GBLT forum census now with a poll

[RosettaStoned]

There are too many straights around here.

Whats say you an me paint an anti-heteronormativity banner sometime?

Sounds like fun! I'll bring the martinis!

[paul718]

straight-bashers

[tik 🪀✨]

I pretty much like genitals.

[© tweed]

Straight.

Nearly 37% so far are gay or bisexual? Far more than I expected.

Previous polls have yielded a similar number on this forum.

I wonder whether that suggests that the internet is disproportionally gay, or those interested in politics, or both.

there's probably less closeted homosexuality on the internet than there is in "real life."

[Aizen]

straight although it would be so cool if i were asexual and could reproduce via budding.

[Meeker]

straight although it would be so cool if i were asexual and could reproduce via budding.

I agree.

[Brittain33]

straight although it would be so cool if i were asexual and could reproduce via budding.

I agree.

I'd hate to raise a clone of myself. I was an awful kid.

[CubOB]

Gay as the day is long :-o

[MaxQue]

Gay

[Gustaf]

1. Kinsey, I believe, has been largely discredited and his studies are viewed as very untrustworthy.

He had his sampling errors in some of his studies, in that he did not choose truly random samples, but not this one IIRC.

2. People don't start out as sexual beings. I had no interest at all in girls before puberty. I didn't want to be attracted to them either. But it happened. I agree that there may be some social influences and so on, but I doubt it is that random. I mean, why would it be? Fundamentally, sexual attraction serves a clear biological purpose. It's pretty obvious why men and women are attracted to each other. That it can be rewired in some way to be the opposite is also not so strange. Nor, I guess, is it strange that it can be linked with something else (like leather or whips or cream or something) but most people do not have a sexual attraction for just randomly anything. I don't get anything from animals, for instance, and I doubt that's due to socialization.

I definitely didn't say it was random, or anything like that...

I didn't say we'd all be pansexual, just maybe more incidentally homosexual were it not for social pressures to fit into certain roles.  I mean, not to get all Opebo, sexual stimulation/attention is sexual stimulation/attention.  Sure the whole "it's a guy" thing would be a major "ick" point for me too, but beyond that what?  And where does the "ick" part come from?

I'm not saying we all start 50/50 (or "random") and then society forces us into our roles, lord no

But if you're talking sexual stimulation there is no reason to limit it to humans or even living beings. You could get stimulation from a rabbit...but there is an ick factor there (if that is the term we are now to use officially) and I don't think it is necessarily societal. Sexual attraction isn't just abot "stimulation" regardless of what Opebo thinks.

If you're saying that there are people out there who are homosexual but repressing it because of societal norms (and so on) I'm with you. That's pretty obviously true. But it isn't the same as saying that people that are straight would like to bang someone from the same sex every once in a while if it weren't for norms. I doubt that bit.

Besides, my gay friend told me bisexualism was just a denial-phase for gay people.

[Alcon]

Personal attraction and sexual stimulation, then, whatever.  Do we determine sexual orientation by who we fall in love with, then?  What makes a love romantic vs. not?  More accurately, how do you define sexual orientation, so I don't have to dance around it?   And why do we bother with this s**t?

I'm sure bisexualism is oftentimes a denial phase, but I doubt it's exclusively that.

[Gustaf]

Personal attraction and sexual stimulation, then, whatever.  Do we determine sexual orientation by who we fall in love with, then?  What makes a love romantic vs. not?  More accurately, how do you define sexual orientation, so I don't have to dance around it?   And why do we bother with this s**t?

I'm sure bisexualism is oftentimes a denial phase, but I doubt it's exclusively that.

I'm not entirely sure what you are dancing around now. But, yeah, defining sexual orientation by who you fall in love with sounds reasonable enough. Or if you want to be less romantic by what can turn you on by thinking about it. Not what can turn you on through touch, or whatever, since that would encompass pretty much everything.

[AndrewTX]

Mostly straight.

[Flying Dog]

Well, if Bisexuality must be a 50/50 attraction, then no one is Bisexual. Use me, for example. I've had more sexual interactions with women but I feel a more a slightly more sexual attraction to males, physically. However, it doesn't take much for me to get aroused by a good lady. What does that make me? Is my penis in denial?

[riceowl]

Well, if Bisexuality must be a 50/50 attraction, then no one is Bisexual. Use me, for example. I've had more sexual interactions with women but I feel a more a slightly more sexual attraction to males, physically. However, it doesn't take much for me to get aroused by a good lady. What does that make me? Is my penis in denial?

yes

[CubOB]

I once dated someone who was gay, then said he was bi later on. Maybe it was my fault somehow

[Verily]

Straight.

Nearly 37% so far are gay or bisexual? Far more than I expected.

Previous polls have yielded a similar number on this forum.

I wonder whether that suggests that the internet is disproportionally gay, or those interested in politics, or both.

It's definitely not the internet. But I wouldn't normally expect politics to have this sort of skew, either. DailyKos, for example, does regular censuses of its membership and generally comes up about 8-10% gay, which, given that the vast majority of gays involved in politics are more inclined to DailyKos than its Republican equivalents, is probably representative of the population as a whole.

It may be that we sort of reached, randomly, a "critical mass" at some point of being a gay-friendly political forum and therefore retain new gay posters at a much higher rate than new straight posters. That's my best guess.

[Alcon]

I'm not entirely sure what you are dancing around now. But, yeah, defining sexual orientation by who you fall in love with sounds reasonable enough.

OK.  But how we partition relationships, how do you distinguish?  I love my friends -- in a different way, even the girls who I love platonically, but the main difference for me is that they've been "friend-zoned."  Beyond that I've had some pretty strong emotional attachments to people who I loved only platonically.  How are you defining this?  That's what I'm "dancing around"

Or if you want to be less romantic by what can turn you on by thinking about it. Not what can turn you on through touch, or whatever, since that would encompass pretty much everything.

I don't want to get too explicit here but I imagine that most people are capable of getting aroused by the thought of same-sex attention.  At least more than identify as bisexual or gay.  Which is essentially what the sample-controlled Kinsey studies found, IIRC...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm certainly not a homosexual and the idea of having sexual relations with another man is totally alien to me. So I voted "straight"; this has pretentions to be a census, after all.

But.

I don't actually identify myself as "straight" because I don't actually identify myself with any sexuality; to me, identification requires either a choice or an affirmation of some kind and I've obviously not chosen my sexual preferences and I've never felt the need to affirm them in any way either (an advantage to being part of the overwhelming majority, perhaps). It [sexual identification] is about as important to me as the fact that I have dark hair, hazel eyes and an inability to roll my tongue.

[Eraserhead]

I'm certainly not a homosexual and the idea of having sexual relations with another man is totally alien to me. So I voted "straight"; this has pretentions to be a census, after all.

But.

I don't actually identify myself as "straight" because I don't actually identify myself with any sexuality; to me, identification requires either a choice or an affirmation of some kind and I've obviously not chosen my sexual preferences and I've never felt the need to affirm them in any way either (an advantage to being part of the overwhelming majority, perhaps). It [sexual identification] is about as important to me as the fact that I have dark hair, hazel eyes and an inability to roll my tongue.

heavy

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I am a gay.

[Sbane]

Interesting results. I am straight by the way.

[Hatman 🍁]

very straight.

[Sarnstrom]

100% Gay

[Keystone Phil]

I'm certainly not a homosexual and the idea of having sexual relations with another man is totally alien to me. So I voted "straight"; this has pretentions to be a census, after all.

But.

I don't actually identify myself as "straight" because I don't actually identify myself with any sexuality; to me, identification requires either a choice or an affirmation of some kind and I've obviously not chosen my sexual preferences and I've never felt the need to affirm them in any way either (an advantage to being part of the overwhelming majority, perhaps). It [sexual identification] is about as important to me as the fact that I have dark hair, hazel eyes and an inability to roll my tongue.

Al is also one of the people I see as an asexual.