Kevin Drum says
Karl Smith notes a Gallup poll showing that half of all respondents think more than 20% of Americans are gay or lesbian:
"What makes this interesting to me is not that people are bad at demographics. It's that I would assume that people’s immediate experience is influencing their estimate of all of America. Yet, 52% of America can’t be experiencing anything like 1 out of every 5 people I know is gay."
...
The real number, by the way, is around 3-4%.
Source: Kevin Drum
Sheesh!
So... where do you suppose that 20% figure comes from? My first thought was that people who actually are LGBT might be more aware of the higher densities in their circles of friends and thus might themselves think they're 20% of the population? But that just means my first thought was dumb: first because most LGBT people I've met are actually pretty darn aware of the facts on the ground, but also because even if they did all believe it that would still be only 1.5% to 2% of the population they'd still add up to a rounding error.
So... I don't know.
Drum suggests
I think the real explanation for this is a lot simpler: gay and lesbian issues have been getting a lot of attention in the news lately, and that naturally makes people think they're more numerous than they really are. And personal experience probably has little to do with it. They themselves might know very few gays, but they just figure that's because all the gay people live in San Francisco or Seattle or New York.
Always possible. An even simpler explanation might be that close to half the population (a.k.a. men) are sufficiently marinated in the frat-party, spring break, porn, and (more sedately) online-dating-site-profile fueled notion that enough of other half of the population (a.k.a. women*) are up for some hawt girl on girl action (if you just get them liquored up first.*) Similarly close to half the population (a.k.a. women) are sufficiently marinated in gross "a cock has no conscience" stereotypes about men plus ravenous consumption of slash fiction to imagine that men are more opportunistic with each other then they let on in public. And that should be enough to get that number up to 20%.
*Which has always struck me as silly. As an anonymous contributor to 25 Things About My Sexuality put it
14. I get frustrated with men who insist all women will hook up with another woman if they're horny enough. Excuse me, I have toys for that.
Source: 25 Things About My Sexuality
Maybe because that makes sense to me I'm not surprised the correct number of LGBT Americans is probably closer to 3-4%.
"An even simpler explanation
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-27 21:05."An even simpler explanation might be that close to half the population (a.k.a. men) are sufficiently marinated in the frat-party, spring break, porn, and (more sedately) online-dating-site-profile fueled notion that enough of other half of the population (a.k.a. women*) are up for some hawt girl on girl action (if you just get them liquored up first) to get that number up to 20%*."
Why are you trying so hard to invent an explanation for this misconception that blames men? For one thing, I see no evidence that men perceive women who make out at parties as being gay in the first place. The whole girl-on-girl dynamic seems firmly founded in heterosexual socialization and I think everyone involved is acutely aware of that. It's no different that women enjoying slash (which is much more widespread than people realize), so why no factoring in of that as well? Drum's explanation seems right on point and doesn't *Gasp!* needlessly blame a whole gender.
Great point about slash, tu
Submitted by figleaf on Fri, 2011-05-27 21:45.Great point about slash, tu quoque! I'll update my post immediately.
Ok, done. I seriously wasn't trying to run men down in that post, by the way. I think we *really are* led to believe that women have "more fluid sexuality" than men do. Which I'm not sure is true. In either direction.
--fl
I think you brought up
Submitted by PattyCake (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-27 22:25.I think you brought up something interesting about the fluidity of sexuality in males and females.
Do the guys who are hooking up in rest stops, airport bathrooms and XXX booths identify as bisexual? Do the women who make out with each other in dance clubs identify as bisexual? It would not seem so - but behaviorally, they seem to be bisexual.
And I identify myself as a bisexual woman - because I am attracted to women - and I've never gone past a kiss with another woman. Would the typical respondent think of me as bisexual? It seems that women might make out with each other publicly, but not have sex privately. Men might have sex semi-privately. And neither group would necessarily describe themselves as gay or bisexual.
There are a lot of studies (most flawed, but then this survey is too) that indicate the number of college-educated people who have had gay/lesbian "experiences" to be something close to 50% for men and 75% for women. Maybe people are extrapolatiing from that.
The survey seems flawed because it relies on the respondents to define for themselves what "gay/bisexual" is. And it seems you can behave bisexually without thinkig of yourself that way.
Pretty brilliant points,
Submitted by figleaf on Sat, 2011-05-28 09:48.Pretty brilliant points, Patty. First, that a lot of people "behave" bisexually who don't acknowledge it. And second that a lot of people have "bisexual" feelings but never act on them.
I've got a hunch that, once again, and contrary to popular belief, there are approximately equal numbers of men and women in both camps. The main difference being that women are under more pressure (but also have more "permission") to admit it whereas men are under equal but opposite pressure to deny it.
Same internal feelings. Possibly same degree of acting on it too. Just really different perceptions.
Hmm. Gotta think more about this.
fl
While it is somewhat off the
Submitted by RachelA (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-27 22:28.While it is somewhat off the topic of the actual post, I feel I must protest your contention that slash is parallel and analogous to het. men liking girl-on-girl. As a long time member of the slash community, I can tell you that the pleasure a lot of women derive from reading and writing these stories is much more complicated than just wanting to 'see' 2 guys doing it. If it was just about that, slashers would simply watch gay porn.
Slash is about witnessing the sexual consumation of an often long-term and intimate relationship between 2 characters. The male protagonists in these stories typically have a very strong personal history with one another and a lot of the sexiness of slash comes from the fact the sex is posited as NOT 'just' sex but as the physical denouement of a latent love story.
When het. guys want to watch two girls make out at a party, they don't give a crap what the girls' relationship or personal histories are with one another. That adds nothing to the sexual appeal of the scenario. In slash, the personal history between the characters is THE defining aspect of that makes the sexual senario sexy to the reader/writer.
Don't get me wrong. Slash often serves the 'funtion' of arousal material for women. But it does not work for the same reasons that the mere image of two hot girls kissing works on het guys. When 2 women make out in such a scenario they are usually doing it solely to titilate the men who are watching them, and you are right that the gaze and dynamic is still very heterosexual. In slash, the men aren't sexually consumating their relationship for the women 'watching'; the women's gaze is irrelevent to the sexual dynamic of the narrative and thus I would argue it does not fall into the same heterosexualized paradigm that girls-gone-wild does.
Also, the girl-gone-wild thing happens with real people usually. Slash is entirely fictional. Slash isn't likely to give people false impression about the demographic commonness of homosexuality the way girls-gone-wild is.
“As a long time member of
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-27 23:12.“As a long time member of the slash community, I can tell you that the pleasure a lot of women derive from reading and writing these stories is much more complicated than just wanting to 'see' 2 guys doing it.”
I’ve been reading slash for about ten years and have made a few bad attempts at writing it, so I’m pretty familiar with the phenomenon. It’s funny that I disagree with most of your points. It’s pretty well-known that slash, moreso than other fan fiction genres, is guilty of “Plot? What plot?”
“In slash, the men aren't sexually consumating their relationship for the women 'watching'; the women's gaze is irrelevent to the sexual dynamic of the narrative and thus I would argue it does not fall into the same heterosexualized paradigm that girls-gone-wild does.”
It’s still heterosexual because men/maleness is acting as an object of arousal for women, even if the men and women involved are separated by the “fourth wall” so to speak.
“When het. guys want to watch two girls make out at a party, they don't give a crap what the girls' relationship or personal histories are with one another. That adds nothing to the sexual appeal of the scenario.”
Watching two girls make out at a party is one shade of the homoeroticism spectrum. “Lesbian” eroticism involving complex, well-drawn women is common in mainstream and classical literature written by men. I’d bet you that knowledge of a relationship between the two drunk sorority girls would make it hotter-it’s just not *necessary*.
“Also, the girl-gone-wild thing happens with real people usually. Slash is entirely fictional. Slash isn't likely to give people false impression about the demographic commonness of homosexuality the way girls-gone-wild is.”
RealPersonSlash is hugely popular. If you’re in an all-male, alt-rock band and eyeliner is involved, you will be slashed within an inch of your life and your female slashers will make sure you know about it. Also, members of these bands will play up the “gay” angle because they know how it titillates some of their fans. This also happens with non-famous people like male cos-players at yaoi conventions, as well as teen goths who just want some quick attention. What this does is confuse the concepts of sexual orientation and the desire to be desired. Being the object of desire, turning people on, is a turn on itself, but what does mean when you’re engaging in an act that wouldn’t arouse you when no one’s looking?
The plot exist within the
Submitted by RachelA (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-28 00:32.The plot exist within the cannon. The "Plot? What plot?" style only works with slash because the characters histories are already set up by the published story. Slash is the best of both worlds in that sense. You can get the instant gratification of porn, but still have it be the consumation of a larger backstory that you already know from the cannon narrative. Otherwise, as I said, women would just watch gay porn, or they'd write stories about faceless, nameless men they've just made up. The only reason to borrow from a cannon narrative is because something about those characters, and their particular history, appeals to you.
And I realize there is still a het dynamic to slash in the sense that it is women getting sexual gratification from the actions of (fictional) men. However, the men within the story don't do their sexual acts for the gaze of the women; that is not their rationale for engaging sexually with one another. And that does make a difference in my opinion. When straight girls make out girls-gone-wild style, it is almost solely to please the men watching. Within a slash narrative the characters usually only engage in sexual activity because they so desperately desire it with one another, often in spite of the gaze of others. What other people want to see - heteronormativity - is often an obstacle in slash, something the characters must overcome to consumate their love/desire. They don't act because of what other people want from them, they usually act in spite of what others want from them.
Girls-gone-wild is often about women trying to be outright pleasing to men, regardless of their own desires. Slash is often about men consumating their own desires, regardless of what is pleasing to others. Thus I would conclude that while slash might be heterosexual, in the sense that it is women getting sexual gratification from men, it is NOT heteronormative the way girls-gone-wild is. Slash does not, in my opinion, create or perpetuate the idea that homoeroticisms exists solely to sexually please people of the opposite gender; GGW does, I think, perpetuate that myth. It's a crucial distinction.
As per your last point. I am aware of RealPersonSlash but would argue that it fills a different fantasy void than Slash Fan Fiction and therefore the two should not be conflated. I think you are right to observe that RPS is more along the lines of GGW and you make a very interesting point about the desire to be desired. But I would still maintain that slash derived from fiction is constitutively different from RPS and the politics of the two genres are unique, as is what they reveal about female desire and fanatsizing.
“The ‘Plot? What plot?’
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-28 01:08.“The ‘Plot? What plot?’ style only works with slash because the characters histories are already set up by the published story.”
Not always. I’ve read plenty of slash stories were the author sketches original characters with just enough detail to trigger all her turn ons and then dives into the sex. This is essentially no more deep those cheesy pornos with their paper thin plots and cartoonish characters. You could argue that this type of story isn’t actually “slash,” but many slashers seem to have no problem calling it such, which is indicative of a trend in the medium. Slash used to specifically refer to fan fiction that brought to the surface romantic subtexts between male characters in some type of a story, but more and more I see it referring to any kind of female-generated erotica involving buttsecks.
“They don't act because of what other people want from them, they usually act in spite of what others want from them.”
You’re not comparing analogous things. What makes both heterosexual is the dynamic between the audience and the gender presentation of the desired objects. The audience of girl-on-girl is real life men; the audience of slash is real life women, not the society that exists within the story. My argument was about the type of arousal slash is engendering, not the type it’s depicting.
“But I would still maintain that slash derived from fiction is constitutively different from RPS and the politics of the two genres are unique, as is what they reveal about female desire and fanatsizing.”
There are probably political and ethical differences, but I would say that the impulse behind rps is exactly the same as slash fiction generally.
"What makes both heterosexual
Submitted by figleaf on Sat, 2011-05-28 08:00."What makes both heterosexual is the dynamic between the audience and the gender presentation of the desired objects. The audience of girl-on-girl is real life men; the audience of slash is real life women, not the society that exists within the story. My argument was about the type of arousal slash is engendering, not the type it’s depicting."
Yes! This!
One can argue that adherents cut to the chase from different directions, and in all forms of erotica one can cut to the chase to different degrees. But if the question is "what could contribute to give half of all straight people the impression that 20% of the population is gay?" then it's not teriffically relevant.
Thanks,
fl
Quick note for TQ: I'd also
Submitted by figleaf on Sat, 2011-05-28 10:02.Quick note for TQ: I'd also just add that this debate could be conducted over why MRAs and Radfems seem so similar to outsiders even though both object and are 100% offended by the comparison since, seen from the inside, the intention and emphasis seems totally different.
fl
And it's not as if the gay
Submitted by Jerry (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-28 00:18.And it's not as if the gay press hasn't been contributing to this perception as well. Time was, every time the Kinsey Institute or any other sex-research organization put out some sort of results about same-sex behavior, various gay journalists would pounce on it, unjustifiably extrapolating the data to trumpet the increasing size of the gay community, naturally equating incidental sexual behavior with political identity. I think the last time I saw this unfortunate tendency have a very real impact was back in the early nineties, when the Kinsey Institute released some data that suggested that a sample of men in a certain age group (one that was fairly young at the time) had indicated that one in four of them had engaged in some form of same-gender sexual contact before the age of 21. There was actually a guy who came into the gay bar I did graphic work for that had been told this at his college graduation and literally figured that he was behind the curve and needed to catch up, getting into a short-term frivolous sexual relationship with the bartender. That much got complicated when his cousin, one of the barbacks (and a closeted-to-family lesbian) found out.
Yikes.
The thing about that, though, was that the regional bar rag had done the write-up on the study willfully misrepresented the data, saying outright that 25% of people in the state - not just men, not just in the researched age range - were all gay-identified because of something that may have only happened once.
From that point, I think a fair amount of the confusion comes from equating behavior with identity, as always seems (or perhaps should) come up every time something like this comes up in the large context of human sexuality. And again, some of this over-estimation is also very much linked to the aforementioned increased visibility in popular media and entertainment, for better or worse. And that hackneyed notion from porn culture that "two girls doing it are lesbians" is wholly rooted in that icky "male gaze" thing, tied to what men expect female sexuality to be versus what it actually is (indeed, there is a sex toy for that).
Overall, there is still the cultural problem of groupthink associating behavior with identity, which fucks up sex for everyone, no matter how they identify or what they may enjoy.
Regarding the % figures, I
Submitted by docharv (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-28 13:04.Regarding the % figures, I would contend the number is so high, compared to actual estimates, because the entertainment industry has made it seem like that is the case. Question? Can anyone think of one TV series program that does not have a GLB plot line?
The programming now makes the lifestyle always look like it is just a normal aspect of everyday life, with storylines ranging from G/L marriage to divorce, to child adoption, and, of course, cheating!
Now this is not meant to be any type of condemnation. Rather it's just that most people, watching the adulation which is often trivial, may very well jump to a conclusion. This is no different than when people actually think an actor/actress is just like their character. As one might argue in a legal proceeding -the preponderance of the evidence- is quite persuasive.
I do believe that more women are able to explore a bi sexual relationship. I have no doubt that one of the biggest motivators is that so many women just do not get what they need from their men. Yes, there are probably some committed L's, however, one might suspect, it's more just "being curious" and/or having a little fun w/o any committment. I would bet that most are really just another type of FWB.
I am not aware of any statistics, however, I would also bet that there is a significant % of committed gay males vs casual then there are committed lesbian vs casual [bi] relationships.
Finally, as a man, I would argue the fascination we have with watching 2 or more women enjoying each other is really much more about either wishful thinking that we might get lucky and be asked to join-in. There is also the strong possibility that it is just another way men try to control women. The behavior is very much like what often happens with swingers. Men/husbands/boyfriends are usually the one that does everything possible to convince their women/wives/girlfriends to experience the lifestyle. Why? Because it becomes an easy way for them to have some fun w/o any issues. However, often a big problem occurs when their woman really does enjoy the lifestyle so much that they no longer can be controlled by the man!
I think what you're meaning
Submitted by Jerry (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-28 14:53.I think what you're meaning to say - and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - is that popular entertainment tends to optimistically represent gays/lesbians as being more cleanly integrated into culture than perhaps they actually are, and that's very true. It's something I find is prevalent in a lot of advertising as well, and not just about gays/lesbians. I see commercials pushing various kinds of products where the advertiser will make sure to include a person/family of color, with the sense of what should be, rather than what is more often than not. Not saying that there's no such things as cuturally/racially integrated neighborhoods, because I've grown up in several, but it does strike me as somewhat odd at how Stepford things can get in an advertising climate driven by the need to be inclusive most of the time. The same argument, humorously, was something that was brought up in reference to shows like Friends, where six white people living in Manhattan (in apartments none of them could afford in the jobs they have) don't seem to know or even encounter any black people. Worlds that don't exist in television versus the ones that do...
Idealistic inclusivity can confuse matters statistically, most definitely.
Optimistic vs Accepted
Submitted by docharv (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-29 06:40.Optimistic vs Accepted Norm
Really the latter was more my point. Maybe I am parsing the word, however, popular entertianment does show the lifestyle as simply just "everyday life." I find that different then the wishes of advertisers whose inclusivity is simply intended to "market" their product or service to as many people as possible. You know that damn "evil profit motive."
I would posit; the preponderance shown in popular entertainment is much more than wishful thinking or glossing over reality. Rather it is a conscious effort by the entertainment industry to cast a positive light on being gay or lesbian. Regardless of whether it is or not, their efforts will cause viewers to believe it is reality. All one has to do is see how the actual "reality" programming has become so prevalent on television. We all know that it does not really depict reality. Yet it is called that.
One would have to ask why not a reality series about the lifestyle. Because it's not needed. A faux reality has already been created by "normal" programming.
my own guess woul;d have been
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-28 15:37.my own guess woul;d have been , say, 14%, based on the statistics rights advocates usually tell us, based on Kinsley or some more recent researcher; an if this doesn't match my life, I would think that it's because people are too afraid to be out. Also, it's said over and over againt that these things are not a binary, that htere are lots and lots of bisexuals... so a well-meaning liberal will tend to blieve the bigger numbers, not the smaller ones.
regardless of te porn she reads.
This is tangential, but the
Submitted by FD (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-29 05:24.This is tangential, but the slash discussion made me wonder if perhaps some men are attracted to f/f porn in the same way certain of my acqaintaince are attracted to m/m slash fiction - for them it doesn't have the same cultural gender bullshit that writing about f/m sex has. Obviously it has its own cultural baggage, but it's different cultural baggage, and the gender /perpective divide dilutes the projection/ association problem.
I have a simpler suggestion.
Submitted by Katherine (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-29 19:24.I have a simpler suggestion. Don't you remember some 'facts' being circulated 5-10 years ago that "1 in 5 people are gay" (sometimes it was 1 in 6 or 1 in 10)? People could just be remembering hearing that, and reporting it back, regardless of how many gay men or lesbians they actually know.
It might not have circulated where you are, but I doubt that those 'facts' were exclusive to New Zealand (where I heard them).
I'm having some trouble posting this, sorry in advance if I post multiple times.