Descent BB

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > OKCupid.com sexuality statistics Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:43 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I love stats. Come share my joy:

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/

Quote:
Gay issues have been in the news a lot lately, from the debate over same-sex marriage in Congress to a sickening rash of gay-bashing here in New York City. We see a lot of emotion out there, instead of information, and we wanted to provide some data-based context on sexuality so that people might make better choices about what they say, think, and do.

We run a massive dating site and therefore have unparalleled insight into sex and relationships. Here's what we've found, in numbers and charts.


I thought the graphs were particularly interesting
(many have clickable gender-icon buttons below them, click em)

This was a pretty interesting insight:
Quote:
It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly 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.


Another interesting thing you can see in the graph below that statement, is that although straight men are predominately scared of trying same-sex sex (compared to straight women - who are more likely to try same-sex sex).
The "Yes i have tried same-sex sex and didn't enjoy myself" percentage for BOTH STRAIGHT SEXES was practically identical.
ie: Women are not more (or less) gay than men, just more open to explore themselves to find the underlying truth.

A full 26% of straight women answered "yes i have tried gay sex, and i enjoyed myself". Holy shit.
I never realised humans were this gay/bi. i mean - i know homosexuality is enjoyed by a fabulous 10% (approx... also afaik) of the population, but i never realised how many others were bisexual/pansexual (or basically just physically/mentally able to enjoy same-sex sex).
And of course in our day and age there's still a lot of self-repression going on which would make up most (but not all) of the "no i have never, and i would never, try gay sex") numbers on the chart, so if that repression didn't exist the real figure would be even more.

Is pure heterosexuality actually a minority, with everyone existing on the Bisexual scale somewhere between heterosexuality and homosexuality - but very few actually being on the extreme-hetero side?
Bell curve with Bisexualty at the center maybe? *shrug*

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Pun
DBB Admin




PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:55 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Chicago is a virtual cornucopia of gay curiosity! Who knew?
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:42 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Roid Quote:
"Another interesting thing you can see in the graph below that statement, is that although straight men are predominately scared of trying same-sex sex"

Try replacing "scared" with "disgusted".
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:01 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Or at the least “not interested”.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:45 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

You guys are so manly you don't fear bufu? Nice.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:53 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

What’s to fear…I’ve done far more dangerous things.

Fear is only used in this context for the purpose of spin.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:25 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Yeah yeah, and you guys are working to spin it a different way...kind of the point I was making, really.

In actuality, however, gay sex is pretty risky. Risky enough that it's clear (to me at least) that gay men aren't gay out of some perverse desire to flout societal norms, or because they hate God or whatever.

Perhaps the OP could have implied caution rather than fear.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:57 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

You’re kidding right?

You don’t actually buy the idea that straight men don’t try gay sex because of fear? (regardless of the actual dangers)

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:20 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I hesitate to use the phrase "somewhat tongue in cheek", so maybe we can say "devil's advocate" and leave it at that. I think the OP was interesting, if slanted - and knee jerk denials always make me suspicious.

Did you catch the whole thing about sexuality being a continuum? If not you missed the whole point. You may be a bastion of sub-atomic heterosexuality, while others may be somewhere else on the teeter-totter of love. Maybe there are poor bi-curious souls whose timidity prevents them from plunging into the joys of masculine love.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:19 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Spidey wrote:
Or at the least “not interested”.


I'm not interested in drinking sarsaparilla. It's absolutely DISGUSTING to my tastebuds (i find it hard to swallow the stuff). I know this because I've tried it on a few occasions: "Yes, and i didn't enjoy myself".

But i won't knock it, 'till i've tried it.

____________________---------MEN----------____________________ ____________________-------WOMEN--------____________________

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯---------MEN----------¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯-------WOMEN--------¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


Although the amount of people who are willing to try gay sex is drastically different between genders - Isnt it interesting how prettymuch the exact same amount of people from both genders who have tried gay sex, are now convinced (and they now speak from authority) that they don't like it? 6%/7%
I really don't think women are more gay than men. I just think they're not as scared of experimenting to find out the truth, and the truth looks kinda gay.

roid wrote:
scared

leads to
Woodchip wrote:
disgusted


_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Gammaray
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:27 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Probably has something to do with our hormonal differences. testosterone lends itself to competitiveness and aggression.

Seriously that little chart reminded me of lions attitudes. females all hunt together and raise cubs together whereas males hang out alone. only forming groups when adolescent and looking to start/take over a pride. it's easier to score a meal in a group, but once you got your harem you let them do all the work.

heh

_________________
"Free speech keeps costin' people big bank" - DaddyX
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:24 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bunyip wrote:
I think the OP was interesting, if slanted - and knee jerk denials always make me suspicious.


See, that downright pisses me off, using the term denial in that context is an accusation.

I’ll tell you what…the first time I have the desire to try gay sex, I’ll let you know if it scared me or not.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:55 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I said denial, not "in denial". Lighten up a little, fa pete's sake - besides, that comment wasn't really pointed at you in the first place.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Avder
Hotshot




PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:55 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

As someone who is also a don't knock it till you try it person, I have to say the idea of female on female experimentation and going all the way seems like it would be far less intimidating than male on male experimentation and going all the way.

Think about it. Female on female involves performing oral and what...frot?

Male on male involves performing oral and being on the giving and receiving end of taking something in the butt, which according to testimony from both genders hurts at first almost irregardless of gender and/or preparation beforehand.

I'm going to say the equipment involved plays a big factor in the discrepancies of the "I have not tried it and never will" slices on those pie charts between males and females.
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:27 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

That is a good point.
But in honesty the chart didn't mention anal sex, afaik there's plenty of gay guys who dislike anal - it's all about oral. Also - not all anal sex involves a penis, lots of smaller things fit up there Wink. Both would still come under "tried it" if another same-sex partner was involved.
But you're right, perhaps it's not clear to the survey taker that this question is/isn't loaded that way.


Could be interesting to see figures on women willing to take it in the ass, but unfortunately it doesn't sound like a question OkCupid.com would include in it's standard user questionnaires Surprised

Also the differing goal based anal anatomy (male prostate -vs- female "external/outer" vaginal-wall and cervix stimulation) would kinda confuse things - as they are of entirely different levels (and quality) of erogenous stimulation.
Mind you - i have heard it theorised that the nerve bundle of the female G spot is a vestigal sexual characteristic originating from the male prostate. Basically, it's a partially functional androgenous leftover from embryonic development much like male nipples, like a kindof "pre-prostate" much like the clit is a kindof "pre-penis"*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Spot#Female_prostate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homologues_of_the_human_reproductive_system

*yesyes, i know this is incorrectly written as if male is the standard. One could just as easily say it's the other way around (the penis is a pre-clitorus, etcetc), but IMHO the penis and male prostate serve a more reproductively nessesary role than the clit and G-spot.

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Neo
[deleted]




PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:38 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

roid wrote:
gay issues


The only "issue" here is that this is just another distraction. Otherwise it's a non-issue. But go ahead and keep reciting the same misinformation, because no one else thinks you're a "gigantic-f-agg." Razz
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:08 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

roid wrote:
*yesyes, i know this is incorrectly written as if male is the standard. One could just as easily say it's the other way around (the penis is a pre-clitorus, etcetc), but IMHO the penis and male prostate serve a more reproductively nessesary role than the clit and G-spot.


Technically, no - they actually differentiate from the same embryonic structures, so none of them is a pre-anything, but more of a post-something (as I'm sure you realize despite your comments).

...and if you don't think the clit and g-spot are reproductively necessary, how the fuck is a male supposed to trick a sentient female into having sex again after the first pregnancy?

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:17 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
(as I'm sure you realize despite your comments).


This is my only problem with gays. They post charts and graphs and make assertions that somehow some guys prostate turned more clitoral that some other guys or vice versa Rolling Eyes instead of just admitting that it's a deviation of the mind and moving on.
Neo
[deleted]




PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:22 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

word to ya mutha.
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:45 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
...make assertions that somehow some guys prostate turned more clitoral that some other guys or vice versa...


...do you have a concussion or something?

Just how the... i mean.. how... uh... what?

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Pun
DBB Admin




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:04 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bunyip wrote:
...and if you don't think the clit and g-spot are reproductively necessary, how the fuck is a male supposed to trick a sentient female into having sex again after the first pregnancy?


Excellent point.
Avder
Hotshot




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:15 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I saw a show on sex and attraction a few months ago that speculated that women are hard wired to use sex to keep a mate around for the sake of ensuring the resulting offspring have the best chance of survival.

Other points brought up in that show are the fact that human females are never in heat, and are one of the few mammals willing to have sex at basically any time, not just during the time when they're most likely to get pregnant.

If you think about it from a caveman perspective, it makes some sense. Back then there was no beer or bars, or sports. Just hunting, eating, sleeping, and fucking. What else was gonna get a guy to stick around aside from more sex?
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:05 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
Just how the... i mean.. how... uh... what?


Heh. You know, I was a late comer to Descent. Didn't even start playing until I was around 35. Soon after I stumbled onto Kali, I stumbled across .net and .com. Considering my love for the game, I signed up on both and started participating in the discussions. Not even realizing that most of you dipshits don't even play anymore . Razz These are still the only 2 forums that I'm a member at. Well, I've been around for a few years now so I'm gonna save us both some time.

Your gonna say biological and I'm gonna say deviation. Your gonna respond with posts like this:

Quote:
Is pure heterosexuality actually a minority, with everyone existing on the Bisexual scale somewhere between heterosexuality and homosexuality - but very few actually being on the extreme-hetero side?

and
Quote:
i have heard it theorised that the nerve bundle of the female G spot is a vestigal sexual characteristic originating from the male prostate. Basically, it's a partially functional androgenous leftover from embryonic development much like male nipples, like a kindof "pre-prostate" much like the clit is a kindof "pre-penis"*.

and
Quote:
I never realised humans were this gay/bi. i mean - i know homosexuality is enjoyed by a fabulous 10% (approx... also afaik) of the population, but i never realised how many others were bisexual/pansexual


All trying to prove to me that it's normal human behavior on a evolutionary scale, using words like "vestigal" and "homologues"

I'm gonna respond with comparisons that many find disparaging, trying to explain that it's a mental dysfunction more than likely caused by environment. After 30 pages of back and forth saying the same things over and over.

Your gonna say biological and I'm gonna say deviation. :p. Next week, the creation and evolution debate, and "pelosi sucks, Obama's the messiah" debacle continues. Laughing
Foil
2*pi*r




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:15 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

roid wrote:
Flip wrote:
...make assertions that somehow some guys prostate turned more clitoral that some other guys or vice versa...


...do you have a concussion or something?

Just how the... i mean.. how... uh... what?


Flip wrote:
...I'm gonna save us both some time.

Your gonna say biological and I'm gonna say deviation.


Flip, you misunderstood the reason for roid's speechlessness.

It wasn't that you disagree with him. He's stunned at how badly you misread / misrepresented his earlier statements.

Although I tend to slightly lean with you regarding the relative weight of environmental vs. biological causes, I'm at a loss to see how you came up with your statement above (top of my quotes).

_________________
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die."
Grendel
Ninja Admin




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:18 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
I'm gonna respond with comparisons that many find disparaging, trying to explain that it's a mental dysfunction more than likely caused by environment.

Watch out ! I heard it's contagious !!

_________________
Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people. -- Thor Heyerdahl
Durch einen Stich bereits geschafft, erschlafft und ohne Saft und Kraft! -- Donald, examining a Deflator Dextrospirillus
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:38 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
nerve bundle of the female G spot is a vestigal sexual characteristic originating from the male prostate


Well, my remark was somewhat sarcastic, but what I gather from this comment is that the 2 are related somehow. The sarcasm being that the g-spot had a predominant prostate element or the prostate developed some clitoral characteristics.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:06 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

blah blah blah clitoris blah blah blah penis blah blah blah prostate blah blah blah g-spot

Bunyip wrote:
...they actually differentiate from the same embryonic structures, so none of them is a pre-anything, but more of a post-something (as I'm sure you realize despite your comments).


Basically they're the same thing, they just express differently during maturation depending on the chromosomal sexual cues. There are probably some (very) few individuals born 'physically gay' due to some congenital oddity in their reproductive organs or hormonal balance. I would hazard a guess that it is very, very rare - and also that this isn't what roid was getting at at all.

As for whether the expression of homosexuality in the majority of the gay population is inborn or environmentally based, I will simply point out the fact that there is widespread homosexual and/or bisexual activity that has been extensively documented in many animal species...and humans are animals, no matter how much some of use would like to deny that.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:27 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I’m pretty sure sexual preference is expressed a little differently in most other species…so making a parallel to humans is probably a no no.

I mean…does that turtle really have a thing for boots? And dogs…legs?

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:02 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
and humans are animals, no matter how much some of use would like to deny that.


Heh, and therein lies the whole debate. Cue evolution-creation rehash in 3-2-1. Go
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:35 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Spidey wrote:
I’m pretty sure sexual preference is expressed a little differently in most other species…so making a parallel to humans is probably a no no.

I mean…does that turtle really have a thing for boots? And dogs…legs?


Spidey, I'd suggest that you do a little research before making these types of assertions. I recently read an interesting article which discussed both fetishism (boots in your example) and partialism (legs) observed in animals. Amusingly enough some animals even apparently enjoy porn in the form of sexual imagery and will forgo rewards in preference to sexual pictures of their species. Maybe you just chose bad examples. That's got to be it, right?

Flip wrote:
Quote:
and humans are animals, no matter how much some of use would like to deny that.


Heh, and therein lies the whole debate. Cue evolution-creation rehash in 3-2-1. Go


Evolution and creation have nothing to do with the fact that humans are animals. Actually, in perspective, they're completely beside the point.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:00 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Except for the fact that to consider man to be animals is subjective at best. I guess it helps ones arguments to set the parameters to ones own will, but there's enough evidence at hand to put man into a category of his own. Classification has everything to do with it.
Neo
[deleted]




PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:06 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Yeah, I tried to explain to Donkey Kong that we're bros, and he just thought I was after his bananas.

I don't know about you all, but what flip said makes sense. It doesn't matter to me what exactly it has to do with what roid or anyone else said, because I really don't want to talk about gay sex.
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:13 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I don’t know what research you are referring to Bunyip, but I do know humans have a propensity to project.

I’ve done some studying of animal sexuality, mostly driven by the subjects discussed on the boards, and the one thing I have a problem with is this…

There is no way to determine if an animal such as a Mallard (known to have a high “gay” percentage) is choosing another male to mate with due to a preference for males or simply the acceptence of the other male (who is in the same boat).

So if you can tell me for sure that they are with each other because of a desire to be with another male, and not some other reason…you win.

And I do wish to exclude Apes and other higher animals, because they are so much like humans, that you won’t get any disagreement from me, on those.

PS… I tend to rule out most “studies” on either extreme of this issue, due to religious bias or downright homo promo.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:20 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bunyip wrote:


...and if you don't think the clit and g-spot are reproductively necessary, how the fuck is a male supposed to trick a sentient female into having sex again after the first pregnancy?


Then explain the concept of female genital mutilation as practiced by male African Muslims?
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:23 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Avder wrote:
I saw a show on sex and attraction a few months ago that speculated that women are hard wired to use sex to keep a mate around for the sake of ensuring the resulting offspring have the best chance of survival.

Other points brought up in that show are the fact that human females are never in heat, and are one of the few mammals willing to have sex at basically any time, not just during the time when they're most likely to get pregnant.

If you think about it from a caveman perspective, it makes some sense. Back then there was no beer or bars, or sports. Just hunting, eating, sleeping, and fucking. What else was gonna get a guy to stick around aside from more sex?


I remember a study showing the desire for sex by married women drastically falls off after the children are born. Kinda like saying, "OK big boy, I got what I want now don't bother me."
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Jump to:  
   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > OKCupid.com sexuality statistics

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Image hosting by postimage.org Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group