One in ten?

[Former Member]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend last night. We were discussing the 'one in ten' theory. The theory I believe Alfred Kinsey found. If it did or did not accurately reflect the gay population in society.

Some interesting points were raised, like how Alfred gathered his data. Apparently a lot were from prison inmates who were supposedly in there for sex crimes, if this is true,could this have influenced the data?

Also some of the more recent studies suggest anything between less than 1% to around 3 or 4%. &. Very few if any found 10% or over.

 

I guess how people define 'gay' is another factor to consider. Do people still consider themselves gay if they're currently in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex? Which does happen quite often. And where the boundary lies between bisexual and gay?(I consider myself gay even though I've probably had more previous relationships with girls) Then there's the fact that it's a taboo subject, many people still even deny it to themselves unfortunately, nevermind to some researcher.

I also heard (from some anti-Kinsey, religious documentary)that Alfred Kinsey was bisexual so he may have been biased.

BTW I'm not trying to demolish his theory, in my opinion, the more the merrier! Lol.

[Conner]

I believe you've raised many of the issues which essentially stand in the way of obtaining accurate and reproducible research results. Similar issues arise in many areas of social demographics. If a reasonable study were to surface, the anti-gay groups would simply use their considerable resources to shoot holes in it - unless the results fit into their agenda.

 

I don't see national census bodies adding "sexuality" to their list of questions anytime soon.

[Abersloth]

I have strong doubts about one-in-ten. Certainly one-in-ten aren't out and proud, but I'd even doubt one-in-ten including those who are in the closet. It would certainly make life easier if it were true, though.

 

I'd like to append this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

Edited July 27, 2011 by aberneth

[Former Member]

I have strong doubts about one-in-ten. Certainly one-in-ten aren't out and proud, but I'd even doubt one-in-ten including those who are in the closet. It would certainly make life easier if it were true, though.

 

I'd like to append this: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

 

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

[Graeme]

In 2005, the UK government tried to give an 'official' answer to the question of how many people are gay as part of their analysis on the impact of introducing civil unions. Some articles on the subject from that time:

 

3.6m people in Britain are gay

Six per cent of the population are gay

 

Interestingly, last year there was the following article:

 

1.5% of Britons say they are gay or bisexual

 

To summarise, the UK government estimated the number as one in 16.66, or roughly 6% of the population. However, as the Telegraph article said:

A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said: "It is to my knowledge the first time the Government has released a figure of this sort, but it does come with caveats.

 

"It is based on a number of studies by different interest groups, but fundamentally there is very little reliable information about the size of the lesbian, gay and bisexual group."

That last article implies that either the original estimates were too high, or only a quarter of gay/bisexual people are comfortable enough with their sexuality to admit it in a survey, or maybe a bit of both

[Naptowngirl]

I have strong doubts about one-in-ten. Certainly one-in-ten aren't out and proud, but I'd even doubt one-in-ten including those who are in the closet. It would certainly make life easier if it were true, though.

 

I'd like to append this: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

 

Very interesting...thanks for adding this.

[K.C.]

It’s something to think about, but I think his estimated 1 in 10 is on the high end if applied to the total population. I know for a fact that it’s nowhere near that out here in the country. It would be nice but sadly, not even close.

 

His data might be accurate relating to 1 out of 10 has had some kind of homosexual tendency or thoughts but getting an accurate account of who see themselves as openly gay, well, I don’t believe it’s that high.

[Graeme]

It’s something to think about, but I think his estimated 1 in 10 is on the high end if applied to the total population. I know for a fact that it’s nowhere near that out here in the country. It would be nice but sadly, not even close.

 

His data might be accurate relating to 1 out of 10 has had some kind of homosexual tendency or thoughts but getting an accurate account of who see themselves as openly gay, well, I don’t believe it’s that high.

 

I think you're confusing gay with openly gay. We're talking about what percentage of the population is gay... and I really don't think that living in the country is going to change that percentage. That is, unless there's something in the country environment that decreases the chance of someone being gay

 

Now, I can happily accept that the environment can influence what percentage is openly gay, but that's a completely different issue. The percentage of openly gay people is very much cultural - it's much higher in places like Australia, the UK and USA, than it is in places like Iran, for example It's also different in different parts of each country. That doesn't mean the percentage of homosexuals is any different - just that those homosexuals are less likely to be willing to admit that they are homosexuals.

 

That's why any estimates on the number of gays in the population based on who SAYS they're gay is in my opinion a lower limit. The upper limit is determined by how likely a gay person is to have come out. There are many reasons why a gay person may choose not to come out openly, and they're not all obvious. For example, my reason for not being openly gay is that I want to protect my two young boys from abuse, as well as considering the impact it would have on people's perception of my wife. It would great if I didn't have to be concerned about the impact on my family, but I do, and I'm placing their safety above my wish to come out.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Graeme

[JamesSavik]

Some of the 1 in 10 are out and proud, many of them are so far in the closet they are living in Narnia.

 

Just ask Senator Craig, Larry Haggard or Dr. Rekers.

[Rilbur]

I think you're confusing gay with openly gay. We're talking about what percentage of the population is gay... and I really don't think that living in the country is going to change that percentage. That is, unless there's something in the country environment that decreases the chance of someone being gay

Or perhaps they tend to move out to cities where it is more acceptable?

[K.C.]

I think you're confusing gay with openly gay. We're talking about what percentage of the population is gay... and I really don't think that living in the country is going to change that percentage. That is, unless there's something in the country environment that decreases the chance of someone being gay

 

Now, I can happily accept that the environment can influence what percentage is openly gay, but that's a completely different issue. The percentage of openly gay people is very much cultural - it's much higher in places like Australia, the UK and USA, than it is in places like Iran, for example It's also different in different parts of each country. That doesn't mean the percentage of homosexuals is any different - just that those homosexuals are less likely to be willing to admit that they are homosexuals.

 

That's why any estimates on the number of gays in the population based on who SAYS they're gay is in my opinion a lower limit. The upper limit is determined by how likely a gay person is to have come out. There are many reasons why a gay person may choose not to come out openly, and they're not all obvious. For example, my reason for not being openly gay is that I want to protect my two young boys from abuse, as well as considering the impact it would have on people's perception of my wife. It would great if I didn't have to be concerned about the impact on my family, but I do, and I'm placing their safety above my wish to come out.

 

 

 

I’m not confusing gay vs. openly gay. I’m sure in the study that was presented, it asked if the person he/she was “gay” and that is the findings they are pertaining to as who checked the box marked gay. I’m stating that even in their personal private life that if they are checking that they are gay- regardless of announcing to the world- that in my opinion, I don’t believe it to be a ratio of 1 to 10. I know a lot of people, I work with the general public on a daily basis and I have done quite a bit of traveling over the world and I don’t think that 1 out of every 10 people is gay.

 

Second, where I live in the back-wood mountains of West Virginia USA I can almost guarantee you that the gay population is virtually nonexistent to minimal at the most. To be openly gay here can be rather dangerous, which is why my husband and I take extreme precautions with our daughter and when we are in public as a family. If someone didn’t know us they would not know that we were a family. Sadly, WV is still a very narrow minded, bigoted, racist and sexist, place. If you don’t believe me, come for a visit.

 

The validly of test results, such as these are always skewed according to the test subjects, location, outside variables and the conductors interpretation of the results and should only be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Again, as I stated before, it would be nice for the gay…all gays (openly gay or still in closet) population to be 1 to 10, but I don’t believe it to be true! Just my opinion.

 

 

 

 

[Dark]

I personally believe that people are not 100% gay or 100% straight. That's a very narrow box to try and shove people in. I believe that gay/straight is a spectrum -- a range that can go from 100% gay on one side to 100% straight on the other side. Most people will fall somewhere in the middle, which makes the whole question "Are you Gay or are you Straight?" a very inaccurate question just to start.

[Graeme]

I’m not confusing gay vs. openly gay. I’m sure in the study that was presented, it asked if the person he/she was “gay” and that is the findings they are pertaining to as who checked the box marked gay. I’m stating that even in their personal private life that if they are checking that they are gay- regardless of announcing to the world- that in my opinion, I don’t believe it to be a ratio of 1 to 10. I know a lot of people, I work with the general public on a daily basis and I have done quite a bit of traveling over the world and I don’t think that 1 out of every 10 people is gay.

 

I'm not saying it's one in ten, either, but you've managed to confuse me (not that difficult to do )

 

What study are you talking about? The only thing approaching a study that's been linked in this thread is survey I linked to that reported 1.5% of Britons are gay, and I asked the question why that was only about a quarter of the estimate the UK government made when they legalised civil unions.

 

If you're talking about Kinsey's study, I don't have any details, but I seem to recall that he's also the researcher that reported that one-in-three adult American males had had a male-male sexual experience. So, given the data he had, a one-in-ten estimate for the gay population wasn't unreasonable.

 

I think it's well recognised that survey's asking about sexuality aren't going to be accurate, because closeted gays aren't going to say they're gay. That's why there's so much uncertainty as to the percentage of homosexuals in the community.

 

As for your last statement I've quote above, can I ask how reliably you believe you can pick out a gay person from a crowd? I can certainly accept that based on your experiences that you've detected a gay-to-straight ratio of less than 1 in 10, but I doubt you're able to say more than that. After all, almost everyone who's met me believes or believed I'm straight (my wife's family certainly got a rude shock when she told them I'm gay). By all subjective evidence, I'm straight (happily married with two kids)... except that I'm not.

 

Second, where I live in the back-wood mountains of West Virginia USA I can almost guarantee you that the gay population is virtually nonexistent to minimal at the most. To be openly gay here can be rather dangerous, which is why my husband and I take extreme precautions with our daughter and when we are in public as a family. If someone didn’t know us they would not know that we were a family. Sadly, WV is still a very narrow minded, bigoted, racist and sexist, place. If you don’t believe me, come for a visit.

 

Yes, but...

 

All you've done is give us a reason why the 'out' gay population in your area is virtually non-existent. What evidence do you have that there aren't closeted gays in your community - people like me who to the outside world appear straight? This is what I meant about confusing gay and openly gay (or even just out to a few people). You can't look at a community and say there is virtually no gays in that community. All you can really say is that there is virtually no people who say they're gay in that community.

 

The validly of test results, such as these are always skewed according to the test subjects, location, outside variables and the conductors interpretation of the results and should only be taken with a grain of salt.

 

100% agree there. Look at the caveat on the UK government's estimate of the gay population

 

Again, as I stated before, it would be nice for the gay…all gays (openly gay or still in closet) population to be 1 to 10, but I don’t believe it to be true! Just my opinion.

 

I also suspect it's less than 1 in 10. But it's extremely difficult to figure because the information sort is actively being hidden by some of the people being questioned. I'd personally guess it's closer to 1 in 20, which is why I found the 1 in 16 (roughly) that the UK government came up with sounds reasonable to me.

[Cerest]

I was taught that sexuality follows a gaussian distribution with directional, disruptive, or stabilizing selection. You can find the articles on JSTOR or maybe EBSCO.

 

WARNING! Wall-o-text!

 

 

The above is typical of distributions, ignore the numbers. The integral (the shaded areas) represent the population... thus shading everything below the distribution curve.

The horizontal axis is suppose the represent degree of orientation. Suppose that the far right (-3σ) represents those who are purely homosexual, and the far left are those who are purely heterosexual. Those that are in the middle can be described as bisexual. Basically your orientation can be plotted in that graph somewhere. Perhaps you are in the mauvey-lavender gay area or maybe you are in the bluish center. But this is just the start of the theory, it gets a lot more complicated... as your point, along with the graph's shift.

 

There are two assumptions to this theory, controversial to say the least.

1) Humans are all born on a moderately neutral "distribution graph..." meaning, a baby in China is just as likely to be in the bluish area as a baby in Scotland... but with some regional genetic differences. (lets just assume that all are the same... okay?)

2) The graph, as well as your position on the graph, change dynamically according to life experience/culture. This means your "perceived" orientation can change. But the "struggle" to maintain that orientation is the difference between the positions.

 

There are three ways the graph can move...

 

 

The above image uses mice as an example... this does not correlate well with sexuality since simple genes are responsible for color... sexuality is more hormonal... but regardless, it will serve this purpose. Also... a mice's color cannot change, but a person's perceived sexuality can.

 

Stabilizing selection can be found when mice, for example, look at the image. The light-tan ones can find themselves in an environment of dry brush that is identical to their color. Thus, really bright mice in the brush stand out very well... along with dark mice... and get eaten. The tannish mice benefit since they can camouflage in the dry brush, and are more likely to reproduce. Culturally, in regards to sexuality, this could mean a push for bisexuality. A good example of this would be the aristocratic Ancient Greeks (the poorer Greeks didn't really perform too much homosexuality). While the rich Ancient Greeks may have indulged and even encouraged in homosexual activities (pederasty for example, between a mentor and a pupil), they still pushed for heterosexual unions.

 

Directional selection occurs when one extreme is favored over the other. In regards to the mice, a factory in the area could spew ash over their habitat and make light mice stand out... and get eaten, while there is more chance for the darker mice to live (camouflage). A great example of this in regards to sexuality is... Michele Bachmann.

 

Sometimes, disruptional selection can occur. What if the ground the mice live on is patchy with light and dark colors? The extremes benefit but the median does not. This is kind of true in reality, as many bisexual men/women/giraffes are forced to pick and choose... (as much as I like mmf or mff threesomes... they don't work).

 

There are two graphs that are important, the human "birth graph" and the individuals "culture" graph. ''

 

 

There were some big criticisms of this theory... but I didn't understand them... nor do I remember them... the magnitude argument is a bit confusing already.

I like this because it agrees that not everyone is born 100% gay or 100% straight... and that there is a little wiggle room for friskiness... and it makes a lot more sense than the arbitrary 1 in 10 theory.

 

The birth graph can be attributed to the amount of androgens the female bombards male fetuses (sorry girls, I don't know much about female homosexuality).

Journal of Theoretical Biology

 

The more androgens a female bombards... the more likely he'll be found on the 0-5 range. Read the Action of anti-male antibodies in the fetal brain chapter in the link above if you are interested.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Cerest

[StormyParis]

I'm not even sure what "gay" means. Is it being/having been out ? in a committed homosexual relationship ? falling in love / wishing for a relationship with the same sex ? liking homo sex better ? disliking hetero sex ? defining oneself as "gay" ?

 

I don't even like the term "homosexual" that much. My plumbing works fine with females (or did, haven't tried in a while), but I never loved them. Am I homolovual 'coz I only love men ? does that count as gay ?

 

Plus I'm having trouble differentiating what's due to personal choice, and what to societal pressure. If gays were completely well accepted, if we could marry, have kids, make our parents proud... how many "heteros" that haunt gay sex clubs at night would fully come out ? My ex colleague who kept wanting to show me his scars as soon s he'd had a couple of beers sounds like a good example...

 

 

[Graeme]

Cerest, that's an interesting theory and certainly plausible, but I think the first thing that would have to done is to find evidence that human sexuality has a Gaussian distribution. Gaussian distributions tend to occur when there is an equal probability between the primary selection options (such as a heads or tails toss, or a dice throw), but do not occur when there is not an equal probability (eg. using a weighted dice).

 

It's quite possible that human sexuality does not have a Gaussian distribution because of the rather obvious fact that homosexuals are less likely to procreate than heterosexuals. That means that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality (highly likely, given the twins studies that have shown a higher degree of correlation on sexual orientation between identical vs non-identical twins), then there will be a distorting factor that will increase the probability of heterosexual genes. Of course, the opposing argument is that there is a theory that male homosexuality is linked to female fertility, so the same genes that produce homosexuality amongst men also produces more children in females which is definitely a survival trait. But would it be enough to produce a Gaussian distribution? Indeed, if this were the case, could the distribution be truly called Gaussian even if it happened to fit the classic bell curve?

 

As an aside, while the original post called the 1-in-10 a theory, no one really considers it to be a theory. It's a rough rule-of-thumb that has been proposed based on data received to date. The UK government says it's 1-in-16, but that's not a theory - it's an estimate based on the best available data.

[Dannsar]

I have a book on Aspergers syndrome which posits that Kinsey was an aspie. If I remember rightly, in his chapter it says that he did not do much of the actual research, but that it was done by research assistants (RAs). I'd have to look it up actually, but at any rate, I am fairly sure his personal orientation was less ofva factor. He did a later study onwomen, I believe, too.

 

Interestingly, aspies are slightly more likely to be gay or bi. They are also more likely to be asexual. That concurs with my theory that aspies are in many respects just extremes of some traits.

 

My personal belief is that the incidence of homosexuality is much higher than 1:10. And that's not a gay fundamentalist position! As several people have said, it depends on your definition of gay. But are gay and homosexual the same thing? In my opinion, no. There is pretty well agreed opinion that a large element of footbal viewing culture is based around men's desire to look upon other 'fit' men being successful and being role models to aspire to. They appreciate the well defined masculinity, and see its implied virility. Does that mean they wanna go out and suck cock? Rarely, I'd suggest. But does it mean there's a small degree of homosexuality? I think so.

 

One of the old sayings you hear about aspies is that we (i.e. the general population) are all a bit autistic. The same argument is also made about homosexuality. While I agree with Graeme's comments on the validity of the Gaussian distribution, I do think it is probably fairly accurate that this distribution pattern occurs. Nobody can tell me that rugby players having milk races is not a little bit gay. After all, we all know that jacking off is not really that easy in view of something which disgusts you. Therefore, rugby players are getting some sort of stimulation from the sight of other mens stroking their erect penises to fruition. And the same applies to other milk racing groups too! If they were stressed about it, they'd largely be unable to orgasm.

 

Another thing is the reporting, as alluded to by several people. Many many married guys would never report it, yet they hang around in parks at night to get the sexual release they crave. It's not necessarily that sticking it to the wife is not what they want to do. Just that they want to stick it to another male too. And I'm not even sure I'd call that closeted homosexuality, more like separated bisexuality. But according to one sexual health worker I spoke to about this (practice which I previously utterly detested), if these guys dont get m/m sexual expression, they will go nuts. (I still don't like it, but I'm less judgemental about it, and could never do it myself).

 

Men have a drive to ejaculate. That is why we masturbate so much. The need just gets too great. This drive will easily lead us into situations where any opportunity will be taken as long as it is safe ... both physically as well as in terms of discovery. A pretty straight guy might well indulge his need to ejaculate if another guy happens to offer the chance of satisfaction by a moist mouth. Then he will discover that it is much better than most women. Hey presto, change effected. Does that make him gay? No. Homosexual? No. Bisexual? Hell, yes! Is bisexuality gayness or a watered down version of homosexuality? Hmmmmmm.

 

I think any meaningful discussion on this needs a decision on what constitutes homosexuality. Is it a historical indulgence? If so, well, many guys have jacked off together, but not touched each other. Many have touched another, but just once. Many have indulged in physical contact beyond a simple touch. Many have indulged a fantasy about having David Beckham's body as a sexual tool for themselves to operate. Many have had wet dreams over guys. Many will have had more than a passing interest in the gorgeous dick slipping in and out of that woman's mouth in a porn flick.

 

Is it current practice? I had a wank with a guy the other day. I touched another guy the other day on his shoulder for some reason I can't explain and I have that filling feeling in my pants. I screwed my wife in the ass because it felt like doing a guy. I let a guy blow me yesterday. I blew a guy this morning. God! I like this plumber who only walked in twenty seconds ago and who I've never met before.

 

And so on and so forth. Defining the terms of the question is generally more important than constructing it. But if you take homosexuality as being at least open to the possibility of same sex sex, then I think you might find that 10% boot might actually be on the other foot.

[Cerest]

Cerest, that's an interesting theory and certainly plausible, but I think the first thing that would have to done is to find evidence that human sexuality has a Gaussian distribution. Gaussian distributions tend to occur when there is an equal probability between the primary selection options (such as a heads or tails toss, or a dice throw), but do not occur when there is not an equal probability (eg. using a weighted dice).

 

That is the thing, I'm not sure if it can be considered Gaussian... >.> (It isn't, but I'm not sure what is is actually called)... but this isn't my theory nor do I have Ebsco access since I am at home (in Oregon, not scotland Dannsar! )

The base distribution is based off of research done with the kinsey scale... so there already is research regarding the distribution.

 

Hell, a simple internet, biased, quiz reveals a distribution,

http://www.okcupid.c...nsey-scale-test

Of course, it is completely unbalanced, and there is not a random sample... so you'll see skewed results.

 

I dealed with disruptive/directional/stabilizing shifts in biology (when I was studying evolution) and in chemistry (when I was studying kinetic theory)... human biology/reproduction/psychology isn't something I'm learning right now... to be honest... (magnetism and organic chemistry <3) I don't have a lot of knowledge of what these shifts are called in the field of mathematics however.

 

 

Forgive the sketch above, and pretend it is drawn correctly so they hold the same population... but the red is not a distribution most statistics class even touch upon... because there is SOOO much going on.

 

Also, Dannsar... I didn't know people with Aspergers are more likely to be asexual and be compatible of self fertilization

 

EDIT: Jesus... a lot of smilies...

Edited August 3, 2011 by Cerest

[Dannsar]

Also, Dannsar... I didn't know people with Aspergers are more likely to be asexual and be compatible of self fertilization

EH?!

 

I never mentioned self fertilisation. Even hermaphrodites can't manage that one! If this were the case, the procreation thread across town would be going in quite a different direction, and aspies would be going hell for leather for another species so that we could live in bleedin peace, far far far away from pesky fuzzy minded NTs!

 

At any rate ... I can think of better orifices to put semen into than that particular one!

 

I thank you :P

[option]

Interesting that the census was mentioned, & that it dosnt ask about sexuality.

 

Here in the UK, the most recent census (2011) was able to be completed online. This time it still had to be completed by the 'head of the household', but theres nothing to prevent the next one having confidential sections for each house resident. However, that wouldnt be until 2021.

 

 

As the UK (Whitehall) figure of 6% is from a proper piece of research, using multiple sources, & done without any in-built bias, its more likely to be an accurate figure than those from random surveys.

Important to note that the figure is based on the working population, so 18-65, & uses data from 1990-2005.

 

 

 

I would expect future surveys & research to be closer to the 'true' figures, as acceptance has increased over time.

[thephoenix]

Some of the 1 in 10 are out and proud, many of them are so far in the closet they are living in Narnia.

 

This is why any statistical figure on how many people are gay can never be completely accurate. There are gay people there that would say they were straight if they were ever asked that question. Believe me, I've been there.

 

There are straight men out there who find themselves fantasizing about getting it on with another guy. Yet he has a wife and kids at home, and he is genuinely happy. Would you classify him as gay? Bisexual? Bi-curious? Irredeemably horny?

 

What if a gay man in a man-man relationship fantasizes about women? Or a lesbian woman in a woman-woman relationship fantasizes about men? Both genuinely happy and the fantasy is just that. What happens then? What if they're not happy and choose to pursue the opposite sex? Did they just turn straight? Bi?

 

Our society is so pre-occupied with labelling everything, that we lose our individuality in the process. The little things that make each and every one of us unique is lost in our chaotic society of lazy, instant gratification, want-it-now and not 0.1 milliseconds from now age. Because it's easier to label people. Human nature. Path of the least resistance.

 

But I would be hypocritical if I said that I didn't do it. We all do it. We do it subconsciously, putting people into brackets, letting our first impressions judge people until something else exciting about them piques our senses. It's one of those things that are at the very core of our society. Oh well.

 

</end rant>

 

 

 

[Dannsar]

This is why any statistical figure on how many people are gay can never be completely accurate. There are gay people there that would say they were straight if they were ever asked that question. Believe me, I've been there.

 

There are straight men out there who find themselves fantasizing about getting it on with another guy. Yet he has a wife and kids at home, and he is genuinely happy. Would you classify him as gay? Bisexual? Bi-curious? Irredeemably horny?

 

What if a gay man in a man-man relationship fantasizes about women? Or a lesbian woman in a woman-woman relationship fantasizes about men? Both genuinely happy and the fantasy is just that. What happens then? What if they're not happy and choose to pursue the opposite sex? Did they just turn straight? Bi?

 

Our society is so pre-occupied with labelling everything, that we lose our individuality in the process. The little things that make each and every one of us unique is lost in our chaotic society of lazy, instant gratification, want-it-now and not 0.1 milliseconds from now age. Because it's easier to label people. Human nature. Path of the least resistance.

 

But I would be hypocritical if I said that I didn't do it. We all do it. We do it subconsciously, putting people into brackets, letting our first impressions judge people until something else exciting about them piques our senses. It's one of those things that are at the very core of our society. Oh well.

 

</end rant>

 

Well, it's a rant to be sure .. one I've had plenty times in the past. But believe me, as a doubly labelled person researching a book on parts of the labelling process, I have come to understand that it is completely inevitable, and, yes, actually correct.

 

As sentient beings, not yet out of the danger zone of everything, we still have the security issue to deal with, way back in our subconscious minds. It's what stops us getting mugged, stepping out in front of a bus, etc and so forth. We constantly assess and classify. Not because we want to label for the sake of identity categorisation, but for safety assessment ... what is it, what does it look like, how does it compare to my stored records, how does it differ, are the similarities likely to imply danger, are the differences likely to imply danger, is it friendly looking, is it threatening looking. The way meaning is constructed in our heads, we actually do this at the same time as labelling, because we are dealing on a level of meanings. The meanings are labelled for grouping purposes for future assessment, or for assessment priority. So labelling is actually a normal part of how we operate.

 

It all goes wrong when you automatically assign a negative meaning to a concept. Smoking in the workplace and other restricted areas was banned in Scotland a few years ago. I cannot believe how disgusted I feel when I see someone in the street with a cigarette now. I mean, it's just bloody well irrational. I honestly downgrade them to almost criminal, almost sub-human, for an instant. I am doing the wrong thing with the label.

 

And labels can be good things. They help us shape our responses to situations. For instance, I am slightly autistic. It is not physically obvious in the way more severe autism can be. Thus I have expectations made of me everyday that I am not able to live up to because I have an invisible impairment. If it was visible, people would alter their responses and perhaps expect something different ... yeah, you're right, they'd be much more patronising If you see an old lady in the street, you will try to rush to get past her before the pavement narrows, but you also won't risk getting too close like you might with a younger person, cos she's much more likely to fall over if you inadvertently nudge her. Query, assessment, label, action.

 

Sexual mate selection is the same. We see guys, we think 'yum', we need to know if he is approachable ... we need the label. We need to know how to conduct ourselves in order not to offend him by making a verbal pass, and engendering a bad or physical response. Or if he is looking juuuust that little bit too long at home, you might decide it is worthwhile sending out some signals, but not ones the wife or kids are likely to pick up on. So it is easier to have labels. Don't decry them. They are very useful. It all goes wrong when you misuse them. Like when the straight guys all think the gay guys are going to follow them to the toilets and slip a hand down the back of their jeans while they are taking a leak! That's bad labelling ... or at least it should be