"49% Of Young Adults Are Not Straight"

I read this article about 345 women tested who had sexual responses to videos of other women.

"“Even though the majority of women identify as straight, our research clearly demonstrates that when it comes to what turns them on, they are either bisexual or gay, but never straight,” Dr Rieger said."

As for the guys - There was another poll of almost 1,700 people 18-24 yrs old, where in 49% identified as something other than totally straight. Only 6% said they were exclusively gay.

Anyway, it's pretty interesting and has subject matter sure to incite controversy.


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/05/most-women-are-either-gay-or-bisexual-but-never-straight-says-study/

 

I'm not surprised. I think it's always been like this, but young people now feel like it's socially acceptable to admit it.

 

I've always found it interesting that I can get extremely turned on by the sight of a naked woman but the thought of actually touching a naked woman doesn't do it for me.

I do agree with matte that people are much more comfortable with their sexuality these days. I think sexuality has always been somewhat fluid.

 

What people label themselves as is bullshit, no on has control over their own bodies

I seriously doubt the 6% figure though for those that say they are gay, thats too high

Again, doesnt matter what they call themselves, any arousal for the opposite sex is dead easy to sniff out.

You get that weird denial thing on both sides of the fence

 

The terminology is changing. People used to think only in terms of straight, gay, and bisexual. That would be 0%, 100%, and 50% on the gay spectrum. These days, most people understand that nothing in nature is exactly 0% or 100% anything. Probably no real person is less than 1% or more than 99% gay, so that makes us all somewhat bisexual, or somewhat gay, whichever way you would rather say it.

The new way of looking at this makes me feel so much better about it.

 

But thats bullshit too, there are people that are 0% and 100% something, and not just on sexuality.

There do exist things in nature that are 0% and 100%

There is always variation in any population, so there is always that 1% at either end

 

Such as? The numbers 100% and 0% represent perfection, which is mostly a made-up human concept; an oversimplification of reality.

We should expect the answers to be different now on sexual multiple choice questions, because the options have changed. When I was a teenager, young girls were not told that you can be mildly or moderately bisexual. Most people viewed homosexuality as an all or nothing proposition, like pregnancy or cancer.

Does it freak you out to think you might be 1% straight?

 

Very sad to see organisations with a huge agenda try and push off their nonsensical claims as "fact" or even credible.

Last yr they assured us it was only 5 or 10% of the population. Now its half.
Yeah right....

Lets face it, this is the stuff of pure comedy.

 

The source is a gay news publication. Clearly there's no bias behind this article.....[/sarcasm]

I known plenty of women who feel this way as well. I think that's because women are just a lot more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than men overall. It's interesting because with birds the opposite is true: male birds are way prettier than female birds. Yet female humans are way prettier than male humans.

 

acc to the article, if a woman's pupils dilate after seeing a pic of a woman, then she is showing lesbian tendencies.

you couldn't make this crap up. Except they obviously did... LMAO

I suppose if my blood pressure rises after seeing a male I want to punch, that (cough) "researcher" would consider me homosexual..

Its actually quite an offensive article because its claiming that the vast majority of people are actually lying when they say they are heterosexual.

 

Some women are also narcissistic ie they enjoy the sight of their own body. Whereas males would consider that to be homosexual behaviour if they did it.

Likewise, lipstick, hair, clothes are considered part of sex and sexuality for women. It gives them a "rush". For instance the phrase "applying the warpaint" (makeup) before a date. That certainly doesn't mean they are "part lesbian".

 

Bullshit article.

Now if it were true that 49% of young adults are not straight, which I do not believe for a minute, it's because they're constantly being beat over the head with gay propaganda such as this ridiculous article.

 

Not sure i would agree.....i much rather look at photos of Jim Morrison and others than any woman....and I much rather look at Pitt rather than Jolie.....to my eyes, brad is prettier...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....yes, i find some women very appealing like Sophie Lauren, but it is more for her class and style than anything else.....they would be women i could look up to in some way and respect, though....to find them appealing in any way to me.......and love is a matter of the heart. I can love a female, but not want to sleep with a woman.....I can love a man and not want to sleep with him, either.....
Two people have to be on the same page for that.....and never forcing anyone into something they do not want to be part of.
I find kindness and tenderness from attractive men more sexy than anything else.
I do not find hurting someone sexy at all.

 

Come again?

 

The article is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. What interests women (eg pupil dilation) does NOT mean they are lesbian.
Sadly, as PressRat says, its just a poor attempt to sexually confuse young people to convert them to a "cause" eg including a source of ad revenue for "Pink News". I think the press regulators should look at the article.

PS I know women who's pupils dilate when they see a nice sofa. Or a pretty baby.
What does that mean? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean they want to have sex with them.

 

What did any of this mean?

 

Way back when guys used to routinely go "Fag Bashing" (yes, I KNOW it's called Gay Bashing now, but back then it wasn't). I won't dwell on what makes someone do such foolish things, hitting anyone is lame, it just is. So what happened next was that some of these burly bikers and truckers and other assorted machismo assholes contracted HIV, as if out of nowhere (as they saw it). But then it was revealed to them that "fighting" is actually a form of "intimate contact" and you can indeed exchange a variety of bodily fluids and pass various diseases.

Personally, I thought it was at least some proof that God or Karma exists with a vengeance. Again I think anyone who goes around looking for people to hit has mental issues or primitive DNA or both. But I remember also that way back when HIV was considered to be a "gay" disease. Sam Kennison turned it into comedy and well, he ain't around no more either. I've had 3 friends die from Aids. Only 1 was gay (he made quite a bit of gay porno in the early 80s and had a very cool pad in Palo Alto).

As I read the original story for this thread it seems to be that the article is not only self-serving, but entirely unrealistic. Regardless of what people say about homosexuality in nature, I will not compare humans to flamingos, salamanders or goats as some sort of oft verification of how "natural" it is. Humans themselves are not natural on this planet. We're a whole different game and I think that the homosexuality we see in humans is unique to our intelligence and that it has been with us since the beginning. However, 49% I will not buy. If they had parsed it back to say 17.81% I think they would have had far more believers. Even though that figure is likely to be very high as well.

The thing I don't understand is why this kind of distortion is even contemplated. A false narrative is eventually discovered and credibility suffers. There's plenty of honest ways to discuss this.

 

I dated an upholsterist once!

 

It means that the women in the so called "study" were not lesbian, or even bisexual. Because the reasoning behind the claim was nonsense.

 

49% of young adults love chicken nuggets.