[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Homosexuality (from the main list)

[Michela Ecks]

Parts of this swing back to HP and on topicness though not sure how
appropiate it is for the main list.  Give me a nudge and I'll x-post it
there.

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Ward <neilward at dircon.co.uk>
To: <HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 2:50 AM
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Homosexuality (from the main list)


> I wrote:
>
> <<It will always be an issue until people stop assuming heterosexuality as
a
> default.>>

Huh.  Real life experince has been teaching me lately that the default
assumption has become homosexuality as the default, especially when it's two
young males or two young females out together in public or when it's a guy
with some femine characteristics.

Examples...  My best friend was walking out of Tattered Covers in Denver one
day with one of her friends.  Two women outside looked at them and commented
on how many gay teenager girls there were these days and how they were
everywhere.  My friend wasn't holding hands with her friend, they weren't
engaged in any sort of activity that I could broadly define as relating to
homosexuality other than both of them being female... yet the default
assumption was that they were lesbians.  (Neither of them are.)

Another example...  I'm a college student and live at home.  Both my parents
live at home with me as does my brother and my 19 year old sister.  My mom,
my dad and my brother watch HGTV because they generally enjoy it.  The
default assumption is that most males on HGTV who are interior decoraters
are gay... and they like to point that out.  With my dad and brother, it's
generally something derogatory like "That one's a fag." which generally
pisses me off.  If I say anything, the default assumption for my brother and
sister is that because I'm defefending them, I'm gay.

Another example...  I was a huge fan of survivor.  I hung out on several
message boards and chatted on and off-line with a bunch of people about
Survivor.  After it was found out that Richard Hatch was gay, fans watched
the second one with any eye out wondering who CBS picked as the honorary gay
person.   If 10% of the population was gay and CBS made an effort to pick
one gay person, it's strange that by the time most of the speculation was
done, that 1/4 of to 1/2 of the cast was suspected of being gay by the
fans...  I've heard rumors of and accusations of gayness for Kimmie, Alicia,
Jeff, Colby, Mike, Mitchell, Jeri, Amber...  It gets to the point where I
just want to take those people and slap them across the head and ask those
fans why the hell they care.  (This would tie back nicely to Ebony's post on
celebrity worship.)

Another example... Rumors start that some one in Hollywood that some leading
male actor is gay.  Half to three quarters of Hollywood men are than assumed
to be gay... even when they only indicate one person is gay.

My experinces have been, of late, that the default assumption has been that
people are gay.

> Rita noted:
>
> <Umm, Neil, I want there to be gay characters in HP for the sake of
realism
> and political correctness and more possible ships, but the famous Kinsey
> statistic that 10% of people are pretty much homosexual and 90% of people
> are pretty much heterosexual implies that assuming any newly met person is
> heterosexual will be right 9 out of 10 times -- a probability rate high
> enough that it will probably stay the default assumption. A higher
> probability rate than the assumption that any undescribed person mentioned
> in a fiction or a news article is white, which was discussed recently on
> OT.>

Hmmm...  Okay, I don't agree with that one in ten number for several
reasons... The first being that I'm in college and that sort of thing people
can be pretty open with and the numbers proportionally I would assume to be
much higher than the norm.  Even if given that number as true, I don't think
that those ten people left are all going to be openly gay because they have
reasons to be in the closet...

But, let's get back to challenging that...

The Kinsey number was based on a study done circo 1943 if I recall
correctly.  The information I assume is some what dated especially as our
knowledge of sexuality gets redefined to include bisexuality and homosexual
experinces outside homosexuality, possible genetic causes for being gay,
etc.

The Washington Post ran an article on March 31, 1993.  It says in an extract
that:

[quote]
"the one-in-ten figure is routinely cited in academic works, sex education
materials, government reports and the media.... But there long has been much
evidence that the 10% estimate is far too high. Surveys with large samples
from the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Norway, Denmark and other nations
give a picture of homosexuality experience rates of 6% or less, with an
exclusive homosexuality prevalence of 1% or less.

"The most comprehensive example is the continuing survey conducted by the
U.S. Census Bureau since 1988 for the National Center for Health Statistics
of the Centers for Disease Control.... the data strongly suggest that the
prevalence of even incidental homosexual behavior is less than 2% for
men.... a general population estimate for homosexuality would fall below
1.5%...."
[/quote]

This article cites a study that was done in 1989 by National Opinion
Research Center at the University of Chicago.  With a nationwide sample of
1,537 individuals, the study found that of sexually active adults 19 and
older, 1.2% of females and 1.2% of males had homosexual relations in the
previous year.  0.5% to 0.7% percent of the sample claimed to have had
exclusively homosexual partners.

The article also quotes a study done out of Canada.  It says  that5,514
first-year college students under age 25 were part of nationwide cluster
random sample. This revealed 98% were heterosexual, 1% bisexual, 1%
homosexual.

There are several other examples I could pull out but that given, I think
the 10% number is seriously flawed and the real answer is probably no more
then 2 or 3% of the population is homosexual.

That said, I don't see the need for a gay character for several reasons....
Numbers and realism having little to nothing to do with it.  Assuming for
the moment that most people's experinces and encounters with people who are
homosexual occur in an academic environment or on the net, than yes, maybe
it could be mentioned but only to serve the story.  Would Harry Potter, in
the story as read, be served by the introduction of a gay character or could
te inclusion of such a character actually distract from other plot
intracisies and issues being dealt with already such as race and violence?
I think the inclusion of such a character, especially for the general mass
audience of Harry Potter, may be very distracting and may dictate the story
away from where it was intended to go.  (That is unless JK has it in mind.
All indications I've seen about Harry Potter growing up and developing
romantic feelings... not once have I heard it rumored that the relationship
is with another male.)

I don't see the inclusion of such a character adding realism to the
story.... because in reality, how "real" is magic?  How believable is magic?
Realism stops at the door and reality becomes a suspension of disbelief.
Does JK write the story well enough, has she mastered her character well
enough so that we can suspend our disbelief in magic and a whole realm of
other things that aren't real?  I think so.  Thus, things like gay
characters, while adding potential "realness" aren't needed to create a more
"real" situation.

> Apart from lesbians and gay men, some
> people define themselves as bisexual; some have homosexual experiences,
but
> still define themselves as straight; and some prefer not to have their
> sexual orientation labelled in conclusive terms.  That's quite a
spectrum...

Oh very much so...  I define myself as bi-sexual because I'm attracted to
women.  If the opportunity arose with the right person, I wouldn't mind
having a romantic relationship with another female.  Several women appear on
my list of people I drool for.  My experinces though have all been
heterosexual... and I'm very much attracted to men. I use the bi-sexual
label because it's hard to define exactly what that is to me... and in real
life situations, it isn't something you always want to share.  There are
slights whether people are concious of them or not.  I told my suitemates
last fall that I was attracted to women and the bathroom door in our suite
was always locked... even though there was a stall door to the shower and
toilet because as one of them told me, they were afraid I'd check them out.
Go figure.

Michela Ecks