1. HadenoughBS says

    You know what’s a real myth, Michele and Marcus, it’s the myth that Michele and Marcus Bachmann know what in the hell they’re talking about – from the “myth” of the Kinsey report to the “myth” of reparative therapy. In fact, it’s shameful that the two of you are permitted to harm so many people with your unintelligent pronouncements. It’s not only shameful, it’s disgusting. The sooner you’re both off the national stage, the better it’ll be. And good riddance.

  2. gregory brown says

    Here’s a case where the Crazy Eyes and her SigOther are kinda correct. There’ve been subsequent studies that challenge the 10% figure. That doesn’t make it a “myth”, just an estimate based on biased data. Given 28 kids, the assertion/assumption that 2.8 will be gay is unlikely to be true–but at least one, maybe 2. I still think the couple are nuts.

  3. oliver says

    @Gregory Brown, So based on your conclusion that “maybe 2″ will be gay then you are still looking at about 8%….which is a lot closer to 10% than it is to 5%.

  4. Danny says

    actually, all the numbers are conjecture. guesses, estimates, projections based on incomplete data. Scientific data has been produced, however, that supports the idea that homophobia is associated with homosexual desire.

  5. Jason says

    It is my opinion that the homosexual population would really be much higher than 10%, if everyone who is homosexual actually acknowledged their sexuality. I know a lot of people in straight relationships who are not straight! So, whereas, the percentage of self-identifying homosexuals might be 2% to 10%, I personally believe that the actual number is much higher.

  6. Lymis says

    @Gregory Brown
    Given the clear evidence that there is some kind of link between the number of older brothers a man has and his likelihood of being gay, I’m guessing that a family of 28 would have MORE than 2.8 gay kids, even if the gender numbers are balanced.

    Not to mention an exhausted mother and a batshit crazy dad.

  7. octobercountry says

    The percentage of the population that is gay is impossible to determine, since any such survey on the topic is only going to reflect those members of society who are “out and proud” and willing to admit it. Those deeply closeted people, those in denial, are not going to answer truthfully.

    I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to know that up to ten percent of the population is gay. (I’m defining the term “gay” as “being physically and romantically attracted to one’s own gender”—this has no relation to which gender a person actually sleeps with, or whether they are active sexually.)

    At any rate—though the results of various studies vary (regarding the percentage of the population that is gay), I think it can be said with some conviction that the number must be between five and ten percent. Even the lower figure is substantially higher than the one or two percent figure usually quoted by the anti-gay Christian right.

  8. billy says

    @ LYMIS:
    i’ve heard the older brother stuff too. but the bachman vag didn’t actually birth 28 kids. she had 5 of her own (incl. two boys), and then took in about two dozen in a foster care setting (apparently, up to 3 foster children at a time). from what i recall, all of their foster kids are/were female. i admit, it would be absolutely hilarious to think that an alleged closet case like marcus could get it up 28 times to fill up her clown car, but i highly doubt they’ve got it on that many times.

    i wouldn’t be totally surprised if one or some of their foster kids was from a broken homophobic household. and its pretty sad if that were the case, for the child’s or children’s sake. but we don’t actually know that, and its wild speculation.

  9. Gregv says

    Kinsey’s numbers were measuring NOT the number of gay people per se in society, but the proportion in his sample whose sexual experiences had been primarily to exclusively with same-sex partner(s) for a period of three years.
    That is NOT in any way the normal definition of “homosexual” or “gay” used in the social sciences; it’s just a particular degree of same-sex interaction he was measuring in that particular study. It is certainly not what I or anybody I know means whenI use the word “gay.”. I’ve ALWAYS been gay, and using his criteria I, for example, did not qualify as gay for most of my life.
    There is no study that has ever determined how many gay people there are. We can only ever talk in minimums (There are “more than” or “at least” X number of gay members of the average family, etc.) because discrimination keeps many or most gay people hiding in the closet even today.
    The number might be less than 10% and it might be a lot higher than 10%, but when someone on our side uses a definitive number like this (that has never been measured scientifically) it’s easy for those against us to dismiss us.

  10. says

    The Kinsey report does not address how many gay people there are in a given population. It ONLY addresses behavior. In the sampling 10% of the men in the sample were “more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55″. That would include, for example, people who were in prison for 3 years and people who as adolescents found someone to suck them off. Those people might not identify as gay.

    Both I and my partner of 20+ years probably had sex only with women for a period of three years in our youth. Does that mean we’re straight?

    “Gay” is an identity, not a behavior. You can be gay and have sex only with women. Kinsey measured behavior.

  11. TJ says

    Listen to GREGV. He speaks the truth (as much as we can know it, at least). Estimates from a text from a human sexuality course, I seem to recall (don’t make me go upstairs to the office; the fireplace is too nice), were closer to 3%. But it is indeed a slippery statistic.

  12. Craig says

    Well, in that Univ. of GA. study where they showed gay porn to self-described straight men (and divided them into homophobic/non-homophobic by a standard psychological test), and attached devices to record blood flow showing arousal rates, 20% — 20% — were aroused by the gay porn. 70% of the homophobes were. When the researchers asked the homophobes if they were aroused, they said no – despite having the evidence right in front of them!

  13. TJ says

    Okay, I pulled myself away from the fire. The study quoted in the 2005 text (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994) put the figures at 2.8% for men and 1.4% for women for those respondents who self-identified as homosexual. Having sex with a same-sex partner after age 18 – 5% and 4%, respectively; feelings of same-sex attraction, 6% and 5.5%. As the text suggests, HOW you ask the question affects the numbers. And as other wise posters have noted, willingness to honestly respond varies due to many factors.

    The most useful and relevant part of Kinsey’s research, in my opinion, was the scale. Although he posited discrete categories, the scale is most useful as a continuum, because one’s sexuality might vary over the course of a lifetime. At age 18, I would have rated at 1(predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual). Since 30, I’d rate at 6 (exclusively homosexual). An overall lifetime rating would put me at 5 (predominantly homosexual but incidentally heterosexual).

  14. anon says

    Well, the stopped clock had its moment. Kinsey’s research was flawed and not peer reviewed. Instead, it was published in book form to the general public (twice). Subsequent research hasn’t had the same word-of-mouth appeal. The irony here is their use of the term “myth” to refer to something incorrect, as they are religious fanatics.

  15. TJ says

    PS – Also, how I would have answered any questions about my sexuality would have varied as well. At 18, I would have denied same-sex attraction had anyone asked. At 22, I’d have been all about the boys. At 27, maybe I’m bi? At 30, I knew that I was capable of many attractions and many things, but I knew what side my bread was buttered on, so to speak.

  16. gregory brown says

    I won’t dispute anybody’s various numbers. Kinsey’s samples were skewed. The likelihood of under-reporting in other studies due to unwillingness to admit to being same-sex active (as distinct fro same-sex attracted or reactive) is great. Actual numbers are impossible to find and may be irrelevant. So long as SOME of the population are same-sex identified, there’s no justification for discrimination against us. Dismissing numbers as “myth” is idiotic.

    I suspect that the circumstances of some of the adopted kids prior to being fostered or otherwise taken from the original home environments might increase the possibility of being other than Bachman-approved heteros. Eight percent in this group sounds good to me.

  17. Chris says

    Regardless what the actual numbers are, I’m SURE our sexual attraction/identity plots a bell-curve, with relatively-few people exclusively gay or straight, and the vast majority exhibiting some degree of attraction and/or behavior toward members of both sexes.

    I happen to be strongly attracted to (and my behavior is exclusively with) same-sex (men), but I do have some attraction to women.

    Regardless of various forms of therapy and personal effort, my attraction has been remarkably consistent for the 30+ years I’ve been sexually active…though my behavior has changed from exclusively-straight to exclusively-gay.

  18. says

    Well, as someone who has been on the Kinsey Institute faculty, it’s very difficult on a number of levels to estimate “the gay.” For example, the lowest number was published by the Battelle Institute and they announced it at 1%. One of the things I teach my university students is “The question determines the answer.” Doing sex research in one of the most sex negative nations (i.e., the U.S.) means we are challenged in terms of doing random samples. Imagine if I were to randomly call your mother and explain I’m a researcher with the Kinsey Institute and then ask her how many times a week she masturbates? A lot of random calls of this nature get a slammed receiver as a response. Just so, we often have to depend on using a large population base that volunteers (often university students) or using a “friendship/snowball” network. For example, when I was researching inter-racial same-sex couples, after I would finish the interview, I would ask the couple if they knew others like themselves,and if they would be willing to introduce me as someone professional and respectful working in a legitimate context. The problem with this approach is a “truncated range.” Those with whom you socialize tend to reflect your own social/economic/educational status, so I don’t tend to get to interview referrals who are homeless or hang with Bill Gates. Anyway–the Battelle study actually not only did a random sample–they deliberately did not call anyone on the coasts–bye bye NYC, South Beach, San Francisco, or L.A.–the caller asked you if you were a homosexual, and if you said yes, asked for your address and social security number. And still–1% responded positively. But this is how you get “bad” research publicized so some (esp. anti-gay groups) accept the stats without question, esp. if they are on the low side, so the gay population can be dismissed. The other problem comes with labeling and self-identity–as some of the other comments have pointed out. This is why CDC shifted in HIV research from using the term “gay” to “MSM” or men who have sex with men, so you could look at a behavior, rather than an identity. And then you end up with a majority of Americans who believe sex is only defined as vaginal/penile penetration, so “gay” sex isn’t considered “real sex,” and that’s why a man can have sex with a man and honestly believe his straight identity is not compromised.

  19. Michael says

    I am sick of hearing its just 10%. If being straight caused a man to be labeled a f@g then only 10% would admit to being heterosexual. Any sexually attractive gay guy can tell you the number of guys willing to go there is way, way higher.

  20. DW says

    Most present-day sexologists both question Kinsey’s methods and percentages and question, for many of the reasons stated below, that they are at all applicable today or across any set of cultures. In some sense the Bachmanns are therefore correct. However, in no sense can their comments be taken as subtle or intelligent ones. On the other hand, it is not subtle or intelligent to simply quote the Kinsey percentages either.

Leave A Reply