Questions about Gender, Sexuality and Categories

[SevenSquared]

Question 1
What % of readers on literotica do you think are:

a) Straight (or predominantly straight) men
b) Straight (or predominantly straight) women
c) Gay (or predominantly gay) men
d) Gay (or predominantly gay) women

Note, I'm talking about readers, not authors. And I include all readers, in all categories, from someone looking for a quick wank, to someone interested in giving a thorough critique of the misunderstood art of erotic fiction.


Question 2
What categories (other than the obvious gay-themed ones) do you think contain a substantially disproportionate number of one of the above groups, either significantly higher or significantly lower than the numbers you gave in Question 1?


All thoughts and opinions welcome

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would bet you that the readership in trans and crossdresser category is mostly straight men with a trannie fetish. Gay men are not as interested in my experience.

And there are as many-- maybe more-- straight women reading gay male as there are gay men.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Question 1
What % of readers on literotica do you think are:

a) Straight (or predominantly straight) men
b) Straight (or predominantly straight) women
c) Gay (or predominantly gay) men
d) Gay (or predominantly gay) women

Note, I'm talking about readers, not authors. And I include all readers, in all categories, from someone looking for a quick wank, to someone interested in giving a thorough critique of the misunderstood art of erotic fiction.


Question 2
What categories (other than the obvious gay-themed ones) do you think contain a substantially disproportionate number of one of the above groups, either significantly higher or significantly lower than the numbers you gave in Question 1?


All thoughts and opinions welcome

Question 1:

I'm just guessing, based on my interactions with readers and other authors, as well as my overall experience on other porn sites, I would estimate:

a. 70%
b. 20%
c. 8%
d. 2%

There is no science behind these estimates.

Question 2:

I haven't a clue.

 

[3113]

I would bet you that the readership in trans and crossdresser category is mostly straight men with a trannie fetish. Gay men are not as interested in my experience.

So...are the straight men interested in fucking men but not admitting it (thus being not-straight...in which case these would be gay men who are interested but not, um, gay-gay as they're not out? ) or do they view trannies as sex toys or objects, like men who get off kissing women's shoes or making love to dolls?...and so they are straight because they're not seeing the trannie as having a gender per se?

Really, it's getting so you can't write erotica without a college degree!

 

[SevenSquared]

I think a large percentage (not sure how large, could even be a majority) of crossdressers are straight, they just enjoy dressing up in women's clothing.

 

[sr71plt]

My observation is that most readers of gay male themes on Lit.--and probably tranny/cross-dressing as well--are straight women. I think the Lesbian category is read mainly by straight men and by lesbians. As far as readers on the site, I think most are straight men and most of the rest are straight women.

Again, just my own estimate; nothing scientific beyond the split in e-mails I receive.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I would say that Toys and Masturbation readers are probably the most diverse and broad readership of all.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So...are the straight men interested in fucking men but not admitting it (thus being not-straight...in which case these would be gay men who are interested but not, um, gay-gay as they're not out? ) or do they view trannies as sex toys or objects, like men who get off kissing women's shoes or making love to dolls?...and so they are straight because they're not seeing the trannie as having a gender per se?

Really, it's getting so you can't write erotica without a college degree!

yes to all of the above-- and even more. If you read those stories, you'll find that more of them are about a straight guy being turned into a trannie, and experiencing bottom sex. Or, about a straight guy being seduced by a tranny that he "honestly thought" was a woman (yeah, right) and half of those stories end up with the tranny as the active partner.

It seems to me that almost every man is bisexual just like almost every woman is-- but the social stigma of homophobia screws up more men than women. Men are expected to react violently and defensively, as we so often see happen, which makes honest exploration a bit difficult.

A lot-- NOT ALL-- but many-- trannies are men who can't express their bottom side without linking it to female gender. If they want to be done unto, they have to be female for the act...

Actually, they just might have a delightfully sensitive prostate. Which is so very unmanly, of course.

I haven't seen very many women react enthusiastically to cross-dressing men. Women who like men like them to look like men, for a whole other set of complicated reasons involving male privilege, for one thing-- some of which is as much a myth as the male idea that only women can enjoy receptive sex--- but for many women, female clothing is just the burden they labor under already, and not very interesting. The only women I know of who find cross dressing sexy are women who have a cross-dressing partner, because then it's more personal. The women whoclaim to have fantasies about cross dressing men here on lit-- usually turn out to be men.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And quite possibly those straight men are reading about being 'done' because they are the ones who always have to 'do' and would like a little variety. How many women are there out in the world who might like to try topping a man but are afraid it would scare him off? How many people end up in BDSM because they don't have any other way of reversing roles? To what degree is this the source of the fat fees charged by dominatrices? Think how much more fun the world would be if people really acted on their suppressed desires!

 

[Stella_Omega]

And quite possibly those straight men are reading about being 'done' because they are the ones who always have to 'do' and would like a little variety. How many women are there out in the world who might like to try topping a man but are afraid it would scare him off? How many people end up in BDSM because they don't have any other way of reversing roles? To what degree is this the source of the fat fees charged by dominatrices? Think how much more fun the world would be if people really acted on their suppressed desires!

How would we ever get any work done?!?!

 

[sr71plt]

It seems to me that almost every man is bisexual just like almost every woman is-- but the social stigma of homophobia screws up more men than women. Men are expected to react violently and defensively, as we so often see happen, which makes honest exploration a bit difficult.

Agree. Sex is sex is sex.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It certainly was for much of the Classical World. The well-to-do gentleman of both Greece and Rome was as likely to disport himself with a youth as with a woman. This was often a matter of dispute between those who thought it unmanly to have sex with another man and those of more hedonistic attitude but the literature of the time is quite clear on the subject.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

How would we ever get any work done?!?!

Maybe the world would be a better place if some people weren't working so hard? Or didn't have to? Or were more interested in accumulating experiences over capital?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Maybe the world would be a better place if some people weren't working so hard? Or didn't have to? Or were more interested in accumulating experiences over capital?

maybe we'll start seeing more of that attitude since accumulating capital is not such an easy thing to do any more-- and yet-- the sun still rises every morning.

I can think of a number of Captains Of Industry who would not be pleased with that notion.

 

[SevenSquared]

It seems to me that almost every man is bisexual just like almost every woman is-- but the social stigma of homophobia screws up more men than women. Men are expected to react violently and defensively, as we so often see happen, which makes honest exploration a bit difficult.

It's an interesting thought experiment. How much of sexuality is something we are born with, how much is ingrained in us through upbringing or what we are exposured to in society at a young age and how much is 'choice'. If we were genetically identical, but society brought everyone up to think that homosexuality was 'normal' (and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense, just using a cliche) and that it was heterosexuality was 'abnormal', how many of us would grow up homosexual or at least bisexual? I would definitely agree that it would be a much higher % than now, even if you include men that are currently 'straight' but in reality in denial. This leads to the conclusion that sexuality is not just something we are born with, but a combination of some random genetic factors, plus choice (conscious or subconscious) and trying to fit in with what we perceive to be normal.

But the curious thing is that makes for uncomfortable reading when flipped on its head. One of the cornerstones of gay activism is that homosexuals are 'born that way' and their sexual orientation is not in their control (and definitely not open to be 'changed'. But if a large number of 'straight' men are only straight because society influences them they should be straight, then doesn't it also follow that many 'gay' men aren't as gay as they think they are? Maybe they are rebelling? Or maybe they subconsciously put themselves in the box of being 'gay' because they realised they weren't 100% straight and felt that going to the opposite extreme gave them more identity than being a 'wishy washy bisexual'.

Yes, I realise large swathes of the above paragraph won't be considered very PC, but really it is only the logical extension of the first paragraph. Personally I don't know what influences people's sexuality, but I'm sure it's more complicated than being 'born that way'.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

It's an interesting thought experiment. How much of sexuality is something we are born with, how much is ingrained in us through upbringing or what we are exposured to in society at a young age and how much is 'choice'. If we were genetically identical, but society brought everyone up to think that homosexuality was 'normal' (and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense, just using a cliche) and that it was heterosexuality was 'abnormal', how many of us would grow up homosexual or at least bisexual? I would definitely agree that it would be a much higher % than now, even if you include men that are currently 'straight' but in reality in denial. This leads to the conclusion that sexuality is not just something we are born with, but a combination of some random genetic factors, plus choice (conscious or subconscious) and trying to fit in with what we perceive to be normal.

But the curious thing is that makes for uncomfortable reading when flipped on its head. One of the cornerstones of gay activism is that homosexuals are 'born that way' and their sexual orientation is not in their control (and definitely not open to be 'changed'. But if a large number of 'straight' men are only straight because society influences them they should be straight, then doesn't it also follow that many 'gay' men aren't as gay as they think they are? Maybe they are rebelling? Or maybe they subconsciously put themselves in the box of being 'gay' because they realised they weren't 100% straight and felt that going to the opposite extreme gave them more identity than being a 'wishy washy bisexual'.

Yes, I realise large swathes of the above paragraph won't be considered very PC, but really it is only the logical extension of the first paragraph. Personally I don't know what influences people's sexuality, but I'm sure it's more complicated than being 'born that way'.

I don't know where to start. Your experiment is fatally flawed due to the fact that the biological imperative defeats the conditions for creation of a homosexual="normal" and heterosexual="abnormal" universe. Every species requires male/female relations for survival. How could humans be convinced that they are different?

The inherent flaws in your first paragraph renders most of what comes afterward incongruous with deductive reasoning.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't know where to start. Your experiment is fatally flawed due to the fact that the biological imperative defeats the conditions for creation of a homosexual="normal" and heterosexual="abnormal" universe. Every species requires male/female relations for survival. How could humans be convinced that they are different?

The inherent flaws in your first paragraph renders most of what comes afterward incongruous with deductive reasoning.

Do you see a flaw in the "everyone is basically bisexual" concept? Bisexuals can procreate.

 

[SevenSquared]

I don't know where to start. Your experiment is fatally flawed due to the fact that the biological imperative defeats the conditions for creation of a homosexual="normal" and heterosexual="abnormal" universe.

Well duh. That's why I described it as being a 'thought experiment' rather than something that was actually plausible.

If you want something a bit more 'believable', imagine 100 years in the future a virus rendered every woman on the planet infertile, but scientists could still create life by some sort of DNA sampling, and this could be done equally well between two males or two females as it could between a male and a female. Now imagine another 500 years passed, with humans reproducing in this way. This is enough time for society to change quite considerably, and homosexuality would likely be a lot more accepted, but 500 years is way too short for any genetic change in our 'biological imperitive' to take place.

Would there be significantly more gay and bisexual men and women in the above scenario.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

If children could be produced by DNA sampling, an enormous amount of change could occur in five hundred years. Remember, we can now produce synthetic genes . . . or did some of you miss that on the local news?

However, your 'thought experiment' actually happened. If you look at the history of Sparta in detail, you will find that except for reproductive purposes, men and women were segregated and took the majority of their sexual pleasure with members of their own sex. Over time this so reduced the birth rate that Sparta was no longer able to field an army and ended being a bunch of professional generals for other poleis' armies. Then the Romans came along and that was the end of that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Do you see a flaw in the "everyone is basically bisexual" concept? Bisexuals can procreate.

And almost every.

Single.

Gay and lesbian

Was produced from a hetero coupling.

Weird, isn't it?

But if a large number of 'straight' men are only straight because society influences them they should be straight, then doesn't it also follow that many 'gay' men aren't as gay as they think they are? Maybe they are rebelling? Or maybe they subconsciously put themselves in the box of being 'gay' because they realised they weren't 100% straight and felt that going to the opposite extreme gave them more identity than being a 'wishy washy bisexual'.

In my experience, which is considerable-- gay men have had to fight off society's expectations that they NOT be gay.

Straight men have never much had the experience of having their straightness challenged day in, day out-- or at all (especially since the basic impulse for straight men is to kill the person who challenged their sacrosanct heterosexuality, who wants to risk that?).

So, no. the experiences of straight men and gay men are very different. Being gay, all by itself, is an act that puts a man outside the pale, and we humans really hate that.

Also, you have to remember that there are hundreds of degress of bisexuality-- from "I am genuinely monosexual (Only focused on one or the other sex) to "I think about same sex once in a very rare while for the right person" to "I don't care what sex my partner is" to "Actually, I don't like having sex at all, but I like to have cuddles and closeness with one or the other or both sexes."

And yes, for some men it's very much a comfort to be able to say; "I AM GAY." I belong. He might fuck a woman once in a while, but his primary allegiance is to the gay community.

Which is fair enough, if you ask me, why shouldn't he? I personally identify as a "Bisexual butch dyke" meaning that I love women and prefer to have sex with them but will, once in a while, have sex with a dude.

It took me more than forty years to come to that identification, and while I was figuring it out I produced two kids-- both of whom seem to be mostly heterosexual. We really don't get to expect absolutes and final answers when it comes to sex.

 

[3113]

It's a "Fact" not "PC."

It's an interesting thought experiment. How much of sexuality is something we are born with, how much is ingrained in us through upbringing or what we are exposured to in society at a young age and how much is 'choice'. If we were genetically identical, but society brought everyone up to think that homosexuality was 'normal' (and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense, just using a cliche) and that it was heterosexuality was 'abnormal', how many of us would grow up homosexual or at least bisexual?

I'm afraid your "thought" experiment is no experiment at all. Gays have been brought up for years in societies that were exclusively heterosexual. Read any gay person's biography of their life in some small town back in the days of yore when they didn't know what a homosexual was, weren't told what a homosexual was, were told that everyone is heterosexual and this is all there was. They read, saw and knew nothing but heterosexuality. Guess what? That gay person will tell you "I knew when I was five years old I was gay. I didn't know why, I didn't know the name, I thought I was a freak...but that's what I was." And they'll go on about how they continued to be gay even after they learned that this carried dire consequences. Getting beaten up daily or ostracized, or nearly killed usually is good classical conditioning--according to your thought experiment, this ought to have turned every gay man and woman that ever was straight. Has it? Then I doubt it would do the like to a heterosexual if the situation were reversed.

But this FACTUAL REALITY doesn't mean our gay guy wasn't able to fake it (though some cannot) and couldn't have sex with a woman. Some can and do. Some can't and don't. But in the end, sexual orientation is "born" not made--the thought experiment has been real for years, and that's what it's proven. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can't convert that gay man into a heterosexual. They even tried doing it to one poor guy by wiring him up to a pleasure center and forcing him to watch heterosexual sex while buzzing that pleasure center. He was able to have sex with a woman...then went right back to men.

What we do know is this:
(1) Most people are born with an orientation that is on a sliding scale. What that means is that the extremes (100% gay, 100% hetero) are either non-existent or very rare. So if a guy is 75% gay and says so, that doesn't mean he can't have sex with a woman. He might even be able to be happily married to her--there is that 25%. And if you've got a guy who is 75% hetero, then he, likewise, could enjoy sex with men because there is that 25% of him that has an attraction to men. Here and ONLY here is where the thought experiment proves right. Because the 75% hetero does go along with the conditioning. It's easier to ignore that 25% attraction to men and stay safe than give into it and risk his life. But it's not so easy for the 95% gay male to ignore it.

(2) We know that there are moments in our lives which inform our "fetish" preferences. NOT our sexual orientation, that's set. But how we like it. If a gay boy at puberty feels that attraction to his gym coach, he will likely grow up liking sweaty guys who play sports. If a het guy, at puberty, is very attracted to a girl who puts her bare foot on his thigh while kissing him, he might end up with a foot fetish. But that doesn't make him any less hetero.

The formative moment can't change the orientation because if the gay guy gets kissed by the girl he feels nothing. He's not aroused, and so doesn't think sex = girl. He gets aroused when the male gym teacher's hand brushes past his crotch while reaching for a basketball. Yes? The formative years dictate how we like it, even what we're attracted to--but not the gender we're attracted to.

That's what studies have shown. It's misleading and disingenuous to say that it's only "PC" to say people are born "gay." It's not a matter of being PC or not. It's either a fact or it's not and so far the proof is in the pudding. It's a fact. If it wasn't, then we'd have next to no gays. Almost none were raised that way.

 

[sr71plt]

(I think in your second line, you meant "heterosexual" rather than "homosexual.")

Ah, then, I guess gay and bisexual must be fundamentally different then. I think bisexuals must then be born narcissistic rather than heterosexual or homosexual. I was perfectly happy with a heterosexual lifestyle unto my early twenties--and then, when introduced to men sexually, I was perfectly happy with both. As long as it was all about me sexually.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As long as it was all about me sexually.

Twinsies! Best Friends Forever! Except of course, you'll have to understand that it's actually all about ME sexually.

Not all bisexuals are narcissists, and plenty of gay, straight and lesbian folk are plenty narcissistic. That's just one more aspect of anyone's personality.

I raised my kids with plenty of awareness that there were wonderful same-sex relationships around them -- and even perfectly fine same sex hookups available if they wanted that. Neither of them are phobic in any way, but both of them are quite aware that they are nearly completely straight.

 

[sr71plt]

I raised my kids with plenty of awareness that there were wonderful same-sex relationships around them -- and even perfectly fine same sex hookups available if they wanted that. Neither of them are phobic in any way, but both of them are quite aware that they are nearly completely straight.

Both of mine are straight too. (as far as I know, of course.) But, whereas my wife and I are both bisexual privately (and professionally), that's not what our household was run as nor was it our public persona.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Both of mine are straight too. (as far as I know, of course.) But, whereas my wife and I are both bisexual privately (and professionally), that's not what our household was run as nor was it our public persona.

Knowing that their parent's and friends' sexual identities were other than normative didn't make any difference to the kids' sexual identities.

Similarly, plenty of LGBT folk grew up in what might be called overtly heterosexual families...