That 10% number

[Jay]

I've often wondered where that 10% number came from. It seems that

"Nearly 10% of Self-Proclaimed 'Straight' Men Only Have Sex With Men".

 

Check this out Web MD article

 

So I guess it's 10% of Straight men that are a little bit bent.

(at least in New York City).

[Conner]

Fascinating!

 

I'm moving to the Big Apple!

 

Conner

 

P.S. I'm curious as to whom these straight men are having sex with? Gay men, other straight men??

[AFriendlyFace]

Well I have several thoughts on this topic.

 

Notice that it said:

 

Straight-identified men who have sex with men are more likely to be foreign born than gay men.

 

I think this might be due to the fact that some men (from VERY conservative) other countries have a harder time dealing with being "gay". They're still gay but they can't deal with the label. So instead, "I'm straight...I uhh just like to mess around with guys sometimes"

 

Also, a man who says he is straight but is having sex with other men is more likely to be married than a straight man who has sex with women

 

I think this represents the gay men who really wanted to lead a traditional life and/or had a great deal of pressure placed on them to get married and raise a family. Again they're gay but probably haven't taken the label.

 

My main thought though: people aren't designed to fit into neat little boxes. Sure there's some people for whom the labels "Gay, straight, bisexual" fit, but I think many, if not most, people would find that if they were 100% open and honest with themselves, and weren't living in a society which demanded labels, would find there's a great deal of overlapping and shades of gray. For example I think I fit better into the "gay" category than the "bisexual" category, but it's by no means a perfect fit.

 

In an ideal world we'd all wear little little buzzers that went off when there was a mutural attraction with someone available and we'd never give a 2nd thought to the person's gender, instead trusting the buzzer to alert us when twe were each interested. Alas, however this isn't a perfect world and the best we can do is try to pack ourselves into neat little boxes, according to our general inclinations and motives, so that others will know how to relate to us.

 

Anyway just my thoughts on it,

Kevin

Edited September 19, 2006 by AFriendlyFace

[knotme]

Not enough to get me to move to the Big Apple, but definitely fascinating! I wonder what fraction of straight men with male sex partners are homophobic in public, and how many of them fall into jamessavic's 2b category?

[Graeme]

I think this represents the gay men who really wanted to lead a traditional life and/or had a great deal of pressure placed on them to get married and raise a family. Again they're gay but probably haven't taken the label.

I think you're correct, though it's rarely that simple. I got married, not because I wanted to lead a traditional life, or because I was pressured to get married, but simply because I met someone who loved me and I loved them back. I was emotionally starved, which was partially due to being gay and in the pre-internet era so I didn't have much chance to safely meet another gay guy near my own age, but there is no doubt in my mind that there was (and still is) genuine love between us. It's just that I'm attracted to guys....

 

The pressure doesn't have to be "a great deal" as you stated -- society puts an expectation on us that isn't great, but it's constant. I'm sincerely hoping that that is changing and that the number of same-sex attracted men (and women) who get married because "it's what's expected" is decreasing. Certainly, at least in Australia, homosexuality is more and more acceptable, though it's not "mainstream" yet. Two guys walking down the street holding hands still attracts attention, though most of the time it will be just stares. Some places are better than others.

 

As a related point, when I came out to my wife she desperately needed counselling to help her cope. We were very lucky in that we quickly found a counsellor who specialises in dealing with women who have found out that their husband is gay, and had been doing it for more than ten years. I am aware that there is at least one similar counsellor in Sydney (from a magazine article a couple of years ago). My wife told me that the counsellor got into this line when she initially counselled men with AIDS. She found out that a number of them were married, and asked who was counselling the wives....

 

My main thought though: people aren't designed to fit into neat little boxes. Sure there's some people for whom the labels "Gay, straight, bisexual" fit, but I think many, if not most, people would find that if they were 100% open and honest with themselves, and weren't living in a society which demanded labels, would find there's a great deal of overlapping and shades of gray. For example I think I fit better into the "gay" category than the "bisexual" category, but it's by no means a perfect fit.

My version of this is "Putting people into neat little boxes doesn't work, unless you use a chainsaw."

[C James]

I think this might be due to the fact that some men (from VERY conservative) other countries have a harder time dealing with being "gay". They're still gay but they can't deal with the label. So instead, "I'm straight...I uhh just like to mess around with guys sometimes"

I think this represents the gay men who really wanted to lead a traditional life and/or had a great deal of pressure placed on them to get married and raise a family. Again they're gay but probably haven't taken the label.

 

An excelent point!

 

I also think that another factor might be that the definition of "Gay" is by no means constant across cultures. In some, only being the "bottom" is considered "Gay".

 

BTW, I sure agree with your point about people not being designed to fit into neat little boxes and definitions!!!

[Krista]

Well at least they were honest during a survey. Some kind of hope for honesty and freedom I guess. I really do feel for the people who are pressured into living in a way that they know would make them unhappy. I also hate that we have to label and profile everyone just to be able to function.

 

But, I see or hear about it everyday in Kentucky of the pressures. I mean I have been called a lesbian because I for some reason am not married yet. I've dated a lot over the years as well. In high school if you didn't ever have a boyfriend or girlfriend you were automatically labeled as gay or lesbian. Just stupidity, so the pressures for them to always be adamant about labeling themselves as straight is justified.

 

Just another thing to frown on society for.

 

Krista

[Eddy]

My main thought though: people aren't designed to fit into neat little boxes. Sure there's some people for whom the labels "Gay, straight, bisexual" fit, but I think many, if not most, people would find that if they were 100% open and honest with themselves, and weren't living in a society which demanded labels, would find there's a great deal of overlapping and shades of gray. For example I think I fit better into the "gay" category than the "bisexual" category, but it's by no means a perfect fit.

 

Kevin -- You hit the nail on the head!!!! It is total grey -- from a pure white (straight) to pure black (gay)

 

If what they say is true that 10% of the male population is "Gay" then I think that same 10% figure should hold true for the "Straight" population There by leaving 80% in the "Grey" area with a true bi-sexual (50-50) in the middle. One might also say that the "pure" White/Black might only be 1% of the population on each end -- leaving 98% of the population somewhere in the "Grey" area.

 

Either are interesting on a logical scale/level -- proving it is an entirely different matter.

 

Quite frankly, the 1% seems more logical if we are going to paint a true black to white grey scale. Once you start leading away from either black or white you are immediately moving into the grey scale. It really depends on how finely the scale is divided. So why would a logical person "load" each end of the scale with 10% White and 10% Black unless the graduations are 10% increments ????

 

This is all assuming that we can buy into the grey scale assumption. Quite frankly, I buy into it completely!! In fact, I think that truly is the "way it is". I know this logic is pushing the envelope --- but on the other hand, couldn't it be true???? Like they say -- "being at the right place at the right time" suggests, in my opinion, the grey x\y scale works!!

 

All we need are 100 random people to prove it -- or 100,000 people.

 

Comments invited!!!!!!!

Edited September 20, 2006 by Eddy

[Graeme]

The research for this has been done. What you are talking about is the Kinsey scale -- rating from 0 to 6, where zero is completely heterosexual and six is completely homosexual:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

 

Two, three and four would correspond to bisexual.

 

Even so, I think it's not precise. I consider myself to be gay, but I'm in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. I am same-sex attracted, but the only person I have sex with is of the opposite sex. I've got no interest in having sex with any other women -- where do I fit into the scale? The answer to that question depends on whether you look at behaviour or desire. On behaviour, I'm a zero on the scale. On desire, I'm a five....

 

As a last comment, I sincerely doubt that the general population is evenly distributed on the scale. It is almost certain that the majority fit into the zero-to-two range.

[JamesSavik]

I don't like to deal with guys that identify themselves as str8 but enjoy fooling around. They don't know who they are. You see this quite a lot in teens where it is expected.

 

If they are 30 and still experimenting, then they'll probably never get the formula right.

[DarkShadow]

It seems to me, that our society will always skew the numbers on this issue. Our religious beliefs, social acceptability, and environment all play a very large role. If we were to take away religious beliefs, and remove the stigma of homosexuality from our environment, I have a strong suspicion that there would be a wide majority right in the center.

 

There are many ancient societies that accepted homosexuality as common place. It wasn

[Graeme]

It seems to me, that our society will always skew the numbers on this issue. Our religious beliefs, social acceptability, and environment all play a very large role. If we were to take away religious beliefs, and remove the stigma of homosexuality from our environment, I have a strong suspicion that there would be a wide majority right in the center.

 

...

 

I simply consider it personal preference. I like blue and black clothing. I wear those colors almost every day. But… I do also have a red shirt, a yellow one, and a green one! I just almost never wear them.

I understand what you are saying, but that last paragraph needs clarification. Homosexuality (to whatever degree, 100% downwards) is NOT a preference. What you are saying is that if you are attracted to either sex (ie. you fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum from heterosexual to homosexual), THEN you have a personal preference for how you express your sexuality. For those at the extremes, it's not a personal preference, but part of their nature.

 

I'm sure it wasn't your intention but I feel that a very clear distinction needs to be made between sexuality (which is part of our nature) and expressions of sexuality (which is a personal choice). I could have sex with lots of different people but I choose not to. If I were given a choice (and ignoring the fact that I'm married), I would prefer a guy -- but that preference is because by my nature I'm attracted to guys. It's not a "preference" in that I'm choosing to be attracted to guys, it's a preference in that because I'm attracted to guys, I would prefer to have a guy as my partner.

 

I know it's a fine point, but with people out there saying homosexuality is a choice, I think it needs to be made.

 

Graeme

 

PS: And I have no intention of ever leaving my wife. The above comment is completely hypothetical for me.

[DarkShadow]

I should have probably worded that better. We all have choices. I could choose to be unhappy, miserable, and waste my life and someone elses, by not following my nature and marry a woman. I am attracted to men. It isn't that I choose to be attracted to them. What I do choose, however, is to pursue that attraction. I believe we should all choose to pursue what makes us most happy, so long as we do no harm.

 

Now on that note, If I were to find a woman (by some inceivable means) that I were attracted to sexually and spiritually, then I would be with them (if possible), even if I found other men HOT!

 

Hope that makes a bit more sense. Take care!

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but that last paragraph needs clarification. Homosexuality (to whatever degree, 100% downwards) is NOT a preference. What you are saying is that if you are attracted to either sex (ie. you fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum from heterosexual to homosexual), THEN you have a personal preference for how you express your sexuality. For those at the extremes, it's not a personal preference, but part of their nature.

 

I'm sure it wasn't your intention but I feel that a very clear distinction needs to be made between sexuality (which is part of our nature) and expressions of sexuality (which is a personal choice). I could have sex with lots of different people but I choose not to. If I were given a choice (and ignoring the fact that I'm married), I would prefer a guy -- but that preference is because by my nature I'm attracted to guys. It's not a "preference" in that I'm choosing to be attracted to guys, it's a preference in that because I'm attracted to guys, I would prefer to have a guy as my partner.

 

I know it's a fine point, but with people out there saying homosexuality is a choice, I think it needs to be made.

 

Graeme

 

PS: And I have no intention of ever leaving my wife. The above comment is completely hypothetical for me.

[knotme]

I think you're correct, though it's rarely that simple. I got married, not because I wanted to lead a traditional life, or because I was pressured to get married, but simply because I met someone who loved me and I loved them back. ... My wife told me that the counsellor got into this line when she initially counselled men with AIDS. She found out that a number of them were married, and asked who was counselling the wives....

My version of this is "Putting people into neat little boxes doesn't work, unless you use a chainsaw."

Thanks for sharing! It gives us (ok, me) a new insight into some of your stories. Which are great, by the way ( )