Thread: Gay population in the USA....1.7%...less than 2%

Originally Posted by sec

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...of-population/

the article is a year old but the number is similar to the Gay Times article which I've posted several times.

What is of interest is that there is a number who also report to having engaged in gay sex. Would you count them as being gay?

Do you accept the less than 2% number or should those who engage in gay sex also be counted?

what do you see as the reason that the number is much lower than the 3-5% which has wrongly been tossed around?

The reason is just as you've stated, there are many different ways to define "gay". I don't think 3-5%+ numbers have been "wrongly" tossed around, except to the extent that you disagree with how the being "gay" is defined. The higher estimates, anywhere between 5 and 10% are life-time prevalence numbers, not snapshots at a point in time.

Are you gay if you identify as gay?
Are you gay if you have same-sex attractions which you may have never acted on?
Are you gay if you have had sex with someone of the same sex EVER, or only if you have done so recently?
When you are estimating the "gay" population, are you using the life-time prevalence, or only the prevalence at this point in time?
At what age are you asked to identify your behavior/attractions? If a 13 year old virgin is asked if he's had gay sex, and he's said no because he's a virgin, does that make him straight or could he still be gay?

I would not say any single definition is wrong, it just has to be understood for what it is. Even among reputable & professional studies, there is no standard definition used. IMO, the "correct" definition largely depends on the purpose of the study.

For example, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention uses "Has engaged in same-sex activities in the last 5 years for men over the age of 13, regardless of sexual identity or attraction". And this definition makes sense for those who are concerned strictly about the spread of STD's around those who engage in same-sex sexual behavior. But a substantial number of minors 13-18 have not had sex, and will thus be excluded from the that statistic. Consequently, psychologists and those who want to understand the extent and nature of problems that gay youth face would likely use a different definition.... either identity, or same-sex attraction, regardless of if they've had sex or not. There are practical reasons for using one definition vs another, but I agree that these statistics are often misused and misrepresented, mostly by those who don't understand the difference between the statistics that aren't actually measuring the same thing.

Originally Posted by sec

then you agree that the criteria for homosexuality is the act itself. I agree with that and believe if counted correctly the number may well be near the 5% we hear about.

The act itself is a strong indicator, but it's not the sole criteria IMO... depending on the purpose of course. There are many adults who have never had gay sex for fear of the stigma, not until many years later when they finally come out of the closet. There are also many teenagers who are virgins, some of whom have same-sex attractions and some of whom have opposite-sex attractions.

IMO, it's the same-sex attraction that is the definitive criteria when we want to measure the population as a whole. This is especially true of gay youth, who we may wish to study in order to help them deal with the social stigmas they face... if we only included gay youth who have had gay sex, we'd be missing a huge portion of the population. Similarly, if we only included youth who identified as gay, we'd be missing a huge portion of the population. Thus this population would include those who identify as gay + those who have gay behavior + those who have strong same-sex attractions, but have not acted on them nor identify themselves as gay. That last group will be especially difficult to survey and quantify, but the life-time prevalence of homosexual behavior will likely get us pretty close... nevertheless it can only be estimated by proxy.

But as I said before, the definitions are only as useful as their purpose.... The CDC can continue to rely strictly on the behavioral definition, including only those who have had gay sex recently because it makes sense for their purposes.

So I guess the first question to ask when we're deciding what the correct definition is, what is the purpose of measuring in the first place?

Originally Posted by sec

on this we definitely agree and thus why I am against any affirmative action type program where one special interest group is given protected status

Of course, no one is contemplating giving gays "special rights." They are contemplating prohibiting discrimination (in marriage, among other things) on the basis of sexual orientation. That disallows discrimination for/against *any* sexual orientation: straight, gay, a, bi.

The "one special interest group" claim is old, tired and long discredited.

To target market to 4-5 million people doesn't get my blood moving. But, if that market is more like 10-15 million and is under-served, then that is an interesting market.

Traditionally, gay couples have tended to be more well off than the average, with high average disposable income (thanks to both partners working, and being less likely to have children). Gay male couples, in particular, do well, benefiting from the gender gap in pay that favors men. That makes them a particularly desirable demographic in some industries -- they basically have a very high percentage of DINKs (Double Income, No Kids).

That's changing a lot, as gays increasingly have or adopt kids and one or the other chooses to be a stay-at-home parent. But absent discrimination, gay couples will probably continue to have more disposable income, on average, than non-gay couples, because more of them fit the DINK profile.

Originally Posted by sec

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...of-population/

the article is a year old but the number is similar to the Gay Times article which I've posted several times.

What is of interest is that there is a number who also report to having engaged in gay sex. Would you count them as being gay?

Do you accept the less than 2% number or should those who engage in gay sex also be counted?

what do you see as the reason that the number is much lower than the 3-5% which has wrongly been tossed around?

bisexuals can do either or both, they are the only ones with a choice

Originally Posted by FreshAir

bisexuals can do either or both, they are the only ones with a choice

I'd argue that sexual orientation is a spectrum, not a series of discrete points. If a pure heterosexual is 100% attracted to the opposite sex, pure homosexuals are 100% attracted to the same sex, and pure bis are 50/50, it stands to reason that there are people who are 90/10, 80/20, and so on.

Someone who was 90/10 hetero could choose a purely hetero lifestyle with little internal difficulty, and might even self-identify as hetero -- particularly if there is a cultural bias against homosexuality.

Someone who was 60/40 hetero would have a much more difficult time being "purely" hetero. Someone who was 90/10 homo might occasionally have opposite-gender sex, but that wouldn't make them hetero. Or even bi, really.

Originally Posted by sec

to the 2 points underlined

that is why identifying those who have engaged in the act is important. I would venture to guess that those who claim to be bi would share similar political leanings as well as consumer habits as those who claim to be gay. They should be counted.

WRT to those who are not engaged in the sexual act that would be the older folk who were once sexually active and thus should be counted.

Demographics intrigue me and thus why I made this thread.

Well, since you're looking at this from a consumer standpoint, then perhaps the importance (or lack there of) between the two can be highlighted like this:


Someone who does not identify as gay (or bisexual), but has same-sex behavior is not likely to go to gay events, gay prides, etc. He's not going to buy a gay news magazine, gay romance novel or a rainbow bumper sticker. You won't see him on a gay cruise or on other romantic getaways oriented for homosexual couples. He's not going to be looking for some venue to perform his gay-wedding. This is just not your target audience for measuring market penetration and market size. This guy just has gay sex on occasion, and likely little other involvement. You'll want to market him opportunities to find partners, anonymously... websites for finding sex partners, craigslist, etc. He'll likely want lube and condoms, but he won't want to be market to with rainbow colored labels... he'll want normal "guy" looking products. He'll need doctors/psychologists/etc. that are sensitive to his needs as someone who participates in gay-sex, but whom does not wish to be identified as gay. The CDC will watch this group closely for dangerous behavior and try to target and increase safe-sex among them with marketing campaigns.


This is quite different from someone who identifies as gay, regardless of if he's had gay sex or not. A teenager may not being have sex at all. A 60-70 year old may not be having sex at all. But they may identify as gay nevertheless. These people who identify as gay, but may not be having sex at all may still be interested in attending gay prides, going to gay bars, going on a gay cruise, reading gay magazines, and putting a rainbow colored bumper sticker on their car. They may seek relationship advice and legal advice that would not be necessary for someone who just has casual gay sex... but only necessary for someone romantically involved with same-sex partners. They will go to particular religious institutions that are sensitive to their sexualities, and donate to causes sensitive to them as homosexuals. They will promote gay youth-groups and adult support groups.

Certainly there is a lot of overlap between the two groups, but there are substantial differences as well in terms of how you might segment them from marketing perspective.

Originally Posted by raytri

I'd argue that sexual orientation is a spectrum, not a series of discrete points. If a pure heterosexual is 100% attracted to the opposite sex, pure homosexuals are 100% attracted to the same sex, and pure bis are 50/50, it stands to reason that there are people who are 90/10, 80/20, and so on.

Someone who was 90/10 hetero could choose a purely hetero lifestyle with little internal difficulty, and might even self-identify as hetero -- particularly if there is a cultural bias against homosexuality.

Someone who was 60/40 hetero would have a much more difficult time being "purely" hetero. Someone who was 90/10 homo might occasionally have opposite-gender sex, but that wouldn't make them hetero. Or even bi, really.

Agreed, the spectrum is the best way to understand sexuality, particularly in the sense that someone who's "90/10" can effectively identify as and consider themselves 100% heterosexual, when social stigma represses the feelings that they may not even acknowledge. This has much to do with why children who are raised by same-sex households tend to turn out heterosexual/homosexual at the same rate as those raised in opposite-sex households, but they are also more willing to experiment and less likely to label themselves.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

Agreed, the spectrum is the best way to understand sexuality, particularly in the sense that someone who's "90/10" can effectively identify as and consider themselves 100% heterosexual, when social stigma represses the feelings that they may not even acknowledge. This has much to do with why children who are raised by same-sex households tend to turn out heterosexual/homosexual at the same rate as those raised in opposite-sex households, but they are also more willing to experiment and less likely to label themselves.

I also think it tends to explain the disaster of "reparative" therapy. If you get an 80/20 hetero who wants to "fight their gay feelings", you might succeed in getting that person to repress the 20% and self-identify as pure hetero. Buoyed by that success, you turn to your next client, a 60/40 homo. Much more difficult. Or worse, the worried parents of a 90/10 homo send their child your way. Disaster.

That's why reparative therapy can claim some successes -- if repression of feelings counts as "success" -- while overall being pseudoscience and malarkey.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

Well, since you're looking at this from a consumer standpoint, then perhaps the importance (or lack there of) between the two can be highlighted like this:


Someone who does not identify as gay (or bisexual), but has same-sex behavior is not likely to go to gay events, gay prides, etc. He's not going to buy a gay news magazine, gay romance novel or a rainbow bumper sticker. You won't see him on a gay cruise or on other romantic getaways oriented for homosexual couples. He's not going to be looking for some venue to perform his gay-wedding. This is just not your target audience for measuring market penetration and market size. This guy just has gay sex on occasion, and likely little other involvement. You'll want to market him opportunities to find partners, anonymously... websites for finding sex partners, craigslist, etc. He'll likely want lube and condoms, but he won't want to be market to with rainbow colored labels... he'll want normal "guy" looking products. He'll need doctors/psychologists/etc. that are sensitive to his needs as someone who participates in gay-sex, but whom does not wish to be identified as gay. The CDC will watch this group closely for dangerous behavior and try to target and increase safe-sex among them with marketing campaigns.


This is quite different from someone who identifies as gay, regardless of if he's had gay sex or not. A teenager may not being have sex at all. A 60-70 year old may not be having sex at all. But they may identify as gay nevertheless. These people who identify as gay, but may not be having sex at all may still be interested in attending gay prides, going to gay bars, going on a gay cruise, reading gay magazines, and putting a rainbow colored bumper sticker on their car. They may seek relationship advice and legal advice that would not be necessary for someone who just has casual gay sex... but only necessary for someone romantically involved with same-sex partners. They will go to particular religious institutions that are sensitive to their sexualities, and donate to causes sensitive to them as homosexuals. They will promote gay youth-groups and adult support groups.

Certainly there is a lot of overlap between the two groups, but there are substantial differences as well in terms of how you might segment them from marketing perspective.

good grief,my head hurts

do you think it possible to ascertain the true gay population or at least within a reasonable % ?

Originally Posted by raytri

I also think it tends to explain the disaster of "reparative" therapy. If you get an 80/20 hetero who wants to "fight their gay feelings", you might succeed in getting that person to repress the 20% and self-identify as pure hetero. Buoyed by that success, you turn to your next client, a 60/40 homo. Much more difficult. Or worse, the worried parents of a 90/10 homo send their child your way. Disaster.

That's why reparative therapy can claim some successes -- if repression of feelings counts as "success" -- while overall being pseudoscience and malarkey.

Aye, there's a subtle difference between changing a homosexual to a heterosexual as opposed to turning a homosexual celibate or repressing the homosexual side of a bisexual.

But it's not entirely fair to say that those who promote reparative therapies truly think they are converting someone from homosexual to heterosexual. Often, the feelings of attraction are irrelevant... religious institutions, etc don't really care what's going on in your mind... it's the homosexual BEHAVIOR that's the sin, not the attraction. So the goal is to reduce or eliminate the same-sex behavior. Thus, cases of celibacy or bisexuals repressing their homosexual tendencies are reported as successes, which completely makes sense according to their said goals. And I don't necessarily fault them for that... people do a variety of weird and repressive things for their religion, this being just one of them. If people wish to become celibate for their religion, so be it.

The problem is when people, usually outsiders looking in, misunderstand the results of such therapies and present it as though a full conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality has taken place. These therapies often were indeed successful, but only if you agree on the measure of success.