Gallup Poll - 7.2% of Americans LGQB

[Loren Pechtel]

Arguably, a majority and certainly a large minority of self identifying straight people picked that identification due to a fad. That one time you kissed another girl and boy was it hot? That one time another guy wanked you off? That one fellow in middle school you had a very clear intuition that you'd find him smoking hot if only you were into boys, but you aren't, right, so those thoughts must be something else? They don't count, right?

They don't count because you chose not to count them. You could just add easily count them as evidence that you're bi.

I don't think that classes as bi. "Straight" doesn't mean absolutely zero attraction to the same sex, just something well below the level you would ever act on it.

 

[Jokodo]

Arguably, a majority and certainly a large minority of self identifying straight people picked that identification due to a fad. That one time you kissed another girl and boy was it hot? That one time another guy wanked you off? That one fellow in middle school you had a very clear intuition that you'd find him smoking hot if only you were into boys, but you aren't, right, so those thoughts must be something else? They don't count, right?

They don't count because you chose not to count them. You could just add easily count them as evidence that you're bi.

I don't think that classes as bi. "Straight" doesn't mean absolutely zero attraction to the same sex, just something well below the level you would ever act on it.

"Straight" doesn't mean anything other than what the community of English speakers wants it to mean. It's a funny habit words have.

However, if forced to provide their dictionary definition, must people would probably come up with something like "exclusively attracted to the opposite sex/gender".

Anything that is not 0% or 100% is part of a continuum, and if you want "straight" to mean something less strict than 0, any line you draw becomes arbitrary and subjective, and anyone else gets to draw their own line without either being "right" or "wrong". People tend to call themselves "straight" when they feel that whatever level of attraction they experience for the same sex is insignificant enough for who they *are* that bragging about it is just not worth the hassle, and be it only the hassle of having to do more explaining. But that's still a very subjective - and context dependent - line. If the hassle of identifying as anything other than straight is big, people you and I would probably call mostly homosexual will call themselves straight. If the hassle becomes smaller, people with a set off behaviors and preferences you would deem insufficient to call yourself "bi" may end up doing so - but they are not wrong to do so, or following a "fad", as someone has said upthread.

 

[Politesse]

Arguably, a majority and certainly a large minority of self identifying straight people picked that identification due to a fad. That one time you kissed another girl and boy was it hot? That one time another guy wanked you off? That one fellow in middle school you had a very clear intuition that you'd find him smoking hot if only you were into boys, but you aren't, right, so those thoughts must be something else? They don't count, right?

They don't count because you chose not to count them. You could just add easily count them as evidence that you're bi.

I don't think that classes as bi. "Straight" doesn't mean absolutely zero attraction to the same sex, just something well below the level you would ever act on it.

Since when?

 

[bilby]

Arguably, a majority and certainly a large minority of self identifying straight people picked that identification due to a fad. That one time you kissed another girl and boy was it hot? That one time another guy wanked you off? That one fellow in middle school you had a very clear intuition that you'd find him smoking hot if only you were into boys, but you aren't, right, so those thoughts must be something else? They don't count, right?

They don't count because you chose not to count them. You could just add easily count them as evidence that you're bi.

I don't think that classes as bi. "Straight" doesn't mean absolutely zero attraction to the same sex, just something well below the level you would ever act on it.

Since when?

Since 2023-12-04T02:37Z, apparently.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Arguably, a majority and certainly a large minority of self identifying straight people picked that identification due to a fad. That one time you kissed another girl and boy was it hot? That one time another guy wanked you off? That one fellow in middle school you had a very clear intuition that you'd find him smoking hot if only you were into boys, but you aren't, right, so those thoughts must be something else? They don't count, right?

They don't count because you chose not to count them. You could just add easily count them as evidence that you're bi.

I don't think that classes as bi. "Straight" doesn't mean absolutely zero attraction to the same sex, just something well below the level you would ever act on it.

"Straight" doesn't mean anything other than what the community of English speakers wants it to mean. It's a funny habit words have.

However, if forced to provide their dictionary definition, must people would probably come up with something like "exclusively attracted to the opposite sex/gender".

Anything that is not 0% or 100% is part of a continuum, and if you want "straight" to mean something less strict than 0, any line you draw becomes arbitrary and subjective, and anyone else gets to draw their own line without either being "right" or "wrong". People tend to call themselves "straight" when they feel that whatever level of attraction they experience for the same sex is insignificant enough for who they *are* that bragging about it is just not worth the hassle, and be it only the hassle of having to do more explaining. But that's still a very subjective - and context dependent - line. If the hassle of identifying as anything other than straight is big, people you and I would probably call mostly homosexual will call themselves straight. If the hassle becomes smaller, people with a set off behaviors and preferences you would deem insufficient to call yourself "bi" may end up doing so - but they are not wrong to do so, or following a "fad", as someone has said upthread.

Actually, I'm in the camp that thinks there are two separate systems, not gay vs straight. I do agree that it's a continuum, but I'm saying that if we are going to divide up people into straight/bi/gay that the breakpoints should not be at 0% and 100%. Rather, they should be at the point where someone would actually do the deed if the situation was otherwise acceptable.

 

[Elixir]

Rather, they should be at the point where someone would actually do the deed if the situation was otherwise acceptable.

^ Totally dependent upon circumstance.

I have never felt physical attraction to another male. But I am not one bit sure that would still be the case if stranded on the proverbial desert island with one for months or years. Does that make me “bi”? “Potentially bi”?
If so, is anyone on the planet NOT “potentially bi”?

 

[TomC]

I had a lot of problems with Kinsey and his studies. But describing attraction and behavior as a spectrum was brilliant.
Over the course of my long and checkered history many straight guys have confided youthful romps with buddies. Back when they were young, horny, and didn't have access to girls. That doesn't even make them bi, exactly.
Tom

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm so straight that I once tried to fantasize about having sex with a woman and I couldn't do it unless I made the fantasy into a three way with a male and two women.

Anyway...I look at this way. The peace loving sexy Bonobos, who are one of our closest relatives are all bisexual. If one of our closest two ape relatives are all bisexual, it only makes sense that a high percentage of humans would also be bisexual.

I don't know the statistics regarding chimp sexuality, but since they are our other close ape relative that share almost all of our DNA, some of them might be straight, just like some of us. But, it shouldn't matter, as long as everybody is happy. To bad so many hateful people are bothered by who other people fuck. As long as it's consensual, it's nobody's business who fucks who. Can I get an Amen?

 

[TomC]

But, it shouldn't matter, as long as everybody is happy. To bad so many hateful people are bothered by who other people fuck. As long as it's consensual, it's nobody's business who fucks who. Can I get an Amen?

AMEN!

Might not count much, coming from me.

I can even understand why primitive people would encourage homophobia. They lived in small tribes, constantly on the verge of being wiped out. More babies was better.
But that was a long time ago.
Nothing to do with the current Human Situation. Homophobia is now quite irrational. Immorally irrational.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Rather, they should be at the point where someone would actually do the deed if the situation was otherwise acceptable.

^ Totally dependent upon circumstance.

I have never felt physical attraction to another male. But I am not one bit sure that would still be the case if stranded on the proverbial desert island with one for months or years. Does that make me “bi”? “Potentially bi”?
If so, is anyone on the planet NOT “potentially bi”?

That is a very clear implication of the last century of data on human sexuality. Not everyone, more like a bimodal distribution whose tails can only be defined arbitrarily. And our sexual orientation is flexible over one's lifetime at least to a certain degree.

 

[Elixir]

To bad so many hateful people are bothered by who other people fuck.

Right?
As long as it's not me ...

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I had a lot of problems with Kinsey and his studies. But describing attraction and behavior as a spectrum was brilliant.
Over the course of my long and checkered history many straight guys have confided youthful romps with buddies. Back when they were young, horny, and didn't have access to girls. That doesn't even make them bi, exactly.
Tom

....Churchill is said to have used the phrase in 1913, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. According to 'an ear-witness', he was having trouble with some of his admirals at a strategy meeting. One of them accused him of having impugned the traditions of the Royal Navy, provoking the reply: 'And what are they? They are rum, sodomy and the lash'.