You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
A recent Zogby poll suggests 47 percent of all Americans surveyed believe all people have the potential to be sexually attracted to members of both sexes. The nationwide poll, commissioned by Scientific American's Mind magazine, showed only 11 percent of those asked believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice, while 34 percent said it is determined by both choice and other factors and 6 percent weren't sure, United Press International reported.
While expressing a widespread belief that sexual orientation is not an active choice, 47 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "I believe that all people have the potential to be sexually attracted to members of both sexes." A distinct majority, 53 percent, said they believe "a straight person may occasionally experience sexual attraction to individuals of the same sex."
In my opinion, the poll is screwed up. I simply don't believe that 53 percent of people said they felt this way. It defies reason and common sense.
8 Comments:
Wayne, do you not realize the genie that's been let out of the bottle here?
When the New York magazine is running eight-page stories that feature this:
"Of course, what can’t be expressed in statistical terms is how teenagers think about their same-sex interactions. Go to the schools, talk to the kids, and you’ll see that somewhere along the line this generation has started to conceive of sexuality differently. Ten years ago in the halls of Stuyvesant you might have found a few goth girls kissing goth girls, kids on the fringes defiantly bucking the system. Now you find a group of vaguely progressive but generally mainstream kids for whom same-sex intimacy is standard operating procedure. “It’s not like, Oh, I’m going to hit on her now. It’s just kind of like, you come up to a friend, you grab their ass,” Alair explains. “It’s just, like, our way of saying hello.” These teenagers don’t feel as though their sexuality has to define them, or that they have to define it, which has led some psychologists and child-development specialists to label them the “post-gay” generation. But kids like Alair and her friends are in the process of working up their own language to describe their behavior. Along with gay, straight, and bisexual, they’ll drop in new words, some of which they’ve coined themselves: polysexual, ambisexual, pansexual, pansensual, polyfide, bi-curious, bi-queer, fluid, metroflexible, heteroflexible, heterosexual with lesbian tendencies—or, as Alair puts it, “just sexual.” The terms are designed less to achieve specificity than to leave all options open."
boo, you're right...men and women are indeed created quite differently.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/17/2006 12:03 PM
Anonymous - I have to let you know that I don't respect your research technique. What you do is derisively referred to as "scratch and sniff" research.
People who use this "technique" begin with a conclusion, and then desperately scratch the surface and scour the Internet for "proof" to back their pre-ordained assertions.
But, the truth is, anyone with half a brain can find something on the Internet to back his or her viewpoint. If I wanted to find a person who thinks he is an allen, I could do so with the click of a mouse. But that would be essentially meaningless, now wouldn't it?
Your research technique can be summed up: "I read it on the Internet, thererfore I beleive it, and it must be true." Of course, this is without context, real-world experience and common sense.
With all due respect, that is the way dilettantes and dolts do research. No wonder why you don't sign your name, you are rightfully ashamed of who you are, what you do and the way you do it.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
2/17/2006 12:31 PM
And again, since you're the one doing the name calling you're just saying that you've got nothing to refute the argument.
Come on, Wayne...what if the youth of today and the future could grow up without the pressures GLBT youth faced? If a by-product of that was the unwillingness to have a label and the freedom to love whomever they wanted (as long as that person is a consenting, non-unfaithful-to-a-spouse adult) is that so bad?
Or is there a more serious reason that this bothers you? Could it possibly be that these same people might not need you anymore, Wayne?
posted by Anonymous, at
2/17/2006 1:59 PM
ANON: Men and women were not "created". We evolved. There's a big difference, and wildly different implications follow. Just my two-cents. And as for Wayne Besen and people like him, he's needed more these days than ever before! The country is stewing in its ignorance, and it is quite refreshing to hear ideas which come from someone who isn't brainwashed by religious mythology or other such absurdities.
Whoever you are, I don't know, but you should be true to yourself and live a life of honesty. Do yourself a favor and stop worrying that some man in the sky will torture you for all eternity if you should decide to live an authentic existence.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/17/2006 2:25 PM
The Zogby poll was done for this article:
"Do Gays Have a Choice?" from the February/March Issue of Scientific American Mind (on newstands Feb.2 see link below). The sexual orientation quiz was provided Robert Epstein, the author of the article.
As editor of "Psychology Today," Epstein was roundly criticized for supporting conversion therapy. This latest article is yet another defense of the ex-gay movement.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/18/2006 3:54 PM
Epstein's quizes are interesting - I will have to look over his homepage more closely. When I took the short How Gay Are You? quiz, I found it extremely skewed. I measured 11 (one step away from 100% homosexual) when in fact I'm happily married to a man, and identify as bisexual. I don't see what the point is of the short quiz - it's totally unreliable. But at least the longer one leaves a little room for reality! That one placed me in the middle of a continuum, where I probably belong.
