Friday, November 05, 2010

Stereotypes Take a Beating

There is a dating web site called OK Cupid, with 3.2 million users and a research group that watches trends in the data. So, for instance, they looked at the question of whether gay and lesbian people want to "convert" or "recruit" straight people into their nefarious lifestyle. You have heard anecdotes, but really, if one gay guy flirts with one straight guy one time, and the straight guy tells all his friends for the rest of his life (I actually know somebody who still tells a story like this from the early seventies), and they will tell their friends that they "know somebody" that this happened to, after enough repeating that one incident seems like a common phenomenon.

But it's easy for the researchers at OK Cupid to query their database and ask the simple question, how often do gay people search for straight dating partners?

The answer:
Match Search Returns
  • only 0.6% of gay men have ever searched for straight matches.
  • only 0.1% of lesbians have ever searched for straight matches.
  • only 0.13% of straight people's profile visitors are gay.

Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex

And note, this is the percentage who ever have conducted that type of search. Somebody may have been online for months and finally one night said, well, this isn't working, I wonder if there're any straight guys out there who would be interested. Way less than one percent of gay people have ever done that, even once.

So much for recruiting straight people.

But gay people are so, y'know, promiscuous, aren't they?

OK Cupid collects histories of their users. Here is a summary of median lifetime partners:
Median Reported Sex Partners
  • straight men: 6
  • gay men: 6
  • straight women: 6
  • gay women: 6

There is not a whole lotta variance there. Pretty much looks like about half the people have had six or fewer partners in their lives, whether they are male or female, straight or gay.

Here are the distributions for gay and straight OK Cupid customers.

An interesting comment from the analysts:
It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have ... created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy.

They don't give the corresponding number for straight people.
Another inquiry that had unexpected results: we asked 252,900 straight people have you ever had a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex?

Almost a quarter answered 'yes'.
straight women's same-sex desires:
  • 1 in 3 straight women has hooked up with another woman.
  • and of those who haven't, over 1 in 4 would like to.

As for straight men, a surprisingly high 13% have had a same-sex experience, and another 5% haven't yet but would like to.

All of this is pretty damaging to some kinds of common stereotypes about sexual orientation. If you take the one-third of women who have had a lesbian experience and add the one-quarter who would like to, you have very nearly half (49.95 percent) of women willing to have sex with another woman. Guys, not so much, but nearly one man in five is agreeable to having sex with another man.

These numbers are surprising if you subscribe to the stereotypes. It turns out gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people, as measured in this sample, and more straight people would consider an encounter with someone of their own sex than you might think.

23 Comments:

Anonymous thinking-ism said...

"There is a dating web site called OK Cupid, with 3.2 million users and a research group that watches trends in the data. So, for instance, they looked at the question of whether gay and lesbian people want to "convert" or "recruit" straight people into their nefarious lifestyle."

gee, I wonder if they had any idea what result they were looking for?

"So, for instance, they looked at the question of whether gay and lesbian people want to "convert" or "recruit" straight people into their nefarious lifestyle."

it's not that they are trying to recruit people, Jim

it's that they are attracted to straights

they are not attracted to other gays

think about it

if they were attracted to effeminate guys, why wouldn't they be attracted to girls?

and if they were, then they'd be straight

it's a little hard to argue with

"OK Cupid collects histories of their users."

well, who knows if their users are representative of the population as a whole but

"It turns out gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people"

if gays are generally not any more promiscuous than others, why is AIDS so disproportionately represented in gays in all gay-tolerant societies?

"These numbers are surprising if you subscribe to the stereotypes."

What's not surprising at all is that you accept findings that aren't peer-reviewed if they support the gay agenda

so, apparently, your religion is not peer-review-ism after all but instead it's gay-agenda-ism

who's not surprised?

November 05, 2010 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The CDC provides information on Health Disparities within the US in 2008 and earlier at this web page
http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/default.htm

The deep south and Alaska have higher rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea but lower rates of syphilis (except in the southwest) than most other parts of the country.

Men have higher rates of syphilis than women, but women have higher rates of chlamydia than men.

Rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea are higher for younger people but rates of syphilis are higher for older people.

African Americans have 20 times the rate of gonorrhea and roughly 8 times the rates of chlamydia and syphilis that whites do.

November 05, 2010 4:55 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“your religion is not peer-review-ism after all”

Are you suggesting you know what peer-reviewed means?

November 05, 2010 11:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Are you suggesting you know what peer-reviewed means?"

I don't remember suggesting that but I do, however, know what it means.

While I appreciate its value, I am also aware of its limitations, which doesn't appear true for those here who worship it as the ultimate process leading to truth.

Are you suggesting that you're not an "embecile", "emprov"?

I mean, you can't even spell your own name right.

November 06, 2010 8:12 AM  
Anonymous what a freaking hypocrite!! said...

Once again on election night, FOXnews won the cable ratings war.

Seven times as many viewers watched FOX as watched the biased and craven MSNBC.

Apparently despite the inappropriate attacks on FOX by the President during the campaign, Americans still appreciate the objective type of coverage they see on FOX:

"(CNN) - Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's primetime firebrand host, has been suspended indefinitely for unethical conduct earlier this year when he donated to three Democrats seeking federal office, MSNBC announced Friday.

"The public became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of appearances, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay," MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement.

First reported by Politico and confirmed by Federal Election Commission filings, the primetime television host gave $2,400 – the maximum individual amount allowed – to each of the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway, and Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords.

Conway lost his bid to Republican Rand Paul while Grijalva eked out a win over Tea Party-backed candidate Ruth McClung for a fifth term. Grijalva found himself in an increasingly competitive race after he announced his support of a boycott of Arizona businesses in response to the state's controversial new immigration law and often appeared on Olbermann's show where he found a sympathetic audience. CNN, meanwhile, has yet to declare a winner in Giffords' race, but the Democrat currently holds about a 3,000-vote lead with all precincts reporting.

The contributions may have violated an NBC policy that requires employers of the news organization to obtain permission ahead of any political donations or activities that could be deemed as a conflict of interest.

In a statement to Politico before the suspension was announced, Olbermann defended the contributions:

"One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the re-election campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords," he said in the statement. "I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky."

Olbermann, as well as MSNBC executives, was a vocal critic of donations by Fox News' parent News Corp. to the Republican Governor's Association earlier this year, saying at the time, "We now have another million reasons Fox News is the Republican news channel."

In a subsequent show, Olbermann also pressed House Majority Whip James Clyburn if there was a "legislative response" to a networks that "starts to shill for partisan causes.""

November 06, 2010 8:35 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Apparently despite the inappropriate attacks on FOX by the President during the campaign, Americans still appreciate the objective type of coverage they see on FOX

Objective coverage? Oh that's a good one!

Actually, what this story illustrates is that NBC News and MSNBC are both news outlets because they require their on air hosts to get approval from management before they make even personal political contributions.

Not so for Fox "News", which is really just another fundraising arm of the GOP.

For example, Sean Hannity made a $5,000 contribution to Michele Bachmann PAC during this election cycle and then two and half weeks later, interviewed her on his 9 PM weeknight show. In response to Salon's report about Hannity's $5,000 donation, "Fox News programming head Bill Shine said there's no company policy against talk show personalities giving to candidates, but said Hannity would disclose the donation when Bachmann appears.

"It always good to remember that he's not a journalist, he's a conservative TV host," Shine said. "If he wants to donate to a candidate, he certainly can.""


So did Hannity DISCLOSE his $5,000 donation when he interviewed Bachmann on Sept. 17, 2010? Not according to the Fox "News" transcript he didn't.

Did he get suspended by higher ups at Fox "News" like Bill Shine who reported Hannity would DISCLOSE it?

No, he didn't.

To learn more about the difference between a genuine news outlet like MSNBC and a political fundraising outlet like Fox "News" in less than seven minutes, watch this.

November 06, 2010 4:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ho ho, Bea! The Olbermann firing has nothing to do with Fox News! Can't blame EVERYTHING on Fox! ho ho

November 06, 2010 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Poor Anon, still lacking reading comprehension skills I see.

What I said is that the story about Keith Olbermann's suspension illustrates the difference between "news outlets" like NBC News and MSNBC and non-news outlets like "Fox "News", which is really just another fundraising arm of the GOP."

Political contributions by Fox hosts are OK with Fox higher ups, even if the DISCLOSURE of them is never made on air, whereas political contribution by MSNBC hosts are required to be DISCLOSED and pre-approved by higher ups, otherwise an MSNBC host can be suspended.

Try again, honey, maybe you'll comprehend it the next time you read it.

November 06, 2010 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ho ho again, Bea! We can all read sour grapes (and Fox basing) between the lines!

November 06, 2010 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oops! "Fox BASHING"

November 06, 2010 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hannity is not an objective news source- and doesn't pretend to be

Bea is not an intelligent person- and doesn't pretend to be

November 06, 2010 10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama and Republicans have reached a compromise

they won't investigate his luxury trip to India if he'll appoint Martha Schaerr Secretary of Education

November 06, 2010 10:16 PM  
Anonymous ask me no questions, I'll tell ya no lies said...

good news!

the new commandant Obama has appointed to head the Marines says he agrees with Obama that DADT should stay as U.S. military policy

he realizes that forcing normal soldiers to bunk with homosexuals, who are probably ogling them, might tend to destroy troop morale:

"The new commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps says the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy barring gays from serving openly in the military should stay in place.

"There's risk involved." Gen. James Amos said in an Associated Press report. "This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That's what the country pays its Marines to do."

The current policy, which says the military will not pry into a service member's personal lives if he keeps his sexual orientation private, has been overturned by a U.S. District Court in California. But an Appeals court issued a stay of the lower court order, so the policy remains in effect, while Obama fights for his right to keep open gays out of the military.

In the meantime, the Senate could vote to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law when it returns later this month but military opposition to repeal may complicate the plans of the liberal legislators who have been rejected by their constituents, as they seek to use their last chance to push through bills opposed by average Americans.

General Amos said repeal would have unique consequences for the Marine Corps, which typically quarters two people in each room to promote unity. "There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women -- and when you talk of infantry, we're talking young men -- laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," Amos said. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're talking about. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness."

Amos began his assignment last month."

November 07, 2010 3:08 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Are you suggesting that you're not an "embecile", "emprov"?

I mean, you can't even spell your own name right.”


I’ll admit, it’s terrible misspelling of ‘anonymous.’
---
Sociopathanon: “While I appreciate its value [peer-reviewed data], I am also aware of its limitations, which doesn't appear true for those here who worship it as the ultimate process leading to truth.”
-
“While I appreciate its value [peer-reviewed data]”

But you don’t. You and your ilk spread around anti-gay misinformation---peer-reviewed or not---like lice in a kindergarten class.

“I am also aware of its limitations”

Enlighten us.

“which doesn't appear true for those here who worship it [peer-reviewed data] as the ultimate process leading to truth.”

And how, specifically, does our “hypocrisy” invalidate the study?

November 07, 2010 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Straight and gay soldiers already bunk together. They just don't ask and don't tell.

November 07, 2010 8:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Enlighten us."

well, at least he knows he needs enlightment

that's half the battle won right there

peer review only examines the logic, not the validity of the data

so, without replication, and few pro-deviant studies are replicated, the peer-reviewed study shouldn't be relied on

furthermore, the study can be tainted by the those who select the peer reviewers, generally editors of scientific journals

there are a gazillion scientific journals, and a million reasons why they might not be objective

suffice it to say, truth is not always on the top of everyone's agenda

sorry to disillusion you

"And how, specifically, does our “hypocrisy” invalidate the study?"

I don't think I said it did

the study isn't peer-reviewed, however, and that is generally TTF's golden standard when a paper doesn't reinforce deviant propaganda

now we see that position has been nothing more than bias

"Straight and gay soldiers already bunk together. They just don't ask and don't tell."

and as long as there is a sanction against telling, there is a check on inappropriate behavior

viva la sanction

if you don't believe me, ask our anti-gay President

he'll make sure DADT stays the law of the land

and the new Tea Party Congress will expand DADT to the teaching profession

viva la Tea Party!

November 07, 2010 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Nothing about the OK Cupid data surprises me.

November 07, 2010 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I know a fair number of Marines; many of them do tell their colleagues, they just don't tell officers in the chain who are out to get gay Marines, and their fellow Marines don't either.

The policy, to be decent, and to allow unit cohesion, promotes a deception of institutional bigots (or simply mean people) by Lesbian and Gay Marines and their comrades. It is a failed policy.

November 07, 2010 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Bea...so much for the journalistic integrity you spoke of!

Olbermann's back!

Ho, ho, ho, ho!

November 07, 2010 11:23 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

After paying for his rule breaking with a two night suspension at MSNBC, Olbermann will be back hosting Countdown on Tuesday night.

The "remember that he's not a journalist...conservative TV [entertainment] host[s]" at Fox "News" still don't have a single rule of "journalistic integrity" to follow.

Interested parties may click the link to sign the petition to Turn Off Fox

November 08, 2010 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OH YES! That was a BIG punishment for Olbermann! He got two whole days off!

ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

ROFL

I, personally, could care less whether NBC has a rule or not. But it's funny to see how much they value their rule!

November 08, 2010 8:23 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

So you do have thoughts…

…interesting.
---
Sociopathanon: “the study can be tainted by the those who select the peer reviewers, generally editors of scientific journals

there are a gazillion scientific journals, and a million reasons why they might not be objective”


That would be the abuse of the peer-review process and would have to be addressed case by case, or journal by journal, etc., and thus, is not a “limitation” of the process itself.

Or have they done a study saying otherwise?
---
“peer review only examines the logic, not the validity of the data”

By “logic,” I expect you mean things like, what was the sample size, how accurate does the sample represent that demographic, how were the questions phrased, etc.

And by “validity,” the study should be replicated to make sure the results of any one study were not just an anomaly.

“so, without replication … the peer-reviewed study shouldn't be relied on”

Are you saying that only a peer-reviewed replicated study should be up for consideration to be accepted as accurate?
---
None of which answers the primal question: Why would you even care about the merits of the scientific method? You yourself misused it earlier in this thread:

Sociopathanon: “if gays are generally not any more promiscuous than others, why is AIDS so disproportionately represented in gays in all gay-tolerant societies?”

The message sent was: gays = promiscuous = AIDS

You used a select-sample (gay men who have unprotected anal sex with other men who have HIV…) of a demographic to malign an entire demographic, and then posit yourself as one to scold the biases that may corrupt the peer-review process.

As though science---even to your satisfaction---would ever affect your disdain for all things gay.

November 08, 2010 8:28 AM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

Yes, there is a homosexual agenda.

But lesbians, gays and transgenders are not the ones who are pushing it.

They're not the ones who are formulating it, developing it, focus-group-testing it, spreading it or implementing it.

The homosexual agenda is owned and operated by NOM, NARTH, FRC, AFTAH, FOTF and other anti-gay groups and the mobs that follow them.

November 10, 2010 9:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home