Re: Homosexuality: male & female

Lars Eighner (
11 Sep 1996 10:34:55 -0500

In our last episode <515fpv$>,
Broadcast on sci.anthropology
The lovely and talented (Yousuf Khan) wrote:

>On 10 Sep 1996 07:51:04 -0500, (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>>In our last episode <512qo1$>,
>>Broadcast on sci.anthropology
>>The lovely and talented (Yousuf Khan) wrote:
>>>Is it just my imagination or do male homosexuals tend to outnumber female

>So let me get this straight (I'm not being facetious here, I really am not
>certain what you are saying here), you're saying:
>(1)yes, males outnumber females because the studies say so.
>(2)however, this could be because of cultural biases
>(3)however, even if cultural biases are factored in nearly every society
>out with nearly equal numbers, so it can't be because of cultural biases
>Is that right? It's between points #2 and #3 that I got kinda lost.

Close. It is more like:

1) All the studies show vastly more males than females.
2) The studies are biased and imperfect and this seems to contribute
to *some* of the difference.
3) But the difference is so large and so commonly reported that *some*
of the difference seems to be real.

Or in other words, there are reasons to think the difference has been
exaggerated. There is no reason to think it doesn't exist at all.

>>However, there really is no good reason to suppose a priori that
>>male homosexuality and female homosexuality would be symmetrical
>>phenomena. So far the interesting but far from conclusive attempts
>>at finding a biological basis of homosexuality have almost all
>>restricted themselves to male subjects or made wholly unwarrented
>>assumptions about female subjects. Female homosexuality has been
>>extensively under-studied and ignored.
>Why should this be the case anymore? I've seen for decades now that
>psychology majors are evenly male and female, so one would think that
>studies should be symmetrical now too, since the studiers are now evenly
>distributed too.

I can't explain this. But of course it not merely so for studies
of sexuality, but is largely so for all kinds of psychological,
phramacological, physiological, etc., etc. studies. All kinds
of research seem to think that being a college-aged male is
the normative state of humankind.

>>>Also, what are the latest figures on the percentage of homosexuality in the
>>>general population? Last I heard they were talking about 10% of the human
>>>population is fully homosexual,
>>There is essentially no basis for this figure, if by fully homosexual
>>you mean life-long homosexuality with no opposite-sex sexual experience
>>whatever. The figure for that kind of homosexuality is consistently
>>in the 2-4% range every place a reasonably well designed study has
>>been attempted. However, there seems to be considerable reason to
>>accept Kinsey's view that sexuality should be seen as a continuous
>>variable, and the 10% figure is not entirely out of the question if
>>you take homosexual to mean someone who has more same-sex contacts than
>>opposite-sex contacts.
>Funny, I would've thought the 10% figure was right on the money. And yes,
>when I say "fully homosexual", I mean no heterosexual acts whatsoever. I
>was under the impression that Kinsey had said 10% _fully_ homosexual, not
>just _predominantly_ homosexual. I've not been able to find the text of
>Kinsey's study at my library, so I was hoping somebody could've quoted from
>it, if they had a copy.

Opps. I looked at your signature before I responded and did not
think you were at the ends of the earth. But I don't have a
copy at home, so must of this is from memory.

Exclusive, life long homosexuals: 3.7%
Exclusively homosexual for three years or more: 6.2%
More homosexual than heterosexual for three years or more: 10.4%
Any homosexual contact leading to orgasm: 37%
Homosexual arousal/fantasies, no contact: 13%

These are just the few figures I recall immediately.

>I don't think they are too old, but I'm surprised that no one has done a
>followup study since then. And I don't think those numbers are wrong; I
>used to think that maybe they were too high, but now I'm starting to see
>the logic of his numbers.

I don't believe it will soon be financially possible to do an
adequate study. Kinsey's figures were so disturbing that sources
of research funds are very adverse to any such study again.

=Lars Eighner=4103 Ave D (512)459-6693==_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
= =Austin TX 78751-4617_/ alt.books.lars-eighner _/
= _/ now at better ISPs everywhere _/
="Yes, Lizbeth is fine."==========_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/