Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex

Dating site OkCupid writes: “Gay issues have been in the news a lot lately, from the debate over same-sex marriage in Congress to a sickening rash of gay-bashing here in New York City. We see a lot of emotion out there, instead of information, and we wanted to provide some data-based context on sexuality so that people might make better choices about what they say, think, and do. We run a massive dating site and therefore have unparalleled insight into sex and relationships. Here’s what we’ve found, in numbers and charts. Our data source: 3,2 million OkCupid users, gay and straight.”

Who knew statistics could be so much fun
Who knew statistics could be so much fun

Read the article with all the stats & charts here, they found some interesting differences between gay and straight folks (the data are mostly about users in Canada and the US). It was a very timely post from the OkCupid guys. Not only unafraid to share their data but also to poke holes in the typical homophobic arguments.

Some interesting points:

  • Gays are not interested in straights, only 0.6% have ever searched for straight matches.
  • 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex. That is incredible.
  • But the median # of sex partners curve are basically identical for straight and gays.
  • Canada is ridiculously bi-curious compared to the United States.
  • Straight women don’t seem to have many personality traits at all. That is worrying.
  • Even more worrying is that women are more likely to think the earth is bigger than the sun :s
  • Gays are a lot more likely to be political, atheists & literate.
  • Straight man seem to be a lot more horny than gays actually.
  • Oregon’s new motto: “Wow! We’re even gayer than Canada!”
  

48 thoughts on “Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex”

  1. It’s interresting indeed, even if we must don’t forget that it’s doing from a website. People who use dating sites are perhaps not a representative part of the population (even if it’s the American one …). At least, they seem to have critical view about their own results.
    Near of the end those could confirm one thing : dating sites are misogynist ^^ (10% of American women who hadn’t yet understand gallillean physic ! ugh !)

    PS : Excuse my poor english, meanwhile this the first time I comment.

  2. Does anyone know any good website that doesn’t cost anything for gay porn of actual people having sex – not porn stars? (one that won’t give viruses and a whole bunch of trouble) Because I’m sick of watching crappy porn videos of boys who are too “porn star”.

    A plus would be a site that has really young boys, like not old guys :P
    Thanks! Because for some reason Xtube doesn’t work on my laptop anymore – I got to the home page and it doesn’t even load when I click ‘enter’!!!!! SO ANNOYING

    1. I just logged onto Xtube — it works just fine. You MAY have a virus or your web connection isn’t working properly. ‹(•¿•)›

      MOST gay porn on the web aren’t porn “stars” — just everyday gays that want to show off or have a huge ego. Most of the problems are the crappiest quality videos and sound. ‹(•¿•)›

  3. Haha it’s pretty funny, thanks!

    Btw. who’s the cute guy in the picture? Is there more? :)

      1. “Makarov” used to bring to mind the famous Warsaw Pact handgun. I owned one a coupla years ago. It was reliable, and shot well. I think I’d like to buy a different “Makarov” now, and see how this one shoots.

      2. He’s restricted access to his page :(

        I would like to see more of him. He is a very good looking model.

    1. As I posted before, Oregon is no Mecca for gays, but over all they are significantly more ‘tolerant’, (but still not accepting). However, places like Portland (modern urban centers), are awesome if you’re gay. Rural Oregon is just as shitty as any other rural Western venue.

    2. santa fe is arguably more gay friendly and bi-curious than portland and san francisco

      mostly because its smaller and can be defined more narrowly

      but still awesome :)

  4. Interesting article and stats. But I think some of the stats are incomplete and some of the stats seem to only reflect the under-25 (maybe up to 30) crowd, either gay or straight.

    Also, I seriously question any poll results when “straights” are asked about any gay issues (most particularly about whether they would/might engage in any gay sex). While some of them would answer honestly, I personally feel that a good number won’t (it could reveal their own true feelings), can’t (they have no real idea), or answer with some stereotypical remark (because they’ve been too ignorant to actually understand the truth).

    Some of the traits of either “side” I think are inaccurate — like, for example that gays aren’t “adventurous.” I think just as many gays are as adventurous as any straights (just one example).

    And the “humorous” one of the politician — replace that with “devoutly religious” and it becomes even more accurate.

    ‹(•¿•)›

    1. PenboyX – I’m sorry to say, it doesn’t matter what you think; OKCupid collated over 669 million answers from users (in every state and province in USA and Canada) to bring us this information. It’s real – it’s fact. You can’t say it’s inaccurate, just because you think otherwise.

      “some of the stats seem to only reflect the under-25 (maybe up to 30) crowd” – Am I missing the evidence of this?

      Sure – some people may lie about their having had or wanting to have same-sex encounters… BUT – let’s read these statistics for what they are – not say they’re questionable because they could be higher if people told the truth. Consider this a minimum. As they are – they challenge (ignorant) common (mis)conceptions… excellent news.

      1. I said it is my opinion for all the items. And I don’t give a damn what you think either. You can’t go around saying that a poll like this is so accurate when talking about some very personal things in a negative environment such as getting some “straight” to admit to or discuss his gay intentions or what he may have done. There’s too much fear (regardless of how much they say it’s anonymous) for some to disclose any gay feelings in a generally straight public environment. Any poll like this needs a disclosure reflecting this as well as privacy. And we all have seen what has happened when some business/corporate identity SAY something will be private, and just a few months later have that private information leaked out or been stolen.

      2. Also, they have a definite bias, of course, since they are only using answers from the sort of folks who use an internet dating service. While I wouldn’t go so far and claim that there are no bible-thumpers amonst their sample, I’m certain that the answers would be different if taken from another equally sized base. Size alone doesn’t matter. ^_^

        1. For another interesting take on this with regard to the number of people used in polls (USA population) as well as using a poll in the first place.

          I was just re-watching “The West Wing” (I love this series) and in Season 1, Episode 6, “Mr. Willis of Ohio” starting at 0:26:10 (approx), they mentioned using 1,150 people with a sampling error of +/- 3. That would have been referencing U.S. population at the time (1999), which I think was around 290 million [?].

          So even though the numbers are OK, it’s still about the questions and answers and the [political] environment in which they are asked. The more personal the question (intrusion), the less likely you will receive fully honest answers.

          1. These statistics accurately reflect the answers provided (true or not) by OKCupid members. No one said that because 23% of the 252,900 straight people asked had had gay sex that therefore 23% of ANY OTHER POPULATION also has had gay sex. No, no one did. But they did say that of the 252,900 straight people sampled, 23% – almost a quarter, said yes, they’d had sex with someone of the same sex. Once again, let’s take them for what they are. They needn’t represent any other population, be it global, US, or Antarctic. Maybe the respondants lied, maybe they didn’t. Maybe there were “bible-thumpers” in the sample, maybe there wasn’t. Maybe the answers would have varied had the answers been taken from another equally sized base, MAYBE THEY WOULDN’T…. FFS people… The fact of the matter is, these statistics reflect the answers given. Read into them as you will, but don’t deny them for what they are.

            ps. You’re citing The West Wing? Seriously? FML – this is not unlike debating with a religious zealot!

            1. “You’re citing The West Wing? Seriously? FML – this is not unlike debating with a religious zealot!”

              Wow, I can’t believe the ignorance of that statement. While I’ll be the first to admit that nearly all the story lines are “fictitious,” (necessary for legal and security reasons, OBVIOUSLY) a great deal of them were based on actual facts (or at least factual enough without giving away any “national security secrets”). If you were to watch them and actually LISTEN to what’s being said in them, EVEN TODAY, you’ll see how they very closely mirror exactly what’s going on in today’s world — including gay marriage and DADT.

              Also, if you would take the time to PAY ATTENTION to the dialog in nearly all the episodes, you will see that, in fact, most of the dialog’s entire purpose is to EXPLAIN certain aspects of government, politics, Congress and, not the least, our own Constitution. By that, I mean even though the actors were “speaking to each other,” they in fact, were actually speaking to the TV’s (and now, DVD’s) audience explaining sometimes in minute detail some of the intricacies of our government and reflecting many of our lifestyles. A major purpose of that series was to EDUCATE as well as entertain us.

              I don’t know if you actually watched any of it or whether you liked it or not, but comparing this type of TV series (some might even consider this series an ongoing “docudrama”) against some “debate with a religious zealot” is total ignorance, at the very least (but, quite frankly, I’ve come to accept this lack of intelligence from you by now). The FACTS (as told through the stories if you would just pay attention to them) presented in this series are NOTHING like the fictitious crap from any religious ‘book’ (and I use that term very loosely with regard to any religion).

            2. PenboyX—First I’ll say that for sure “The West Wing” was a very entertaining and also quite realistic and timely television show. It was one of the last series I watched before I stopped watching television altogether. I also learned a lot from watching it. It had the best pro-gay rights episode I had ever seen (remember when the President just blasted that horrible Christian right news reporter right out of the water?). However, it WAS a LIBERAL television show (Martin Sheen–a liberal’s liberal if there ever was one–who played the president in this show was even a Democrat in it, if I remember correctly), which might have been the point of “lost”, who commented above. One thing liberal propaganda always does is posit the government (and especially the FEDERAL government) as the solution to every problem, even the ones that the government CAUSED and will only continue to make worse. So, sometimes it is hard to see the liberal politics involved when the show is ABOUT the workings of government; they’re obviously not going to take the time to show the possibility of solutions from outside the government, which isn’t the point of the program.

              I myself am socially liberal (gay rights, and so on, obviously), but I do NOT believe that all solutions come from the government. So my “liberal radar” is up and am aware of the insidious ways they sneak their message across. What seems “educational” is really only half true; it very well explains one way of looking at things while attempting to mask the existence of any other points of view.

              As simple of a document as the Constitution seems to be, it is phenomenally difficult to actually understand. I sure learned that in my Constitutional Law course, which was a real struggle. (I will venture to say than even the current Supreme Court doesn’t understand it, or else it intentionally ignores it whenever it suits the majority of the justices, all of whom are political appointees, of course.) I think in order to begin to have an understanding of the Constitution, one must devour all of “The Federalist Papers” and understand all those arguments, and then one might have a shot at figuring out what the actual intent was of the framers of the Constitution. No television show, no matter how great in quality (as “The West Wing” certainly was), could possibly ever impart that much wisdom, and certainly not when they INTEND to do otherwise.

            3. I agree with a lot of what you said about this series. Since you didn’t mention specifics about those liberal policies say you had your “radar up” about, then I don’t know if I could agree or not with any of them.

              And, yes, it was about the Democrats (loosely based on Clinton’s administration, obviously). But they were trying to put some logic and understanding of the workings of the White House, the Presidency and his staff and government in general — all to properly counter the near total stupidity of who was in the White House at that time (I think you know who that was).

              But, my entire point was that the series (although obviously with fictional plots) was based on a great deal of facts and a lot of the politics that America has been dealing with for the last 20-30 years or more. And I was pointing out the method of how they presented all of this. And I don’t think anyone intelligent would argue about how well they brought across the very important civic lessons that most of us (in USA) need. But ‘lost’ was quite literally comparing the information coming from that series with the christian stories from the bible and how they will preach to anyone just to get them to church and ultimately give $$$. And that’s where he truly IS LOST.

              And as far as the insidious ways (you said) they (Democrats) sneak their message across, nothing outdoes (or is “out-insidious” than) the Republicans and their far right (religious). Even now after the mid-term election, they are trying to drum their crap into our brains just because they found enough idiots to vote for them and their sub-party, “tea party” members.

              And I was in no way trying to say that watching that series would make someone anywhere near an “expert” in our government, politics or anything related. Again, it provided an excellent civics lesson in a entertaining and dramatic way with a lot of “hidden facts” about what we have experienced so far and will experience in the future.

  5. I liked the stats and everything. But does it make me a bad person that the picture had my attention 15623% more than the actual article? :)


  6. Clems:

    It’s interresting indeed, even if we must don’t forget that it’s doing from a website. People who use dating sites are perhaps not a representative part of the population (even if it’s the American one …). At least, they seem to have critical view about their own results.
    Near of the end those could confirm one thing : dating sites are misogynist ^^ (10% of American women who hadn’t yet understand gallillean physic ! ugh !)
    PS : Excuse my poor english, meanwhile this the first time I comment.

    I agree with this; I don’t think this is an over all representative population. By its very nature, clients on a Internet dating site would be a niche population sample and not a random sample representative of households across the US.

    However in spit of that, I think they got all their conclusions mostly correct about gays/dating. And yeah *blushes*, I spent too much time scrolling back up looking at the dude.

  7. >Gays are not interested in straights, only 0.6% have ever searched for straight matches.

    I must be one of the unlucky 0.6%; seems like everyone I’m interested in is straight.


  8. Mootnonymous:

    >Gays are not interested in straights, only 0.6% have ever searched for straight matches.
    I must be one of the unlucky 0.6%; seems like everyone I’m interested in is straight.

    I think there is a difference between being attracted to someone who turns out to be straight, versus actively pursuing someone *because* they are straight. Most of us have been unintentionally caught into the trap of being attracted to someone we thought was gay and they turned out straight8.

    It’s especially bad in HS were you are attracted to randomly cute boys.;-)

  9. It’s a very interesting article and although it is possible that the results may not be extrapolated to the overall population (as many of you have said), the website is still helping to elucidate misconceptions about non-heterosexual people ._.

    P.S. I concur: statistics is definitely awesome. Nice pic, Josh :3

  10. I wish I could have sex with a boy. Soon it will too late and I will have missed my desire…i’m already 16


    1. Cory:

      I wish I could have sex with a boy. Soon it will too late and I will have missed my desire…i’m already 16

      Dude, you whole life is ahead of you….make your first time special if you can, because you will remember it the rest of your life…literally.

      Uhhhh….and the “desire” thing….you’re not gonna see that subside for generations.;-)

      1. What I meant was, I am sad that I have never had a relationship with another boy, as I’m attracted to boys, but I would never consider trying to have a relationship with a boy when I’m an adult.


  11. 17o0o:

    santa fe is arguably more gay friendly and bi-curious than portland and san francisco
    mostly because its smaller and can be defined more narrowly
    but still awesome :)

    I went there a couple of yrs ago…thinking about moving. Albeit I wasn’t there for very long, but I just didn’t get that good a vibe from the place. Taos OTOH, has a very friendly gay vibe.

    1. Santa Fe is pretty snobby; as I understand it, “you have to have money” to enjoy living in Santa Fe, whereas, Taos has many of the same things people LIKE about Santa Fe, but the people are more down to earth and, as you said, friendly.

      1. While I don’t know about the politics of either city, during h.s. our boys school dormitory would go to Red River, between Questa and Eagle’s Nest (GREAT name for a town!) just up from Taos for a long-weekend camp out. We did this for 4 summers in mid-July. It’s beautiful country during the summer, but even more beautiful during the peak Autumn time when the Aspens are turning different shades of yellow, orange and even reddish. The smell of walking through an Aspen stand during Autumn is magnificent to my nose (similar, but still different from an Oak or Maple forest). There’s a good reason they have a men’s fragrance called, what else? — Aspen.

        ‹(•¿•)›

        1. Those sights and smells are wonderful. Aspens are especially beautiful due to the white-colored bark.

          1. Usually *people* prefer the leaves changing colors. But the *beavers* are particularly fond of its trunks and bark. ‹(•¿•)›

  12. I really thought those statistics were pretty fascinating, and my favorite thing was the HeatMap. I go crazy over maps, anyway, but this one was especially telling. I’m not QUITE sure what their method was of putting it together, though. Unlike Canada that had province-wide swaths of color, the U.S. portion seemed to be compiled county by county, particularly noticeable in states like Arizona where the Phoenix and Tucson areas are more “gay” than the more rural areas, and Texas, where, again, certain urban areas (Houston, Dallas, Austin, and I guess San Antonio; the Brownsville area is an exception in that I wouldn’t rank it as urban) stand out as much gayer than the rest of Texas. I especially enjoyed spotting that spot of orange in North Carolina, which I recognized as Buncombe County and the reportage that accompanied the piece identified gay friendly Asheville, the lead city in Buncombe County. In my experience, Asheville had the best gay life of any place I have ever lived, and that includes big cities in California. Asheville is not only reasonably accepting, gays there are FRIENDLY with each other and mix it up across all sorts of categories and age groups. In Los Angeles, it is all TOO narrowly constricted (Asian bars, Mexican bars, Twink bars, Hustler bars, and so on.)

    But anyway, I don’t get the solid state demarcations. People along state borders would blend together, not be distinctly different just because there is an artificial state border there.

    However, assuming that their method is sound, what could probably be called “the most backward” states are also the least gay-curious, which reflects religious indoctrination (this is more or less “the Bible Belt”). Mississippi and Alabama are the two least “gay-curious” states in the entire U.S., according to this.

    The West (“wide open spaces”) has always represented freedom, and the entire western half of the country shows an orange cast.

    The most gay-curious area of the East is New England, which has always been known as “independent” (the most independent of all, Vermont, is also the most orange).

    The funniest thing might be to see the very distinct orange spot at Salt Lake City…the very “ground zero” of Mormonism has more of a typical western and urban orientation toward homosexuality than, say, Bible Belt Mississippi. Yep, some have said that Mormons make the best gay boys of all, and it looks like there are a whole lot them interested in just that!

  13. This is interesting stuff, though the numbers are probably skewed by the relatively small sample size (to say nothing of the fact that people generally lie about themselves on dating sites)

    Also, the boy in the pic is *ridiculously* sexy.

    1. “3,2 million OkCupid users, gay and straight.”

      That’s a relatively small sample size? oh my.

  14. Great article… and Vasiliy is pretty cute. He’s on vk, myspace & facebook. Check out some of his other pics ;)

Leave a Reply