Tom Cruise - am I missing some ~clue~ here?
KenzieKiss
me a naive hetero female but I'm not seeing anything that would suggest that he
is. Anyone care to outline this for me?
Black Ops
"KenzieKiss" <kenzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010504023646...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
I can speak for everyone, but I've never really got the "Oh yeah, this guy
is definately gay" feeling, just enough of a vibe in the gaydar so that if
someone stated they thought he was gay, I couldn't just dismiss it all
together. Can't quite figure out what it is that sets of that "vibe"
either... but try turning it around, what makes you think that he isn't gay?
(I know... the whole marriage thing, but if he is gay, he wouldn't be the
first gay guy to get married...)
KenzieKiss
it would have never occured to me to think it. I would sooner think Hugh Grant
was. I still don't get it. Anyone else care to fill me in?
ANIM8Rfsk
I recall rumours starting when Mimi Rogers said they got divorced because he
wouldn't have sex with her
****************
QWest - the worst phone company I've ever been stuck with.
We've been waiting MONTHS now for tech support to even get back to us.
Lawhipmaster
>wouldn't have sex with her
>
It goes backway earlier to his social activities while making Losin' It in
Mexico, Risky Business in Chicago and Legend in London, all of which had
numerous eyewitnesses to his gay proclivities.
In the case of Chicago, a gay entertainment reporter for the Tribune I knew at
that point turned to me at a press screening for Risky Business, starring the
then-unknown Crusie, and said that he was the actor who had been cruising (no
pun intended) gay bars while the film was being made in the suburbs, and at
that point actually trying to score points by saying he was making a movie.
Nobody believed him until the movie came out.
Then came stardom, the Scientology blackmailers and the closet.
MG
"Black Ops" <n...@mail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3af2...@server002.chicago.avenew.com...
not quite. Any serious study has found that gays - male and female - are
about 1% of the population. This means, that suspecting someone at random of
being gay, you're likely to be wrong 99% of the time. Even allowing for a
higher %age in artistic professions like acting (for whatever reason), let's
say 10%, that still places the burden of proof on those who claim he's gay -
by a factor of 10!
james jorden
>Uhhh, 'what makes you think he isn't gay'?!! That sounds real clever...,
but
>not quite. Any serious study has found that gays - male and female - are
>about 1% of the population.
Those studies are in fact surveys of people who *identify* themselves as
gay; an important distinction.
> This means, that suspecting someone at random of
>being gay, you're likely to be wrong 99% of the time.
But you don't suspect anyone "at random;" you suspect someone because you
think you have evidence, that his behavior fits a pattern. That may be
inaccurate, of course, but it's not like you're just picking names out of a
phone book.
> Even allowing for a
>higher %age in artistic professions like acting (for whatever reason),
let's
>say 10%, that still places the burden of proof on those who claim he's
gay -
>by a factor of 10!
This isn't a legal process, so there is no "burden of proof." Let's just say
that many of Cruise's actions are consistent with those of a gay or bisexual
man who is trying very hard to keep his sexual orientation secret.
Suggestive, but no burden of proof.
KenzieKiss
>that many of Cruise's actions are consistent with those of a gay or bisexual
>man who is trying very hard to keep his sexual orientation secret.
That was my original question. "Many of his actions?" -- like which ones?
james jorden
>That was my original question. "Many of his actions?" -- like which ones?
Membership in Church of Scientology, one of whose overt claims is that they
can "cure" homosexuality.
Marriage to women with a direct stake in the success of his film career (and
thus, to maintenance of his heterosexual image)
Violent reaction (or overreaction) to any suggestion that he may ever have
had sex with a man (e.g., the recent $100 million lawsuit.)
MG
"Patricia Martin Steward" <puff...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3aff3e44...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:51:19 GMT, "james jorden"
> <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >MG wrote
> >
> >>Any serious study has found that gays - male and female - are
> >>about 1% of the population.
> >
> >Those studies are in fact surveys of people who *identify* themselves as
> >gay; an important distinction.
>
> the 10% figure bandied about is much, much too low. For instance,
> look up some personals sites that cater to "adult" advertisers and see
> how many married men are looking for another man for "discreet
> encounters."
>
> --
> This email address won't work. I've tried. Earthlink has tried. It just
doesn't work.
>
> Face your fears.
> Live your dreams.
Studying life in the personals, can't argue with that. But seriously,
haven't you considered that precisely because homosexuals are such a small
minority, that they would be overly reliant on getting together through ads
or by concentrating heavily in certain areas? And what's a married gay
person supposed to do, hit on the next guy he likes, thereby incuring a 99%
chance of rejection, or worse? The 10% figure is a joke, it's an obvious
political myth and, since widely believed, seems to have worked.
MG
"james jorden" <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:XjVI6.26293$ua5.6...@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
> MG wrote
>
>
> > Even allowing for a
> >higher %age in artistic professions like acting (for whatever reason),
> let's
> >say 10%, that still places the burden of proof on those who claim he's
> gay -
> >by a factor of 10!
>
> This isn't a legal process, so there is no "burden of proof." Let's just
say
> that many of Cruise's actions are consistent with those of a gay or
bisexual
> man who is trying very hard to keep his sexual orientation secret.
> Suggestive, but no burden of proof.
>
>
unlikely in the first place. And in the case of Tom Cruise, there could well
be legal repercussions, as he has been very willing to show. I know of no
actions 'consistent' with homosexual behaviour - oh yeah, if a hotshot young
actor is not crazy about having sex with over-the-hill Mimi Rogers, then he
must be gay, of course.
MG
<mal...@qwest.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Hk_I6.322$aM5.3...@news.uswest.net...
> On Sat, 5 May 2001 21:48:44 +0200, "MG" <mor...@online.de> gave this
> insight:
>
> :
> :"Patricia Martin Steward" <puff...@earthlink.net> schrieb im
>
> Studying "life" through life, NOT through the personals, I would bet
> that 30% of men have sexual experiences with other males. Whether or
> not this makes them "gay" or not -- at least in the political sense --
> is another question.
>
> However, there is waaay more going on than lotsa people would like to
> admit!
>
> And, getting to back to Our Star, I think he is way to sensitive about
> it, which bespeaks a guilty conscience, to me.
>
>
> Alan
>
> --
> "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals
> and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals.
> That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals.
> It's just that they need more supervision."
> -Lynne Lavner
Depending on what qualifies as a homosexual experience, the figure could be
higher, but still in the single digits. Almost everybody who has ever been
in prison has likely had one, but that certainly wouldn't make them gay in
the accepted sense. I am sure there are places or particular social scenes
where there's a lot more going on, but in terms of the general population
your 30% seem pretty impossible. It is the very visibility and political
assertiveness of the gay lobby (I hope that term is OK) that skews the
common perception about their actual numbers. It's like watching sumo
wrestling and concluding that the Japanese must all be giants...
james jorden
>It is the very visibility and political
>assertiveness of the gay lobby (I hope that term is OK) that skews the
>common perception about their actual numbers.
"Gay lobby" is OK with me, but your assumption -- that there is
disproportionate "assertiveness" by gay activists I find offensive. If
anything, the "common perception" remains that everyone in the world who is
not *officially out* is straight -- the "burden of proof" argument.
jj
MLYoung
>unlikely in the first place. And in the case
The 10 percent comes from the original
Kinsey studies--though Kinsey's bias
is now thought to have slanted the
outcome. The revised figures I've read,
however, still put the number of exclusively
gay men around 6 percent.
From my own experience in the performing arts, however, I'd say the percentage
of
gay men in that arena is much higher than
in the general population. I've been in
several shows where there were many
more gay men than straight men--I
was in a production of *Into the Woods*
with one straight guy (Cinderella's Prince,
FWIW). I've never been in a production
in which there wasn't a gay male.
While there may be various factors which
lead to the majority of male stars being
heterosexual, it's hard to believe, given
the talent pool, that they're all straight.
--margaret
of Tom Cruise, there could well
>be legal repercussions, as he has been very willing to show. I know of no
>actions 'consistent' with homosexual behaviour - oh yeah, if a hotshot young
>actor is not crazy about having sex with over-the-hill Mimi Rogers, then he
>must be gay, of course.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Tom Cruise - am I missing some ~clu
Tom Hens
MG <mor...@online.de> wrote...
> Uhhh, 'what makes you think he isn't gay'?!! That sounds real clever...,
> but not quite. Any serious study has found that gays - male and female -
> are about 1% of the population.
Could you please provide cites for these studies, as well as cites for the
other studies you've read that arrive at a number other than 1%, and for
each of them give a brief summary of your reasons for judging them to be
either serious or not serious?
james jorden
>higher, but still in the single digits.
I would say that if you can take even a single digit and really enjoy it,
that counts as a homosexual experience.
As a rule of thumb, anyway.
jj
Lisa
Lawhipmaster wrote in message
<20010504225743...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
I also heard he had an affair with Newman on the set of The Color of Money.
I think he is gay, because of the way his hair always has that one,
carefully arranged, lock on his forehead. He is way too conscious of his
looks to be straight.
The Avocado Avenger
>Marriage to women with a direct stake in the success of his film career (and
>thus, to maintenance of his heterosexual image)
However, I remember when Kidman married Cruise to get *her* career
going, and now it's Cruise who needs to be married to Kidman? I doubt
eithe rone of them have a solid enough hold in Hollywood to be considered
solid stars anymore.
Stacia * The Avocado Avenger * Life is a tale told by an idiot;
http://world.std.com/~stacia/ * Full of sound and fury,
Remove the "feh" to reply! * Signifying nothing.
Black Ops
"MG" <mor...@online.de> wrote in message
news:9d15s7$53i$1...@news.online.de...
I wasn't trying to be clever and you missed the whole point... I'm not
saying one way or the other whether or not he is gay, I'm just saying that
there is no extraordinary clues to the fact that he is straight either... so
if someone does claim he is gay, what do you use to argue otherwise. (BTW,
I know this goes against everything that this newsgroup stands for, but I
don't really care either way... I don't think I've even seen one of his
movies in 5 or 6 years now...)
Peep...@webtv.net
>>Depending on what qualifies as a homosexual experience, the figure
could >>be
>>higher, but still in the single digits.
>
>I would say that if you can take even a single digit and really enjoy
it,
>that counts as a homosexual experience.
Leave it to Queen Zsa-Zsa to be dismissive of anything less than 10
inches.
Sheesh.
0 hugs,
Janice
--
GO Green!! GO, Ralph!!
http://www.votenader.com/
(-)> *peep* (-)> *peep* (-)> *muckmouth*
Peep...@webtv.net
>>There is a burden of proof precisely because someone's being gay is so
>>unlikely in the first place. And in the case
>Where are you getting your 1 percent?
>The 10 percent comes from the original
>Kinsey studies--though Kinsey's bias
>is now thought to have slanted the
>outcome. The revised figures I've read,
>however, still put the number of exclusively
>gay men around 6 percent.
When *you*'re near the sample, the % shoots up to 100, poundcake.
>From my own experience in the performing arts,
*ROFLOL*
>however, I'd say the percentage
>of
>gay men in that arena is much higher than
>in the general population.
*LOL*
Thanks for the newsflash, sugar.
Who knew?!
>I've been in
>several shows where there were many
>more gay men than straight men--I
>was in a production of *Into the Woods*
*ROFL*
Yet another school production, like your "journalism career",
cupcake........?!
Hugs of appreciation,
Janice........"That's My Troll!!"
KenzieKiss
>carefully arranged, lock on his forehead. He is way too conscious of his
>looks to be straight.
>
give me a phuckin' break.
MG
"Tom Hens" <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:01c0d5ba$da74e0a0$LocalHost@gateway...
you maybe), and if I were, I'd get all the 'he doth protest too much'
comments Cruise is getting, so it's lose-lose. However, I do remember very
well that a few years ago an actual survey revealed something like 0.7% for
females and 1.3% for males. The question refered to respondents' having an
actual homosexual experience in a given time period. Focusing on behavior
rather than vague inclination seemed very sensible to me, otherwise you
could ask people if they'd ever thought of killing someone and find out
everyone's a murderer. But I'm certainly not going to search the Web for a
copy of that study, you can do that yourself. Nice try, though, to smother a
discussion of that precious 10%.
MG
an improper place? Does that count?
Mike O'Connor
The Avocado Avenger <sta...@world.std.com.feh> wrote:
:>Marriage to women with a direct stake in the success of his film career (and
:>thus, to maintenance of his heterosexual image)
:
: However, I remember when Kidman married Cruise to get *her* career
:going, and now it's Cruise who needs to be married to Kidman? I doubt
:eithe rone of them have a solid enough hold in Hollywood to be considered
:solid stars anymore.
The only unsuccessful Tom Cruise movies have been ones with Kidman
in them. Apart from that, he's box office platinum. I don't see
how he'll suffer career-wise from his break with Kidman.
I really admire his taste in beards...
--
Michael J. O'Connor | WWW: http://dojo.mi.org/~mjo/ | Email: m...@dojo.mi.org
Royal Oak, Michigan | (has my PGP & Geek Code info) | Phone: +1 248-427-4481
Grnbrier
wrote:
>I wasn't trying to be clever and you missed the whole point... I'm not
>saying one way or the other whether or not he is gay, I'm just saying that
>there is no extraordinary clues to the fact that he is straight either...
I agree.
I'm not saying it's *impossible,* but for a young, virile, handsome guy--who
has the fucking world on a plate, who's theoretically the "catch" of the
century for some woman--NOT to have "played the field," been linked to numerous
women prior to marriage (perhaps a gorgeous wonderful woman being the catalyst
in the dissolution of his current marriage...) well, let's just say that that's
rather, uh, peculiar. But--not IMPOSSIBLE, I suppose.
If he were a "normal" (or "typical," "conventional," "ordinary"--whatever word
you want to use) hetero guy, he'd be *out there,* ENJOYING the HELL out of his
utterly *endless* pick of female companionship. I mean, this guy is *TOM
CRUISE* for god's sake. Talk about a "head start" right out of the gate when it
comes to the world of women and sexual relationships!
A hetero Tom Cruise would have had a blast when he was younger with countless
women, and probably have had a successful marriage under his belt with a couple
of his own biological children.
But, nooooooooooo. Not our little Tom. He even adopts children. And I don't
believe for a second that he's shooting blanks.
The very notion of him lacking for female companionship, and *not* availing
himself of it more fully and blatantly prior to his lame-assed "marriages," is
quite simply, absurd.
And, perhaps most tellingly, a hetero Tom Cruise wouldn't GIVE a flying fuck if
people said he were gay. He'd laugh about it. He'd teasingly say in interviews
"Oh, don't you know, I'm gay!" and other such stuff. A hetero man with a normal
level of self-confidence could care fucking less if some people gossipped that
he was gay. He'd laugh. And move on to the next thing in his life...
Doogie
MG
"Grnbrier" <grnb...@aol.comix> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20010506085013...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
These are powerful arguments as to why the suspicions seem warranted. But
wouldn't *TOM CRUISE* also have endless pick of gay male companionship? What
is there to go on there? Before there is at least some 'evidence', all that
can be said is that he just doesn't conform to our stereotype of a sex
symbol/superstar lifestyle.
MG
> On Sun, 6 May 2001 10:34:50 +0200, "MG" <mor...@online.de> wrote:
> >"Tom Hens" <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:01c0d5ba$da74e0a0$LocalHost@gateway...
> >>
the
> >> other studies you've read that arrive at a number other than 1%, and
for
> >> each of them give a brief summary of your reasons for judging them to
be
> >> either serious or not serious?
> >>
> >I knew this was coming. I am not exactly a 'scholar' of homosexuality
(like
> >you maybe), and if I were, I'd get all the 'he doth protest too much'
> >comments Cruise is getting, so it's lose-lose. However, I do remember
very
> >well that a few years ago an actual survey revealed something like 0.7%
for
> >females and 1.3% for males.
>
>
> >The question refered to respondents' having an actual homosexual
experience
> >in a given time period.
>
>
>
> >Focusing on behavior
> >rather than vague inclination seemed very sensible to me, otherwise you
> >could ask people if they'd ever thought of killing someone and find out
> >everyone's a murderer.
>
No, behavior is key. Would having a gay dream qualify? Expand the definition
enough and everyone is gay, i.e. it would render the term meaningless.
> People don't always act on who they're attracted to, precisely because
> of the way some bozos react to it.
Well, tiresome as it is to repeat, this is exactly what I've been saying -
that they can't act on a random attraction, because the chances are so low
it will be requited. Isn't it, as you mentioned, a better bet to cruise the
adult personals and find like-minded, friendly people that wouldn't turn you
down?
>
> >But I'm certainly not going to search the Web for a
> >copy of that study, you can do that yourself.
>
> Then we're certainly not going to give your opinions any credence.
> If you can't back it up with an "actual survey," you're just blowing
> smoke. Or something.
Yep, that leaves your 'well substantiated' 30% as the incontrovertible truth
for now. 'Face your fears', indeed.
james jorden
>Since you broached, very wittily I might add, what about a female digit in
>an improper place
I don't think the word "improper" is very relevant to this question.
jj
MG
"Patricia Martin Steward" <puff...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3af64b4b...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Sun, 6 May 2001 10:34:50 +0200, "MG" <mor...@online.de> wrote:
> >news:01c0d5ba$da74e0a0$LocalHost@gateway...
> >>
the
> >> other studies you've read that arrive at a number other than 1%, and
for
> >> each of them give a brief summary of your reasons for judging them to
be
> >> either serious or not serious?
> >>
> >I knew this was coming. I am not exactly a 'scholar' of homosexuality
(like
> >you maybe), and if I were, I'd get all the 'he doth protest too much'
> >comments Cruise is getting, so it's lose-lose. However, I do remember
very
> >well that a few years ago an actual survey revealed something like 0.7%
for
> >females and 1.3% for males.
>
>
>
> >copy of that study, you can do that yourself.
>
> If you can't back it up with an "actual survey," you're just blowing
> smoke. Or something.
>
All right, this is as quoted and used in a legal argument in 1995:
'The Prevalence Of Homosexual Orientation.
Few generalizable estimates exist of the prevalence of homosexual
orientation in the United States.[13] Among existing surveys on sexuality,
estimates differ substantially depending upon (among other things) whether
the researcher inquires into same-sex sexual conduct, sexual orientation
measured in terms of enduring attraction, or self-reported sexual identity.
The renowned study of sexuality recently released by the National Opinion
Research Center at the University of Chicago is illustrative. In that
survey, 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women reported having had sex with a
same-sex partner since age eighteen.[14] A larger proportion of
respondents -- 7.7% of the men and 7.5% of the women -- reported
experiencing attraction to persons of their own sex, considering the
prospect of sex with a same-sex partner appealing, or both.[15] When
respondents were asked whether they thought of themselves as "heterosexual,
homosexual, bisexual, or something else," 2.8% of the male respondents and
1.4% of the female respondents identified themselves as "homosexual" or
"bisexual."[16] The Chicago researchers found a significantly higher
prevalence of self-reported homosexual or bisexual identity (9.2% for men,
2.6% for women) among residents of the twelve largest American cities.[17]'
Note that 2.8/1.4% describe themselves as homosexual OR bisexual. Leaving it
others to guess as to what proportion of that are exclusively gay. And if
you can use a newsreader, I'm sure you can d/l the whole survey yourself.
james jorden
> However, I do remember very
>well that a few years ago an actual survey revealed something like 0.7% for
>females and 1.3% for males. The question refered to respondents' having an
>actual homosexual experience in a given time period.
Well, that's not quite right. What this survey (National Opinion Research
Center, reported on CNN on February 26, 1993) found was that 2% of men and
0.7% of women reported "exclusive homosexual activity in the preceding
year."
Three important problems with this survey:
1) the sample group was randomized across the nation, which does not reflect
the fact that there is a strong trend among gay people to move from rural to
urban areas.
2) it's self-reporting, which always skews results when there is a social
stigma involved (same with self-reporting surveys of drug use, for example)
3) the specific question imposes far too strict a definition of
"homosexual." There are a significant number of men and women who would
readily identify themselves as gay who happen not to have been sexually
active in the past 12 months. Think, for example, what would happen if you
took a survey asking "Have you had sex in the past year and, if so, has it
been only with members of the opposite sex?" What percentage of Americans
would be able to answer "yes" truthfully to that question? How would you
feel about a CNN report that "Only 48% of Americans are heterosexual?" But
using this NORC survey to define "gay" makes exactly the same mistake, since
to be "gay" by its standards, you have to be sexually active and have had
only same-sex partners in the past year. (A lesbian were raped by a man in
the preceding 12 months is not "gay" by the standards of this question. A
man whose lover is seriously ill an has been incapable of having intercourse
in the preceding year is not "gay" either. Neither is a gay man or woman
who has made the decision to be celibate while seeking a monogamous
relationship.
About all this survey suggests is that there seems to be somewhat less gay
sex going on out there than certain gay-hating groups are afraid of. The
usual homophobic suspects (Christian Right, etc.) pounced on this NORC study
and banged the drum about it, since it supports their agenda of depicting
gay people as a tiny minority unworthy of inclusion in society. How well
does that propaganda method worked? Well, you remembered "very well"
exactly what you were supposed to remember, which is that "there aren't
really more than a few queers out there" -- not at all what the study
demonstrated.
jj
james jorden
> In that
>survey, 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women reported having had sex with a
>same-sex partner since age eighteen.[14]
Self-reporting and based on behavior. What about virgins, are they gay or
straight or "unassigned" until the first time?
> A larger proportion of
>respondents -- 7.7% of the men and 7.5% of the women -- reported
>experiencing attraction to persons of their own sex, considering the
>prospect of sex with a same-sex partner appealing, or both.[15]
Self-reporting. Most people are not good judges of who they are sexually
attracted to, especially if the object of that attraction is in some way
forbidden (e.g., a married woman). Psychology works that way; unless you
put a good deal of work into it, you don't really know how your mind works.
> When
>respondents were asked whether they thought of themselves as "heterosexual,
>homosexual, bisexual, or something else," 2.8% of the male respondents and
>1.4% of the female respondents identified themselves as "homosexual" or
>"bisexual."[16]
And, gee, who *wouldn't* want to hang a label on himself that means "fire me
from my job, take my children away, doom me to a life of meaningless one
night stands, tie me to a fence and leave me there to die." You may notice
that when people are asked if they think of themselves as "Republican,
Democrat or Independent," between 30% and 40% choose "Independent." And yet
they mostly end up voting for either Bush or Gore. That's kind of how sexual
orientation works.
>The Chicago researchers found a significantly higher
>prevalence of self-reported homosexual or bisexual identity (9.2% for men,
>2.6% for women) among residents of the twelve largest American cities.[17]'
"Self-reported."
jj
MG
spin for 'not eligible for positive discrimination'? If talking up the
numbers doesn't work - because as a proportion there simply aren't that many
'out there' - then accuse opponents of talking down the numbers. Or define
being gayn as a state of mind, or maybe just a single thought, thereby
making a mockery of sexuality itself. Whatever works.
Black Ops
"Patricia Martin Steward" <puff...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3afcaef4...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Sun, 6 May 2001 00:13:19 +0200, "MG" <mor...@online.de> wrote:
> >
> >Depending on what qualifies as a homosexual experience, the figure could
be
> >higher, but still in the single digits.
>
>
No... you're dreaming, and either fallen prey to the propaganda spread by
the gay activist groups, or doing your best to spread it yourself.
If an AVERAGE person stops and thinks even about the ridiculous 10 percent
number always tossed around they no that it's nonsense. Assume you know
roughly 200 people that you know well enough to know whether or not they are
gay. You would need to know 20 gay people in that group.... yeah right. I
can come up without about 5... And you know what, at least a couple of those
people really shouldn't qualify as being in my group of people that I know
well enough to know if they are gay, because they are just casual
aquaintances who happen to be very open about being gay... but still, I'll
count them, and at best I'm at 2.5 percent. Anyone getting 10 percent or
higher is almost certainly in a field where gay people gravitate and can
hardly be counted as an accurate average for the general population... (This
means you, all of you working in the entertainment field... or at hair
salons... )
james jorden
>Apropos propaganda - maybe 'unworthy of inclusion in society' is just your
>spin for 'not eligible for positive discrimination'?
Ah, doesn't take all that long for the true colors to emerge, now does it?
> If talking up the numbers doesn't work -
Well. you tried, and you failed -- and this despite the fact that only a few
hours ago you said you couldn't be bothered to look any of this up...
> because as a proportion there simply aren't that many 'out there'
Uh, exactly how big does a minority have to be before they are eligible for
human rights?
>- then accuse opponents of talking down the numbers.
No, I accuse you of deliberately misinterpreting the numbers. The survey
you cited first was essentially meaningless, as I demonstrated.
> Or define
>being gayn as a state of mind, or maybe just a single thought, thereby
>making a mockery of sexuality itself.
Orientation is not so difficult a concept to grasp. If you have a choice of
sexual partners over time, would most of them be men, or would most of them
be women? That definition includes everyone, gay, straight and in-between.
How about if I agree with you that the Kinsey "10%" is inaccurate and
useless as a statistic, though it has a nice metaphorical ring to it as a
slogan? (10% as in "decimate" has a long history of meaning "a significant
minority.")
And do you *not* believe that sexuality happens in the mind? How else could
it possibly be understood?
jj
Whatever works.
>
>
>
james jorden
experiences of your "group of people." Given your nasty cheap joke about
hair salons, it stands to reason that anyone gay who had the misfortune of
knowing you would not be exactly eager to come out.
Black Ops wrote in message <3af56e66$1...@server002.chicago.avenew.com>...
Black Ops
> On Sun, 6 May 2001 10:34:50 +0200, "MG" <mor...@online.de> wrote:
> >news:01c0d5ba$da74e0a0$LocalHost@gateway...
> >>
the
> >> other studies you've read that arrive at a number other than 1%, and
for
> >> each of them give a brief summary of your reasons for judging them to
be
> >> either serious or not serious?
> >>
> >I knew this was coming. I am not exactly a 'scholar' of homosexuality
(like
> >you maybe), and if I were, I'd get all the 'he doth protest too much'
> >comments Cruise is getting, so it's lose-lose. However, I do remember
very
> >well that a few years ago an actual survey revealed something like 0.7%
for
> >females and 1.3% for males.
>
>
experience
> >in a given time period.
>
>
>
> >rather than vague inclination seemed very sensible to me, otherwise you
> >could ask people if they'd ever thought of killing someone and find out
> >everyone's a murderer.
>
> of the way some bozos react to it.
>
> >copy of that study, you can do that yourself.
>
> If you can't back it up with an "actual survey," you're just blowing
> smoke. Or something.
It's funny, I'm still reading this thread and YOUR still seeming to take the
10 percent side of the arguement, but I haven't seen any of YOUR sources of
information.... now why is he blowing smoke, but you're not???
Craig Smith a.k.a. Olaf Mindrimmer
> The renowned study of sexuality recently released by the National Opinion
> Research Center at the University of Chicago is illustrative. In that
> survey, 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women reported having had sex with a
> same-sex partner since age eighteen.[14] A larger proportion of
> respondents -- 7.7% of the men and 7.5% of the women -- reported
> experiencing attraction to persons of their own sex, considering the
> prospect of sex with a same-sex partner appealing, or both.[15] When
> respondents were asked whether they thought of themselves as "heterosexual,
> homosexual, bisexual, or something else," 2.8% of the male respondents and
> 1.4% of the female respondents identified themselves as "homosexual" or
> "bisexual."[16] The Chicago researchers found a significantly higher
> prevalence of self-reported homosexual or bisexual identity (9.2% for men,
> 2.6% for women) among residents of the twelve largest American cities.[17]'
>
> Note that 2.8/1.4% describe themselves as homosexual OR bisexual. Leaving it
> others to guess as to what proportion of that are exclusively gay. And if
> you can use a newsreader, I'm sure you can d/l the whole survey yourself.
So even though 7.7% of the male population surveyed
acknowledge that they think the prospect of sexual relations
with other guys is appealing, only 2.8% of them consider
themselves at least bisexual? "I want to suck my pal's
dick, but that doesn't make me bi!" ---gimme a break!
And that means that even though nearly 5% of men say they've
had sex with another man, two-fifths of those guys....what?
were just testing the water? had a little too much to drink
that night?
So when we think about what percentage of the human
population is gay or bisexual, are we to go solely on (a)
those who will answer a public survey, and (b) profess to
being gay or bi despite the fact that tons of others have
either had sex with a same-sex partner or at least think the
idea is groovy? Or do we try to estimate how many folks are
*really* homosexually or bisexually inclined, whether they
are public about it or not?
Craig
Black Ops
Wow! I just posted something about my own estimate on the percentage of gay
people based on people I know, and I came up with roughly 2.5 percent...
seems I was pretty damn close afterall.
Black Ops
"james jorden" <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:lwdJ6.18299$Aj1.7...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> MG wrote
>
> > However, I do remember very
> >well that a few years ago an actual survey revealed something like 0.7%
for
> >females and 1.3% for males. The question refered to respondents' having
an
> >actual homosexual experience in a given time period.
>
> Well, that's not quite right. What this survey (National Opinion Research
> Center, reported on CNN on February 26, 1993) found was that 2% of men and
> 0.7% of women reported "exclusive homosexual activity in the preceding
> year."
>
> Three important problems with this survey:
>
Why don't you just admit that your "problem" with the survey is that you
don't like the results. Or would that upset the fellow activists?
maryanne kehoe
The $cientology payoff for starters....does anyone think that they will
leave him alone in the future for that "large donation" (however the
amount it is)? They could always trot out something else that might be
in Tom's past to blackmail him for more money.
james jorden
>Wow! I just posted something about my own estimate on the percentage of
gay
>people based on people I know, and I came up with roughly 2.5 percent...
>seems I was pretty damn close afterall.
Wow, you just looked at a dozen different numbers and then chose to believe
the one that was closest to your own "estimate." Wow! Fucking amazing!
jj
james jorden
>> <snip the "problems" with the survey>
>
>Why don't you just admit that your "problem" with the survey is that you
>don't like the results
Hey, you're the one who snipped, not me. Results are results; what I don't
like is the interpretation, which (if you would bother to read before
snipping) is erroneous and damaging.
And, please, please don't call me "activist!" Rush won't like me any more
if you do that!
jj
Black Ops
Yes, the are, and better written than I could do...
> But
> wouldn't *TOM CRUISE* also have endless pick of gay male companionship?
What
> is there to go on there?
I have no idea what you're talking about here... if he is gay, I'm sure he
does have his choice, however, if he doesn't want people to know for the
sake of his career (or whatever his reason would be) I'm sure he has to be
very selective and be sure to choose people so that we would never hear
about it.
>Before there is at least some 'evidence', all that
> can be said is that he just doesn't conform to our stereotype of a sex
> symbol/superstar lifestyle.
Yes, there may not be alot or any evidence, but that fact that he doesn't
conform to what we think leads to us asking why he doesn't conform... and
his being gay seems to be the best possible answer. Think about, if there
was a similar type of actor who everyone knew was extremely religous and led
as moral a life as possible, we would have an explanation for his actions
and wouldn't second guess them...(well, not as much :) With Cruise, we
don't seem to have any other explanation at the moment. Maybe one will come
out now that the relationship with Nicole is falling apart......???
Tod Friendly
Mike O'Connor <m...@dojo.mi.org> wrote in message
news:010506103...@dojo.mi.org...
> In article <GCwD7...@world.std.com>,
> The Avocado Avenger <sta...@world.std.com.feh> wrote:
> :>Marriage to women with a direct stake in the success of his film career
(and
> :>thus, to maintenance of his heterosexual image)
> :
> : However, I remember when Kidman married Cruise to get *her* career
> :going, and now it's Cruise who needs to be married to Kidman? I doubt
> :eithe rone of them have a solid enough hold in Hollywood to be considered
> :solid stars anymore.
>
> The only unsuccessful Tom Cruise movies have been ones with Kidman
> in them. Apart from that, he's box office platinum.
Legend?
--
Tod
"If you had returned my calls, I could have warned you. I just want
you to know, I was the one who got Gus to turn it into a blind item."
- Tama Janowitz, "A Certain Age"
MG
'demonstrated' is that you don't trust the survey or even people's ability
to know who they are attracted to. And I had no idea that via Tom Cruise I'd
be parsing and discussing some stock gay rights pamphlet. The subject just
that doesn't come up that often unless one seeks it out - it's such a small
minority, you know.
Tod Friendly
Patricia Martin Steward <puff...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3af64b4b...@news.earthlink.net...
You pick a start date and an end date and it's the time in between the two.
Tod Friendly
Newsbeitrag
> :news:3aff3e44...@news.earthlink.net...
> :> On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:51:19 GMT, "james jorden"
> :> <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> :> >MG wrote
> :> >
> :> >>Any serious study has found that gays - male and female - are
> :> >>about 1% of the population.
> :> >Those studies are in fact surveys of people who *identify* themselves
as
> :> >gay; an important distinction.
> :>
> :> Not only that -- any serious student of life would realize that even
> :> the 10% figure bandied about is much, much too low.
As a serious student of my own personal life, I have realized that somewhere
in the region of 100% of women are obviously lesbians.
The field of my limited experience does not however necessarily make it so.
Tod Friendly
MG <mor...@online.de> wrote in message news:9d1me9$9cj$1...@news.online.de...
>if a hotshot young
> actor is not crazy about having sex with over-the-hill Mimi Rogers, then
he
> must be gay, of course.
??? Mimi Rogers is still extremely attractive more than a decade after her
marriage to Cruise. And I'd say the notion of *any* straight young man
unwilling to have regular sex with virtually any available female (never
mind a wife) is more than a tad peculiar.
MG
"Tod Friendly" <babie...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9d3sa1$m0a$3...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
james jorden
> The subject just
>that doesn't come up that often unless one seeks it out
And so you have sought it out, then argued your own definition of "gay" to
"prove" that there aren't any homosexuals out there anyway.
Nice try, and now, PLONK.
jj
MG
suppose in the US people know better than to argue with gay activists, but
I've learned now.
Black Ops
so it wasn't exactly a joke. How many straight male hairdressers do you
know? (BTW, not only was the hair salon thing not much of a joke, it also
wasn't nasty or cheap, which is why the gay people I know have no problem
talking to me. I have no problem with people being gay, I have a problem
with people making up facts and figures for there own political purposes.)
"james jorden" <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:ybeJ6.18336$Aj1.7...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
Black Ops
Wow! I just looked at the number of the people who reported that THEY were
gay... oh wait... I forgot... in your fucked up mind, people don't really
KNOW that they are gay so that number is wrong... in fact, no one KNOWS
anything so nothing said about the issue can possibly be right unless it's
said by you. Please, enlighten us some more with your meaningless drivel
about why 2.8 percent of men saying they are gay is wrong because they don't
know ANYTHING about who they are!
MG
"Black Ops" <n...@mail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3af5...@server002.chicago.avenew.com...
LOL ! Thanks for saying that for me too
Tod Friendly
> I think it's really hilarious that you think you know all about the sexual
> experiences of your "group of people." Given your nasty cheap joke about
> hair salons, it stands to reason that anyone gay who had the misfortune of
> knowing you would not be exactly eager to come out.
Oh for God's sake. The very act of applying a pair of scissors to a head of
hair is as overtly homosexual as marrying Kelly Preston.
Seriously though, pretending that there isn't a larger than average presence
of homosexuality in the field of hair-dressing is ludicrous. It's an
industry based on beauty and appearance, like fashion, like acting. And gay
men tend to be more visually inclined. Nor would I be at all surprised if
the very fact that male hairdressers are going to be presumed gay by their
peers anyway discourages a number of unenlightened straight men from
pursuing it as a career.
And if that's "nasty", then presumably every woman who ever sees a man and
says "he's too good-looking to be straight" is being nasty as well.
Tod Friendly
>Most people are not good judges of who they are sexually
> attracted to,
Interesting. So presumably, for all you know, you might be straight?
james jorden
>Wow! I just looked at the number of the people who reported that THEY were
>gay... oh wait... I forgot... in your fucked up mind, people don't really
>KNOW that they are gay so that number is wrong
This is a very interesting argument: so what you are saying is, if I call
myself gay, I am gay. Doesn't matter who I have sex with or who I *want* to
have sex with, what matters is what answer I give to one survey.
The reason statisticians and psychologists tend to use "orientation" as a
yardstick is that it seems to be relatively immutable to societal factors;
that is, not dependent upon opportunities for sexual experience, for
example. Or not dependent upon shifting definitions of the word "gay"
across a population. (A married man who has sex with his wife a couple
times a month and with men several times a week in bathhouses and
peepshows -- is he going to call himself gay? A single mother who is
attracted to women but has no time for a romantic relationship, is she going
to call herself gay?)
Look, you don't walk up to people on the street and say, "Do you think you
have obsessive-compulsive disorder?" or "Guess your IQ" and use these
reports as the basis of a scientific estimate. So why should people
suddenly become experts in psychology when answering questions about their
own sexuality?
There is societal pressure to self-identify as heterosexual. Don't believe
me? How many 16 year old straight guys DON'T know they're straight? But
how many people really don't "settle" on being gay until they are into their
20s or even later? The orientation doesn't change; it was always there.
What changes is the readiness and willingness to recognize that orientation.
You might also try to slug this one out with MG, who insists that the
definition of "gay" be based on actual sexual behavior in the past year, not
"reporting" that they are gay.
jj
james jorden
>Seriously though, pretending that there isn't a larger than average
presence
>of homosexuality in the field of hair-dressing is ludicrous
I'm not pretending that; what I am offended by is the use of a stereotype as
a lame attempt at anecdotal evidence.
jj
Tod Friendly
> Black Ops wrote
>
> >Wow! I just looked at the number of the people who reported that THEY
were
> >gay... oh wait... I forgot... in your fucked up mind, people don't really
> >KNOW that they are gay so that number is wrong
>
> This is a very interesting argument: so what you are saying is, if I call
> myself gay, I am gay. Doesn't matter who I have sex with or who I *want*
to
> have sex with, what matters is what answer I give to one survey.
Dare I suggest that it was your comment about people being bad judges of who
they are attracted to that provoked that remark. I'm sure everyone is
willing to concede that people will deny being gay. But not to know to whom
you are attracted? No.
> Look, you don't walk up to people on the street and say, "Do you think you
> have obsessive-compulsive disorder?"
Considering the remark about hairdressing was considered "nasty", I would be
interested in your reaction if anyone else had compared homsexuality to a
mental illness. I'm not going to quibble with your saying that some people
might be gay and on some level not know it. But again to say that people
are bad judges of those to whom they are attracted? No.
>or "Guess your IQ" and use these
> reports as the basis of a scientific estimate.
Someone else's arbitrary scale. That's like saying that because someone
can't tell you their body temperature in Celsius that they don't know
whether or not they are hot. Except that it's even more ludicrous than that
because a person can by objective self-analysis determine whether they are
hot. Or to whom they are attracted. But it is only subjectively by
comparing yourself to others that one can judge one's intelligence.
So why should people
> suddenly become experts in psychology when answering questions about their
> own sexuality?
I can remember the first stirring in my loins at the sight of an attractive
woman when I was probably around 7 years old. I was a bright child but
describing me then as an "expert in psychology" on that basis alone might be
somewhat overstating the case. In fact it takes a very limited degree of
psychological expertise to get an erection.
"Gay" is a label that obviously there is room for a great deal of debate
over; so in that sense your point about psychological expertise is relevant.
To whom you are attracted is not a label. It's a fact.
James, you're an intelligent man but saying "Most people are not good judges
of who they are sexually attracted to" draws ineluctably to mind George
Orwell's (paraphrased) quote: "There are some things so ridiculous that only
an intellectual could believe them".
james jorden
>James, you're an intelligent man but saying "Most people are not good
judges
>of who they are sexually attracted to" draws ineluctably to mind George
>Orwell's (paraphrased) quote: "There are some things so ridiculous that
only
>an intellectual could believe them".
Well, all I can say is, "spoken like a straight guy." You grew up with a
clear model of what heterosexual behavior looked like, with examples
provided all around you in your family, peers and media. And then, when you
had a feeling that corresponded to something that was already familiar to
you, you could recognize it. No surprise there. It's an entirely different
experience to have "a feeling" and have no model of what to label it -- or
else to recognize it as something sinful and dangerous.
When you were seven years old, you could come home and say to your family,
"I think Trudy is cute and I want her to be my girlfriend" and the worst
reaction might have been laughter and "wait a few years until you grow up."
It's not at all the same experience when your first sexual feeling is toward
someone of your own sex. You really do think you've made some kind of
terrible mistake, and (I am speaking from personal experience here) you wait
hoping for the day when you start feeling normal.
For you, your impression of your sexuality is clear-cut. For me, it became
clear-cut pretty quickly (a tolerant and liberal environment helped some in
this regard). But for lots of people, it takes years before they really do
understand and accept a homosexual orientation.
You never did sit around and think for hours on end, "I wonder if I'm
straight." There's the difference.
I can also take issue with the idea that people always know what "sexual
thoughts" consist of. Sexuality consists of a lot more than wanting to make
genital contact -- as you say, it's a "stirring," and then it's up to the
person being stirred to interpret those urges, to give them a name. I
submit that there are plenty of nominally straight people who do have
same-sex attractions, but they interpret those attractions as friendship.
And given societal taboos on having sex with friends, it's natural that if
you ask a guy "Do you even think about having sex with Joe" he's going to
answer, "Of course not, he's just a friend."
The same applies to heterosexual relationships of course: we all know know
about the secretary who is in love with the boss, something everyone in the
office knows about *except* the two people involved. Is this secretary such
an expert on her sexuality that we should try to build statistics on her
self-reporting?
jj
james jorden
Tod Friendly:
>Considering the remark about hairdressing was considered "nasty", I would
be
>interested in your reaction if anyone else had compared homsexuality to a
>mental illness.
Disorder, not mental illness. And that's why I included the bit about IQ
immediately afterward, as something value-neutral. But the argument stands:
many people need some assistance in understanding their true feelings on any
important subject; that's the point of therapy. Sexual attraction, being
involuntary and very powerful, is not all that easy to understand.
>To whom you are attracted is not a label. It's a fact.
Tell that to the 12 year old kid who gets beaten up for getting a boner in
the locker room. How ready is he to say to himself, "I'm attracted to men?"
jj
Mike O'Connor
Tod Friendly <babie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:Mike O'Connor <m...@dojo.mi.org> wrote in message
:news:010506103...@dojo.mi.org...
:> In article <GCwD7...@world.std.com>,
:> The Avocado Avenger <sta...@world.std.com.feh> wrote:
:> :>Marriage to women with a direct stake in the success of his film career
:(and
:> :>thus, to maintenance of his heterosexual image)
:> :
:> : However, I remember when Kidman married Cruise to get *her* career
:> :going, and now it's Cruise who needs to be married to Kidman? I doubt
:> :eithe rone of them have a solid enough hold in Hollywood to be considered
:> :solid stars anymore.
:>
:> The only unsuccessful Tom Cruise movies have been ones with Kidman
:> in them. Apart from that, he's box office platinum.
:
:Legend?
Yeah, good point. But Legend was interesting in a train-wreck sorta way.
Magnolia didn't exact light the box office on fire, either, though it met
with much critical acclaim.
--
Michael J. O'Connor | WWW: http://dojo.mi.org/~mjo/ | Email: m...@dojo.mi.org
Royal Oak, Michigan | (has my PGP & Geek Code info) | Phone: +1 248-427-4481
Flkofcguls
>Yeah, good point. But Legend was interesting in a train-wreck sorta way.
>Magnolia didn't exact light the box office on fire, either, though it met
>with much critical acclaim.
Magnolia could hardly be called a "Tom Cruise" film. He was part of an ensemble
and the film was never made to be a blockbuster. Considering its length and
subject matter, it did better than it could have and Cruise was certainly
successful with his various awards and nominations for his role.
And if you want to count Legend, you may as well count films like The
Outsiders, All the Right Moves and Losin' It. Tom Cruise didn't really become
TOM CRUISE until Top Gun, which was released about 6 months after Legend. I'd
say from that point on, he became able to open a film and was judged on his
box-office prowess.
Since Top Gun, his "flops" have been:
The Color of Money- $53 mil (1986)
Days of Thunder- $82 mil (1990)
Far & Away - $58 mil (1992) on a $30 mil budget.
Eyes Wide Shut- $55 mil (1999)
And for those insistent on counting Magnolia- $22.5 mil (1999)
Out of the 15 films he's appeared in, 10 have crossed the $100 mil mark in this
country alone. The above five are his others. None of them really flops, just
some of them money losers when you compare their budgets.
Anyhow, all of this was for the person who said he was hardly a solid star
anymore.
He's pretty much guaranteed box office gold.
Flkofcguls
Yes, that seems to be the whole point. Neither you, nor Morris nor Tod <well,
not Tod, he knows EVERYTHING!> seem to know anything about what we're
discussing, yet you have been gassing on about it for some 30 odd posts.
I love when straight men try and tell us about ourselves. Always gives me a
chuckle.
YogiBear
many people honestly want to admit that they are ugly, and under today
climate dealing with sexual orientation, there are still a lot of people not
willing to admit to themselves and others that they are homosexual..
Wasted survey in my opinion..
"MG" <mor...@online.de> wrote in message
news:9d3mf4$or1$1...@news.online.de...
>
> "Patricia Martin Steward" <puff...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3af64b4b...@news.earthlink.net...
> > On Sun, 6 May 2001 10:34:50 +0200, "MG" <mor...@online.de> wrote:
> > >"Tom Hens" <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > >news:01c0d5ba$da74e0a0$LocalHost@gateway...
> > >>
> > >> Could you please provide cites for these studies, as well as cites
for
> the
> > >> other studies you've read that arrive at a number other than 1%, and
> for
> > >> each of them give a brief summary of your reasons for judging them to
> be
> > >> either serious or not serious?
> > >>
> > >I knew this was coming. I am not exactly a 'scholar' of homosexuality
> (like
> > >you maybe), and if I were, I'd get all the 'he doth protest too much'
> > >comments Cruise is getting, so it's lose-lose. However, I do remember
> very
> > >well that a few years ago an actual survey revealed something like 0.7%
> for
> > >females and 1.3% for males.
> >
> > An "actual survey!" Wow, I'm impressed.
> >
> >
> > >But I'm certainly not going to search the Web for a
> > >copy of that study, you can do that yourself.
> >
> > Then we're certainly not going to give your opinions any credence.
> > If you can't back it up with an "actual survey," you're just blowing
> > smoke. Or something.
> >
>
> All right, this is as quoted and used in a legal argument in 1995:
>
> 'The Prevalence Of Homosexual Orientation.
>
> Few generalizable estimates exist of the prevalence of homosexual
> orientation in the United States.[13] Among existing surveys on
sexuality,
> estimates differ substantially depending upon (among other things) whether
> the researcher inquires into same-sex sexual conduct, sexual orientation
> measured in terms of enduring attraction, or self-reported sexual
identity.
> The renowned study of sexuality recently released by the National Opinion
> Research Center at the University of Chicago is illustrative. In that
> survey, 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women reported having had sex with a
> same-sex partner since age eighteen.[14] A larger proportion of
> respondents -- 7.7% of the men and 7.5% of the women -- reported
> experiencing attraction to persons of their own sex, considering the
> prospect of sex with a same-sex partner appealing, or both.[15] When
> respondents were asked whether they thought of themselves as
"heterosexual,
> homosexual, bisexual, or something else," 2.8% of the male respondents and
> 1.4% of the female respondents identified themselves as "homosexual" or
> "bisexual."[16] The Chicago researchers found a significantly higher
> prevalence of self-reported homosexual or bisexual identity (9.2% for men,
> 2.6% for women) among residents of the twelve largest American
cities.[17]'
>
> Note that 2.8/1.4% describe themselves as homosexual OR bisexual. Leaving
it
> others to guess as to what proportion of that are exclusively gay. And if
> you can use a newsreader, I'm sure you can d/l the whole survey yourself.
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > This email address won't work. I've tried. Earthlink has tried. It
just
> doesn't work.
> >
> > Face your fears.
> > Live your dreams.
>
>
YogiBear
http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/bib-homoprev.html
Peep...@webtv.net
>was a similar type of actor who everyone
>knew was extremely religous and led
>as moral a life as possible, we would
>have an explanation for his actions
Troy Aikman tried that tact. 'Didn't fly.
Hugs,
Janice, glad to see ASG's wised-up re: TC. When this gal first arrived,
most of the "regulars" were insisting Tommy-bOy wasn't gay.
*ROFLOLOLOLOL*
--
GO Green!! GO, Ralph!!
http://www.votenader.com/
(-)> *peep* (-)> *peep* (-)> *muckmouth*
Grnbrier
<snip>
>But for lots of people, it takes years before they >really do understand and
accept a homosexual >orientation.
I *do* hate to quibble here, but I'm uncomfortable with the use of the word
"orientation."
To me, it is either "accept their homosexuality" or "accept their
heterosexuality." (I won't even get into the morass that calls itself
"bisexual.")
The very word "orientation" implies some sort of thought process, even a
conscious decision, about one's sexuality. As you surely know, their is no
"choice" involved whatsoever in homosexuality/heterosexuality.
Dictionary.com, in their fifth entry on the word allows:
----------------------
5.
a.A tendency of thought; a general inclination: a Marxist
orientation.
b.Sexual orientation.
-----------------------
A tendency of thought. Hmmmm. I don't care for the use of "orientation" because
certain MORONS in society will construe that to mean that a certain degree of
CHOICE is involved in a homosexual person's sexuality.
And, if "choice" is involved, why not "choose" to be "normal" and therefore,
*not* spite The Lord and His Grand Plan For Things???
I don't know about you, but I'm more comfortable hammering home the point that
homosexuality is, in fact, NATURAL (i.e., a completely explainable, Darwinian
phenomenon). It's not to be (and never will be) the "norm," but it's certainly
a hardwired-in "natural" part of a certain percentage of any given population,
throughout history.
I don't like whackos out there thinking that we can "choose" our "orientation."
Once the notion of "choosing" or "choice" or "lifestyle" is introduced into the
conversation, all bets are off as to the sheer stupidity and hatred that some
non-homosexual people will display on the subject.
I never agreed with "gay activists" back in the days when the PC word du jour
was "lifestyle," or "sexual preference," or other sadly misguided
sugarcoatings, as they scrambled to curry favor with "the estabishment."
I'm homosexual, and have known so since I was 7-8 years old, gaping in awe at
the lifeguards in the lockerroom. There was no "choice" about it: I was awed,
amazed and attracted to what I saw! Thus, the awakening of a young queer.
Nor am I "proud" of being gay. Any more than I'm "proud" of my blue eyes, my
right-handedness, my 6'2" stature, or the grey in my hair. It is nothing to be
proud of, or ashamed of. My homosexuality merely "is." (And I *know* what the
definition of "is" is.)
Doogie
Tom Hens
MG <mor...@online.de> wrote...
> However, I do remember very
> well that a few years ago an actual survey revealed something like 0.7%
> for females and 1.3% for males. The question refered to respondents'
> having an actual homosexual experience in a given time period. Focusing
> on behavior rather than vague inclination seemed very sensible to me,
> otherwise you could ask people if they'd ever thought of killing
> someone and find out everyone's a murderer. But I'm certainly not going
> to search the Web for a copy of that study, you can do that yourself.
> Nice try, though, to smother a discussion of that precious 10%.
And where, pray tell, did I mention "that precious 10%"? I was just curious
since you implied that you've read numerous studies on the subject, and
that the "serious" ones arrive at a percentage of 1%. I thought what those
studies were, and what your criteria for judging some of them to be serious
and others not, would be very interesting. You signally failed to come up
with an answer. But thank you for playing.
Tom Hens
Tod Friendly <suzer...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> I'm sure everyone is
> willing to concede that people will deny being gay. But not to know to
> whom you are attracted? No.
And also wrote...
> To whom you are attracted is not a label. It's a fact.
Tod, you have just proven without a shadow of a doubt that you are indeed
completely straight. Congratulations. Maybe you should start advising Tom
Cruise on how to do it, since he's obviously getting some really lousy
advice these days.
> James, you're an intelligent man but saying "Most people are not good
> judges of who they are sexually attracted to" draws ineluctably to mind
> George Orwell's (paraphrased) quote: "There are some things so ridiculous
> that only an intellectual could believe them".
It was unfortunately phrased.
Tom Hens
james jorden <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> wrote...
<snip>
> The same applies to heterosexual relationships of course: we all know
> know about the secretary who is in love with the boss, something
> everyone in the office knows about *except* the two people involved.
> Is this secretary such an expert on her sexuality that we should try
> to build statistics on her self-reporting?
As god-awful as that show was, the character of Josh on Veronica's Closet
was a very recognisable type: the guy whom everyone around him knows is
really gay, except himself.
I'm reminded of a past poster to a newsgroup I read finally coming out and
saying he was gay, which was clearly an emotional and difficult moment for
him. I was stunned, not about him being gay, but because I'd *always*
assumed he was gay, simply based on what he posted. It had simply never
crossed my mind that he could possibly be anything else, yet he obviously
believed that himself until not too long before that announcement. This was
someone I never met in RL or had any significant email or other private
exchanges with. People can delude themselves to astonishing degrees.
james jorden
>The very word "orientation" implies some sort of thought process, even a
>conscious decision...
> a.A tendency of thought; a general inclination: a Marxist
>orientation.
But I think the "inclination" part is exactly right: a direction toward
which we are pointed, but it's up to the individual to decide whether to go
there. That way "homosexual" is inclusive of people who are not (currently)
sexually active. I mean, according to that NORC study, there were a few
times in the past 20 years when I would have had to answer truthfully that
no, I HADN'T had sex with a man in the previous 12 months. Does that mean I
wasn't gay then?
In the final analysis, you have to call it *something*, and "sexual
orientation" seems both accurate and accepted. God knows, better than
"lifestyle."
jj
james jorden
>WAY overdue, james.
I've got the MLYoung gene, you know!
jj
Tom Hens
Mike C <mike3k@NOSPAM_suespammers.org> wrote...
> I'm a 6 on the Kinsey scale (absolutely no attraction to women), yet
> I've never had a sexual experience with another male (or a female, for
> that matter) due to not accepting the fact that I was gay for most of my
> life. Does that make me not gay just because I haven't actually had sex
> with a male?
>
> I still consider myself 100% gay because the only sex partner I'd ever
> have would be male.
During the time Stephen Fry publicly proclaimed he was celibate, some dim
interviewer asked him how he could also describe himself as gay, since he
wasn't having sex with anyone. Fry replied: "I know perfectly well which
sex I'm not sleeping with."
Tod Friendly
> When you were seven years old, you could come home and say to your family,
> "I think Trudy is cute and I want her to be my girlfriend" and the worst
> reaction might have been laughter and "wait a few years until you grow up
Considering that when I was 7 years old, Trudy was the family dog that isn't
necessarily true.
Lawhipmaster
>with that he's queer.
>From: Nomen Nescio nob...@dizum.com
Keep in mind that Nomen is Italian, which means he's a gangster
jeez....
btw, Cruise isn't Jewish
Black Ops
> Black Ops wrote
>
> >> <snip the "problems" with the survey>
> >
> >Why don't you just admit that your "problem" with the survey is that you
> >don't like the results
>
> Hey, you're the one who snipped, not me. Results are results; what I don't
> like is the interpretation, which (if you would bother to read before
> snipping) is erroneous and damaging.
>
> And, please, please don't call me "activist!" Rush won't like me any more
> if you do that!
>
I did read before snipping... I guess I just don't agree with your
interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the results...
BTW, Rush doesn't like anybody but his listeners... he could give two shits
about what your political beliefs are or whether or not your an activists,
as long as your listening to the show, your part of the family....
Black "Haven't listened to Rush in over 5 years" Ops
MLYoung
>>however, still put the number of exclusively
>>gay men around 6 percent.
>
>When *you*'re near the sample, the % shoots up to 100, poundcake.
>>From my own experience in the performing arts,
>
>*ROFLOL*
Poor Shrieks--and you were doing so
well.
SOI Day 3.
--margaret
MLYoung
>
>>WAY overdue, james.
>
>I've got the MLYoung gene, you know!
Yeah, but yours fit better.
--margaret
>
>jj
MLYoung
Guess Tod has never heard of Jon
Peters.
--margaret (who's known some straight
male hair stylists and even a straight
male makeup artist)
>
>jj
LordHogarth
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20010505200107...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> From my own experience in the performing arts, however, I'd say the
percentage
> of
> gay men in that arena is much higher than
> in the general population. I've been in
> several shows
Gads.
Hogarth
MG
"Tom Hens" <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
I can see this discussion is much closer to your heart than to mine. Since
I'm half jewish, it reminds me eerily of how I can get worked up about
Israel for example, while others just rule their eyes, bemused. You've very
likely been dealing with this your whole life, whereas for me, as my first
posting indicates, it's a matter of mostly statistical interest.
I live in Germany and am certainly not involved in American politics, right
wing or other, that's why I was shocked to see James put me in the Christian
Right corner as my 'true colors'. What I'm against is just throwing out
presumptions of homosexuality, as if there is some equivalence, i.e. as if
anybody could go either way. I just don't think the numbers bear this out,
while acknowledging there'd always be disagreements about what those numbers
are.
I am convinced homosexuality is entirely genetic and immutable and that
there is no choice about it - but for that same reason I consider the low
%ages more likely, simply because there would immense pressure for that gene
or set of genes to be selected out. And yet it exists and always has
existed. I recently saw MIT professor Stephen Pinker, a well respected
author and expert on language and cognitive science, sum up recent findings
about why that gene hasn't long disappeared. A very likely explanation is
that it may provide a reproductive advantage in women (please don't ask me
to quote that study, because I really have other things to do). But, and
this is my line of thinking, if the prevalence of homosexuals were as high
as 10% or more, then I just don't see how that can be made up for by a
better reproductive yield elsewhere. That's why the gene should likely be on
the brink of existence and the low numbers look more plausible.
Obviously this is a touchy subject, but for me somebody's being gay has
always been a matter of just shrugging your shoulders - yeah, very
interesting, but it won't change my opinion of you one bit, good or bad.
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Avocado Avenger) usenetted:
> "james jorden" <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>
> >Marriage to women with a direct stake in the success of his film
> career (and
> >thus, to maintenance of his heterosexual image)
>
> However, I remember when Kidman married Cruise to get *her* career
> going, and now it's Cruise who needs to be married to Kidman? I doubt
> eithe rone of them have a solid enough hold in Hollywood to be
> considered
> solid stars anymore.
Cruise? You've got to be kidding. Even MI:2 did well at the box
office. And he was nominated for an Oscar for his supporting role in
Magnolia only a couple of years ago. Rain Man. Top Gun. Born on the
Fourth of July. Jerry Maguire.
As for Kidman, she's got some good credits to her name. i don't think
she's going to be dropping out of the charts just yet.
wg
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jjo...@bellatlantic.net (james jorden) usenetted:
> KenzieKiss wrote
>
> >That was my original question. "Many of his actions?" -- like which
> ones?
>
> Membership in Church of Scientology, one of whose overt claims is
> that they
> can "cure" homosexuality.
>
> Marriage to women with a direct stake in the success of his film
> career (and
> thus, to maintenance of his heterosexual image)
>
> Violent reaction (or overreaction) to any suggestion that he may ever
> have
> had sex with a man (e.g., the recent $100 million lawsuit.)
>
>
I'm not sure how much you can read into that $100m -- yes, it sounds
ferocious, but two things. 1) It guarantees that the story will run in
every newspaper -- the amount of money grabs headlines. 2) It is very
much in keeping with the policy L. Ron Hubbard is frequently quoted as
setting of going after enemies *very* hard. Which, btw, could also be
said of Cruise's immediately filing papers for divorce, and the
abruptness and clean-break way he seems to have ended his marriage.
wg
J. Stone
contrived) infaturation with Tom Cruise is just a cover for her being a
lesbian.
james jorden
>Obviously this is a touchy subject, but for me somebody's being gay has
>always been a matter of just shrugging your shoulders - yeah, very
>interesting, but it won't change my opinion of you one bit, good or bad.
Careful you don't strain those shoulder muscles. But then, I guess Jewish
activists who are promoting their pro-Israel agenda of positive
discrimination for Zionists have a tendency to overreact.*
* NB -- irony in the use of "activist," "agenda," "positive
discrimination," an interesting collection of vocabulary spouting from
someone who claims disinterest in "somebody's being gay."
jj
maryanne kehoe
bankability as a star? Somehow I don't think so...same thing with ROD.
Grnbrier
>That way "homosexual" is inclusive of people who are not (currently)
>sexually active. I mean, according to that NORC study,
I think that most, if not ALL of these sexual "studies" are largely a crock of
shit, with waaaaaay too much room for error to be valid in any meaningful way.
I think they're all fundamentally flawed, in different ways.
>there were a few
>times in the past 20 years when I would have had to answer truthfully that
>no, I HADN'T had sex with a man in the previous 12 months. Does that mean I
>wasn't gay then?
Of course not. More evidence that these studies are horseshit and fundamentally
flawed.
>In the final analysis, you have to call it *something*, and "sexual
>orientation" seems both accurate and accepted. God knows, better than
>"lifestyle."
Sigh. I suppose you're right. "Orientation" is far preferable to "lifestyle" or
"preference." I still have problems with "orientation," though. But, as you
say, to the masses, it "seems" accurate, and it "seems" accepted. Which is a
good thing, even if they're thinking the right thing for the wrong reasons!
But, I personally am just more comfortable with a terminology that *eliminates
any possibility* that homosexuality is anything *other than* genetic and
hardwired into a certain percentage of any given population. Period. I realize
that what I'm saying has not yet been *proven,* beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, but
I'm quite confident that it will be. And soon.
And then you get these miserable ditzoidal Anne Heches of the world,
flip-flopping back and forth, giving more fuel to the fire of the religious
loonies that think all this homosexual stuff is a perverted *choice,* and we're
engaging in it to Spite The Lord, and if we were "moral," we would *choose* not
to be homosexual, and obey The Good Book.
Doogie (don't even *ask* me to "cite sources." Ever!)
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
"MG" <mor...@online.de> wrote in message news:9d5s2s$5vb$1...@news.online.de...
>
> I am convinced homosexuality is entirely genetic and immutable and that
> there is no choice about it -
I happen to agree with you. Arguments that homosexuals "choose" their
orientation are just so much crap. I've never heard anybody claim that
heterosexuals choose their orientation. Perhaps a bisexual can choose how to
express his/her sexuality, but I don't think anybody can choose what sex
attracts them.
Expression of sexuality is an entirely different thing. You can certainly
choose how or even if you express your sexuality. What you seem to be stuck
with is what gets your motor running... that is innate.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
msch...@carolina.rr.com.nospam
http://home.carolina.rr.com/mortimerschnerd
Quote of the Day: "I voted Republican this time around. The Democrats left a
bad taste in my mouth"
- Monica Lewinsky
MG
"james jorden" <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:k0yJ6.29510$ua5.8...@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
Hey, I thought you had killfiled me long ago! I'm not a jewish activist,
it's just an example of something I care more about than others do. But
judging by this comment and your other posts, I think you should work on the
tolerance-thing a little more...
james jorden
> I'm not a jewish activist,
>it's just an example of something I care more about than others do
Curious, then, that as soon as you encounter someone who cares about gay
issues, you immediately label *him* "activist."
jj
MG
Well, be honest, aren't you? And if not, please explain why you insist the
prevalence of gays must be high rather than low, as the quoted study
suggests. I at least am curious from an amateur scientist, evolutionary
standpoint and have indicated the reasons why the %age must indeed be very
low. Why is a statistical finding such a sensitive topic?
MLYoung
>she's going to be dropping out of the charts just yet.
>
>wg
Has she ever carried a successful
film? To Die For, maybe? What else?
--margaret
james jorden
>Well, be honest, aren't you?
No. Don't belong to any political organizations other than the Democratic
Party and the ACLU. The last time I marched in a Gay Pride parade was, oh,
7 or 8 years ago. I have an interest, not an agenda.
> And if not, please explain why you insist the
>prevalence of gays must be high rather than low, as the quoted study
>suggests.
I don't insist, I merely point out that this one study you chose to quote
(inaccurately) is not very applicable to the discussion, since it is limited
to people who have had a same-sex sexual encounter in the 12 months
preceding the study. That leaves out large numbers of people who are, or
consider themselves to be, gay. You also chose a study that was based on
reported behavior, which as I pointed out includes a bias against people who
may be unwilling to act on homosexual urges for fear of societal
disapproval. There's a double standard here, which is that heterosexuality
is based on what you "are" whereas homosexuality is based on what you "do."
I at least am curious from an amateur scientist, evolutionary
>standpoint and have indicated the reasons why the %age must indeed be very
>low.
Must? No, you have made the assumption that homosexuality has no
evolutionary "survival" value. There's no way your theory can be tested, as
we obviously have no human population *without* homosexuals to use as a
control group. And, even if one should believe that homosexuality has no
"survival" value, so what? There are plenty of human behaviors that do not
seem to be survival-based: romantic love, artistic creativity,
philosophical thought, religious practice. By your argument, philosophers
and priests should have been bred out of the population long ago, since they
do not contribute anything to the race's survival.
KenzieKiss
>much in keeping with the policy L. Ron Hubbard is frequently quoted as
>setting of going after enemies *very* hard. Which, btw, could also be
>said of Cruise's immediately filing papers for divorce, and the
>abruptness and clean-break way he seems to have ended his marriage.
>
that Scientology attracts who gay actors who want to be protected from
discovery? Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
KenzieKiss
The film was not an earth-shattering stretch of any of it actors' abilities,
but she was very convincing in "Dead Calm."
KenzieKiss
>bankability as a star?
In romantic leading male roles, I think so. Look what happened to Rupert
Everett.
J. Stone
Well, its a rumor. John Travolta is another supposed gay actor that
Scientology
is trying to protect.
james jorden
> Why is a statistical finding such a sensitive topic?
Does a European of Jewish heritage really have to ask that question? What do
you think fueled the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Holocaust but
manipulated "statistical findings?"
I also get a little sensitive when you first claim "all serious studies,"
then backpedal to only one study, which you then misquote. And then, when
challenged for documentation, you start making noises about how you don't
really care all that much about the subject anyway, and besides anyone who
questions your (inaccurate) information is an activist with an agenda.
Again, you insist that the study you (mis)quote presents facts, when
actually *you* are supplying an interpretation, i.e., that fewer than 1% of
Americans are gay, and that "gay activists" conspire to inflate that figure.
Easy enough for you to "prove," since anyone who bothers to correct your
misinformation gets labeled "activist."
jj