept using “normative” to lend heterosexuality more credence, without actually saying that gays were “sick.”
See, I learn something every day. Until I read that link, I assumed the pyramid with an eye on it was representative of Big Brother, watching us from on high. Either that, or a butt plug with a built in camera. I fall for those damn conspiracy theories every time.
Oh, let me speculate. Perhaps a larger-than-average share of male homosexuals are considered sissies in high school and therefore find themselves hitting the books and perhaps continuing on to college. (Remember this is the 1940s). Prison populations might have a higher share of situational homosexuals, due to the absense of members of the opposite sex. This might show up in the surveys. And the Kiwano’s club may have a preponderance of bachelors (or a lack thereof).
My source is a NYT article read years back. i.e. I really don’t have a great deal of knowledge in this area. However, Kinsey’s website seems consistent with my impression:
Actually, Kinsey had a more restrictive definition according to my link, "10% of males were more or less exclusively homosexual and 8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55 [That doesn’t sound “mostly homosexual” to me]… 4% of males and 1-3% of females had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of the interview. "
Not surprisingly, changing the definitions can change the percentages. Manipulating the “1%” Batelle study, can produce higher shares (4%?) of homosexual activity. (Source: memory of old NYT article. A certain high share of males have engaged in anal sex. A lower share has engaged in anal sex with a woman. Do the math.)
Scanning Kinsey’s webpage, it seems that a fair number of studies report some homosexual activity during adulthood among 5-7% of the population. Not all those who have practiced homosexuality at one time or another identify themselves as predominantly homosexual, a point understood by the inventor of the Kinsey scale. And of course under-reporting would bias the numbers downwards.
For its time, the Kinsey report was pretty good. (I’d quibble with the unbiased bit, given Kinsey’s kinky personal life, but that’s really beside the point.) Scanning Kinsey’s webpage though, I see quite a few studies that look superior to Kinsey’s 1948 effort. Some of them reweight his data (a task made much easier with computers) to get a better demographic match with the general population. Why a figure from a 50-60 year old study is emphasized over the results from more recent research is unclear to me.
I don’t think I’m buying into this until I have more evidence. Unfortunately, I can’t find any legitimate evidence supporting either side of this issue.
Straight from the Kinsey site:
“10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55.
8% of males were exlusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.
4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews.”
Based on his scale, predominantly is anyone who falls into the last three of the seven possible groups.
This is actually what I’m looking for. Do you have any credible cites, either on the web or in reference literature that uses the same methodology, but with different results? Do you have any cites that define homosexuality in a similar manner to his, but yields substantially different results? Everything I can find seems incredibly narrow in scope when defining homosexuality.
While I don’t know if it should affect the results of his studies, I’m willing to take into account any evidence you have that support the negative charges made against him. Do you have any credible cites that support the “kinky” lifestyle charges?
These are the types of cites that I find, when searching for his dark past:
Dr. Judith Reisman – The founder of RSVP America (Restoring Social Virtue and Purity). Her doctorate is in communications; not necessarily the background I’m looking for. She’s also not a big fan of the “scientific” method and thinks we should stick with “moral” methods. She’s also a columnist for WorldNetDaily and Leadership U, those bastions of unbiased journalism :D. I have barrels of info on this nutcase, in case someone thinks that’s not enough to discredit her.
James Jones – In many interviews, it seems this man looks up to Kinsey in awe. He admires the methodology of the tests, doesn’t question Kinseys motives, etc. Then you find out that he wrote a book in which he claims Kinsey was a homosexual masochist and therefore maybe his results are not to be trusted. Did I mention he wrote a book? For profit? Slate tore the book and the author a new one in their review. He also seems to be hanging out and doing the conservative talk show circuit with the good Dr. Reisman, as of late.
Carmen Pate – She writes for the CWA (Concerned Women for America). They are anti-gay, anti-teacher union, anti-pornography, anti-abortion, anti-single parent household. You name it, they’re probably against it. She wasn’t very original in her work and just kept citing Jones and Reisman. I’m sure she’s a blast at parties, though.
The Family Research Council – In comparison, they make Ms. Pate look like she might actually be fun at parties.
Maslow – He’s the one I’m most likely to find convincing. Then he goes into the theory that homosexuals are exhibitionists, and therefore skewed the results by wanting to come forward more than heterosexuals. Oops, he had my attention until then.
These are some of the folks that think Kinsey did a pretty good job:
American Statistical Association – They found his questions to be rather probing and his sample, while not perfect, to be pretty damn good under the circumstances.
Dr. William Masters – “Any new research is welcome if it is well done.” “By all accounts, this one was very well done.”
The Institute for Scientific Analysis – They use him as an example of how best to word questions, examine research issues, and perform interviews for scientific studies.
You can see my issue here. I don’t have any credible evidence not to buy into Kinsey’s report. I don’t question the fact that some of it is dated, such as age of first intercourse, frequency of oral sex, and other things that are culturally based. Unless you have some evidence that homosexuality is cultural or are able to provide valid cites, I’m going to keep assuming the percentage of homosexuals in the population hasn’t changed.
I don’t think I’m buying into this until I have more evidence. Unfortunately, I can’t find any legitimate evidence supporting either side of this issue.
Straight from the Kinsey site:
“10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55.
8% of males were exlusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.
4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews.”
Based on his scale, predominantly is anyone who falls into the last three of the seven possible groups.
This is actually what I’m looking for. Do you have any credible cites, either on the web or in reference literature that uses the same methodology, but with different results? Do you have any cites that define homosexuality in a similar manner to his, but yields substantially different results? Everything I can find seems incredibly narrow in scope, when defining homosexuality.
While I don’t know if it should affect the results of his studies, I’m willing to take into account any evidence you have that support the negative charges made against him. Do you have any credible cites that support the “kinky” lifestyle charges?
These are the types of cites that I find, when searching for his dark past:
Dr. Judith Reisman – The founder of RSVP America (Restoring Social Virtue and Purity). Her doctorate is in communications; not necessarily the background I’m looking for. She’s also not a big fan of the “scientific” method and thinks we should stick with “moral” methods. She’s also a columnist for WorldNetDaily and Leadership U, those bastions of unbiased journalism :D. I have barrels of info on this nutcase, in case someone thinks that’s not enough to discredit her.
James Jones – In many interviews, it seems this man looks up to Kinsey in awe. He admires the methodology of the tests, doesn’t question Kinseys motives, etc. Then you find out that he wrote a book in which he claims Kinsey was a homosexual masochist and therefore maybe his results are not to be trusted. Did I mention he wrote a book? For profit? Slate tore the book and the author a new one in their review. He also seems to be hanging out and doing the conservative talk show circuit with the good Dr. Reisman, as of late.
Carmen Pate – She writes for the CWA (Concerned Women for America). They are anti-gay, anti-teacher union, anti-pornography, anti-abortion, anti-single parent household. You name it, they’re probably against it. She wasn’t very original in her work and just kept citing Jones and Reisman. I’m sure she’s a blast at parties, though.
The Family Research Council – In comparison, they make Ms. Pate look like she might actually be fun at parties.
Maslow – He’s the one I’m most likely to find convincing. Then he goes into the theory that homosexuals are exhibitionists, and therefore skewed the results by wanting to come forward more than heterosexuals. Oops, he had my attention until then.
These are some of the folks that think Kinsey did a pretty good job:
American Statistical Association – They found his questions to be rather probing and his sample, while not perfect, to be pretty damn good under the circumstances.
Dr. William Masters – “Any new research is welcome if it is well done.” “By all accounts, this one was very well done.”
The Institute for Scientific Analysis – They use him as an example of how best to word questions, examine research issues, and perform interviews for scientific studies.
You can see my issue here. I don’t have any credible evidence not to buy into Kinsey’s report. I don’t question the fact that some of it is dated, such as age of first intercourse, frequency of oral sex, and other things that are culturally based. Unless you have some evidence that homosexuality is cultural or are able to provide valid cites, I’m going to keep assuming the percentage of homosexuals in the population hasn’t changed.
You don’t have to buy into my speculations. The point is that it’s not reasonable to assume that any group under investigation is homogenously distributed across the population. Especially gays, who I would think would be attracted to urban areas, if nothing else.
I interpret that to mean that roughly 10% of males (in their (age-adjusted?) sample) reported having a period in their lives when they were mostly (or predominantly) homosexual. Such an interpretation is consistent with both your quote and mine (both from the Kinsey site). If my interpretation is correct, it is a leap to say that 10% of the male population is homosexual, IMHO.
I read about those charges in the NYT book review of a biography on Kinsey. My scan of the web suggests it was Jones, who wrote the original piece in the New Yorker and was a former member of the Kinsey institute’s board. cite .
I differ with you here. Kinsey may been kinky (i.e. into masochism and bisexual to a certain extent), but I would need more evidence before concluding that his numbers were cooked.
I agree with the ASA. They commend his effort as a pioneer in the area. I find it difficult not to be impressed by his effort. And I agree with the other statements of praise.
That doesn’t mean I have to accept Kinsey’s conclusions. And it doesn’t mean that I have to ignore the blatent selection bias in his work, not when there are other more recent studies that have tried to use a random sample. I’m not saying his numbers were cooked. I’m saying they should probably be reweighted (as they were in the early 1970s) and his study done again with more random sampling methods.
OK, seriously now. I really don’t care enough about this enough to research it. If I did, I’d do the following:
First, I’d consider the possibility that sexual preference is a much more fluid concept than is generally credited. In other words we don’t understand it. Kinsey’s scale is an attempt to get a grip on this partly definitional problem.
Second, I’d go to review of the literature and look it over. Make sure it covers Billy, Tafner, Grady, and Klepinger (1993) (the Batelle study). Check out a reference in the literature review in order to get a sense of the other estimates in the area.
Here’s my benchmark / interpretation of the studies (none of which I have read) / WAG: 1% (or more) of American males have a homosexual lifestyle. 4% (or more) have pronounced homosexual tendencies (whatever that means). And, to confuse matters, the imagination is bisexual.
Okay, I’ll consider this issue still open for debate.
Based on the scale, I interpreted it to mean that 10% were more homosexual than heterosexual, thus predominant.
I’ll have to challenge his credibility, based on both the book itself, and his interviews. His book is much more demonizing than his interviews. It read like the point was to provoke sensationalism.
[quoteI differ with you here. Kinsey may been kinky (i.e. into masochism and bisexual to a certain extent), but I would need more evidence before concluding that his numbers were cooked.[/quote]
Actually, we agree completely. I was just making myself “open” to the possibility that his private life might have influenced his work. Of course, I’d still need some compelling evidence that his lifestyle was kinky.
I would love nothing more than for his study to be repeated, using the most scientific sampling method as possible. I’d also like to see an even large sample set.
Then I appreciate even more that you have responded. We may not agree on everything, but you’ve made me question enough issues to actually further my research.
Agreed.
This is one of the studies that I found a bit flawed. The interviewers were all female, and not trained to do sexual studies. The study was about behavior related to AIDS (thus the risk of self-disclosure), not homosexuality. They had a 30% non-response rate. The interviews were all conducted face to face. Anonymous studies consistently give higher numbers than face to face.
I’m still stuck on this one. I’ve seen studies that range from 1% to 17%. The one thing I’ve noticed in my studies; most of the unbiased studies may disagree on whether Kinsey’s sample set was representative, they seem almost unanimous in praise for the remainder of the study’s methodology. Maybe if I win the lottery in the future, I can fund a repeat study, using an enormous and representative sample set.
