Monday, October 30, 2017

Gay Jews

Riffing off the previous post, the following table shows the percentages, by religious affiliation, who identify as gay or bisexual (N = 8,582):


Bear in mind that the Jewish sample, at 161, is small, as the question about sexual orientation has only been asked since 2008.

As in the case of condoning gay sex, Jews are gayer than those without any religious are. Stealing Feryl's thunder, could that be a result of Jews tending to be born and raised in conurbation, and thus exposed to the pathogens that accompany high population density, rather than in sparsely populated flyover country?

Jews are effective eugenicists in part because Ashkenazis are afflicted with rare genetic disorders at rates far higher than non-Jews. Is part of the reason they are so favorable towards homosexuality because they are similarly 'afflicted' with homosexuality at higher rates than non-Jews?

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(1-2), RELIG(1-4,9)

21 comments:

JayMan said...

I suspect self-report bias. Though this could be legit.

Feryl said...

The closet, it's presence and it's size, has shifted from time to time. That being said, there's no question that outside of a handful of extremely conservative eras(which I needn't bother naming), a quite visible gay community exists, typically in the largest metro areas.

Moreover, even in an era like the 1950's, within certain professions (like, oh, I dunno, acting) it's in open secret that many in the business are gay.

The reason I bring this up is that gays of all kinds (white, black, Protestant, from the country, whatever) usually end up in very gay areas and/or professions, and certainly in the GSS era (1971-present) you'd expect them to be forthright about their sexuality on an anonymous survey. Esp. given that guys are less private and more shameless than women.

Outside of a minority of masculine gay men, who may or may not work in a more staid environment, it's usually so easy to discern gay men, where they hang out and with whom they hang out, that the idea of a closet becomes laughable. If a sizable number of gay men aren't being forthright on this survey, I'd be surprised. Every high school has a few kids who seemed.....different and usually were either total outcasts or sure liked to hang out with girls. If these people ever thought they fooled anyone, and were still presenting as closeted even on something like the GSS, then they're idiots.

Gays BTW hate religion, Christianity in particular, so a lot of them will check the non-theist box. But this seems more of a gentile gay thing, as you can tell by the high number of gay Jews rising above the non-theist gays. I think a lot of Jews don't actively make a distinction between their race and ostensible religion; they get conflated even though a lot of Western Jews are no longer observant.

It think also that we should focus on men (if you aren't already) since women can be so flaky about their sexuality.

Anonymous said...

"could that be a result of Jews tending to be born and raised in conurbation, and thus exposed to the pathogens that accompany high population density, rather than in sparsely populated flyover country?"

But then you look at the rates for Catholics and Protestants and they're exactly the same, Catholic America is much more urban than Protestant America.

Maybe it's more a class and upbringing cofactor and the type of man that selects for. When you look at the social class and upbringing of Jews versus non-Jews it's another planet. It could also be as commented above, that being openly homosexual is more acceptable in certain socio-economic contexts that Jews disproportionately inhabit and thus there are fewer Jewish closet-cases who might even lie to an anonymous survey.

With Muslims it might be both the tacit acceptance of what in the West would be regarded as homosexuality (But not in Arab-Muslim countries) and a higher retention rate as new immigrants from highly religious populations. ie, if some of these Muslims were 3rd or more white Americans, they're be atheists or agnostic.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to add as well that a lot of people who say they're 'Jewish' in a religious context actually mean it in an ethnic context in these surveys. Jews didn't survive and not melt into their hosts after hundreds of years in diaspora by not being, either innately or through permission of cultural values, ethnocentric.

But you already know that and know that these results would be even worse if we added ethnic Jews who don't even say they're 'Jewish' on surveys.

dc.sunsets said...

I often wonder just how much acceptance for homosexuality will survive a period of financial, economic and social retrenchment.

My guess: not much, especially if the homo-left continues to double-down in the face of a rapid shift to the right. I don't see any Gay Pride Parades occurring under conditions of the Bosnian War.

dc.sunsets said...

Nothing like the sub-headline: Anal Cancer, the new gay epidemic the media won't talk about to endear people to queers.
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/do-you-live-in-one-of-the-most-sexually-diseased-states/

Funny how they hide a report blaming rapid increases in STD infection on queers under a headline about the differences between states. Later in the report they admit that blacks have much higher rates of STD's than whites, but attribute it to "poverty." Nowehere do they admit that blacks males are more likely to engage in sex with other men, although they do note that blacks have more sex in general.

Feryl said...

Gentile gays are very likely to tick off the non-theist box; that's why the numbers for Catholics and Protestants are similar. If the question was, "we're you raised Catholic or Protestant?", that's a horse of a different color than "do you currently identify as such?" It could well be that those raised Catholic are more likely to be gay than Protestants, but the gay(s raised as)Catholics who didn't enter the Priesthood are probably claiming to not be religious on the GSS, no different than the % of those gays raised Protestant who now claim no belief.

Unless there's a definitive way to be sure of someone's religious heritage, we're just speculating about this stuff.

And I don't buy the idea that legions of gentiles remain resolutely closeted, to the point of lying on an anonymous survey.

Feryl said...

Whoops, kinda goofed the part about who was raised in what way. What I shoulda said is that IMO, those raised as Catholics are indeed at least slightly more gay than Protestants. But when asked to self-identify their current religious ID, gays raised as Prots and Catholics are both very likely to check off the non-theist option. Very few gays identify as religious.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jayman,

That would indicate ~8% of the general population is homo or bisexual, which seems awfully high.

Feryl/Anon,

Wrt to Jews, it's worth noting here (not for the first time), that nearly 20% of respondents who identify religiously as Jewish are atheists or agnostics, compared to 8% of the general population. In other words, yes, a lot of irreligious/secular Jews are still counting themselves as religiously Jewish.

dc.sunsets,

My health-ed classes in high school were full of crap about AIDS, how it hijacks the immune system, how to avoid it (never avoiding gay i.e. anal sex, always simply avoiding "unprotected sex"), how important finding a cure for it was, etc. Turned out, of course, that it was a non-issue for heterosexuals who didn't use prostitutes--in other words, for the vast majority of the population.

Wrt to black gay men, their risks are astronomical.

Feryl said...

There's a very in depth article about the possible origins of aids (actually, it might've been book length because the author couldn't find a publisher). Don't remember where I found it online, but I read a lot of it.

Basically, it tackles the "conspiracy theory" that human Aids came about as a result of tainted monkey dna being used to manufacture vaccines which fought polio and other diseases. Various strains of monkey HIV were ending up in the vaccines, which were then IV injected in countless Africans. It didn't take terribly long for the HIV to adapt itself to it's human "host", and eventually manifest into full blown aids. Had fewer and healthier people been injected in more hygienic circumstances, it's possible that the simian HIV would've remained benign within people. But with poor needle hygiene, a warm climate, Africa's rampant disease problems, and the sheer number of people being injected, eventually the simian HIV was going to evolve to attack people.

What is quite clear is that blood and wounds are the primary methods by which HIV is spread, and the more exposure one has to gruesome situations and behaviors, the faster one will develop aids which still can take several years or more to fully manifest.

The hysteria of which you speak was motivated by PC; some famous article was written in the very early 90's about how irresponsible the authorities were about public information in the 90's, a time when they should've known better. HIV and especially aids were heavily associated with tainted blood, IV drug use/users, and frequent participants in gay sex which of course often included a region of the body not known for lubrication.

Though some homophobes claim that virtually all gay intimacy practices explain why they become HIV hotspots, that doesn't explain how many clean living hetero people fell victims to tainted blood transfusions in the 80's; getting a large volume of dirty blood became a death sentence. Meanwhile, some people who had sex with John Holmes (an HIV infected coke head) lived long (enough) lives and say that they never tested positive. Don't share needles and don't have frequent penile/anal abrasions.

Feryl said...

Prostitutes are of course at high rise of, uhhh, over use injuries. And quite likely to be drug addicts too.

It's quite remarkable how the degeneracy triangle of whores, drug users, and homos have become such a "sensitive" topic since the early 90's, when in the 1930's-1980's people were actively contemptuous of such people(albeit during the 70's a lot of doofus Boomers had to do drugs before understanding how damaging they were).

But those decades followed the gambling and screwing period that arose in the late 1800's, became burned out by the 1920's, and was then stamped out by Hitler's generation in the 30's and 40's. Really, 1990-2010 (2020?) is analogous to 1900-1930.

dc.sunsets said...

Feryl, everything about AIDS/HIV is anything but clear.

It's one of today's vastest pyramids of error. AIDS is a constellation of separate diseases. One of the originals (Kaposi's Sarcoma) got dropped when not enough people who had it could light up an "HIV" test. Data-fitting is always a hallmark of Junk Science. Recall that the urge to "revise" the temperature record is part of why the whole Global Warming thing is a bullshit.

There isn't a single other example of a "new" communicable disease that didn't expand from its original at-risk population. It is in my opinion utterly absurd that a sexually-transmitted virus would NOT jump from gays to hetero. That the constellation of AIDS diseases remains almost entirely confined to gay men (and hemophiliacs who must inject human-derived blood extracts) places the whole HIV/AIDS association in the realm of pervasive fantasies.

Every dime poured into AIDS research has gone down a rat hole. It's literally a wealth-sacrifice at the God of Queer Men who Take It Up The Ass. So-called scientists who study this stuff are modern day alchemists.

Remember when AIDS was going to depopulate Africa? Remember when headlines blared that hetero transmission doubled? (Yeah, it went from 2 to 4 reports.)

How do you know it's all BS? By the fact that someone who tests positive but doesn't get any of the diseases in the constellation is by definition deemed a "success," and anyone who dies usually now dies of liver failure...which is a side effect of the "anti-AIDS drugs" administered. The diagnosis of AIDS is self-referential: If you have one of the diseases but don't trip the HIV test, you don't have AIDS. If you have one of the diseases (or anything that looks like it) and don't get tested, you have AIDS (this is the "situation" in Africa.)

It's just another folie a plusiers.

But even Peter Duesberg had to give up trying to point out the obvious. This bizarre fantasy is more sticky than is the belief that all races have the same mean IQ.

http://duesberg.com/presentations/$bnAIDSQuiz.pdf

Feryl said...

It's indisputable that HIV/Aids is distinct phenomena. How do I know? Because gay men report the spring of 1976 as being the last time that queers were in relatively good health. Many of them begin displaying early signs of HIV in the late 70's, then in the 80's a "gay plague" broke out and gay men started dropping like flies. Trust me, this was new and it was frightening; news reports of that time showed countless ghoulish looking gay men slowly dying before everyone's eyes.

True, initially what was going was poorly understood as it took the medical community about half of the 80's decade to really understand what was going on. Try telling the many Aids-ridden hetero blood transfusion recipients of the 80's that there was some kind of conspiracy to conflate a series of mundane series with a new one.

"It is in my opinion utterly absurd that a sexually-transmitted virus would NOT jump from gays to hetero. "

Huh? HIV/AIDS is an STD....But one that is transmitted thru sex acts that lead to both partners bleeding onto and into each other. The vast majority of lesbians and men who don't do guys don't have that much sex to begin with, and when they do it generally has no resemblance to the all night methed orgies that many young gays partake in. It was the combo of tainted vaccines, simian HIV evolution, and 1970's (and beyond) homo depravity that created the initial HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Also, as early as the early 70's, certain individuals were infected....Who worked around needles and vaccine recipients in Africa.

Feryl said...

Typo: it should be conflating a mundane series of diseases with a new one.

Feryl said...

Another thought: Athletes, esp. football players, have to be mindful of catching all kinds of nasty crap. Having lots of frequent cuts, scrapes, and gashes is great way to become infected.

Staph infections are particularly nasty, and several teams over the last 15 or so years got in the news for their facilities hosting outbreaks. The Browns (who else?) had several players get terribly ill in the 2000's, and one of the players evidently had his career shortened by his infection. I read an article recently that said that on a youth sports level, distaste for on-site showering and a turn towards body shaving fads appear to have worsened athlete infections among Millennials and Gen Z. Wouldn't surprise me, as these hygiene/safety problems seemed less common among Boomers and Gen X-ers when they were young athletes. Razors cause all kinds of tiny nicks and abrasions, which are then vulnerable to bugs. And that's on top of the wounds caused by rough play.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

There are books about the history of facial hair. I wonder if it'd be possible for infectious outbreaks to be correlated with trends in even a suggestive way (i.e. did Hadrian's beard trendsetting in Rome in the mid-2nd century have detectable salubrious effects?) Probably a bridge too far, but it's an interesting thought.

Feryl said...

Well, facial hair is more common in times of high immigration levels and urban overcrowding, both of which are associated with disease epidemics. Note that dark and dystopian urban environments are a common feature of pop culture in these kinds of eras; after just one decade of rising striving, we saw stuff like Terminator, Blade Runner and Beat-em-up video games in the 80's

People freely moving about and often living on top of each other were, uh, endemic and iconic to the early 1900's and circa 1990-now. Movie and video game creators back in the 80's and early 90's could sense that we were losing control of too many people and places. When those who haven't been pozzed by cuck hysteria think of a wholesome period, it's invariably the late 1930's-early 1970's that they're thinking of, because most people you'd encounter in your native land back then were native born (or immigrants who'd been here for a while) and not scum-sucking yuppies/swpls who'd line their pockets at the expense of proles and the future. Oh, and in low striving periods like the mid 1800's and 1900's, it's understood that elite areas are for a handful of true elites and legacy rich people; Everybody else is just fine sticking to their "back-water" towns, and foreigners can do just fine staying their lands.

Feryl said...

*mid 1800's and mid-1900's*

Agnostic said a few months ago that movies don't even seem American anymore; well, seeing as how a lot of "Americans" these days don't seem, uh, American anymore, we shouldn't be surprised. Too many people are (or aspire to be) pan-nationalists, or perhaps, urban cucks eager to shed whatever kinds of prole or "gauche" habits that Middle-America might've given them. Here again we see the East-West split, with the Eastern US' "working-class" or "ethnic" accents often being rich and suggestive of history, while The Plains, Mountain, and Pacific states produce bland and lifeless accents. Notable exceptions: California, the most established Western state, has given us drawls and the valley girl dialect; I have a 1979 born cousin who was raised mostly in 1980's and 90's California and boy can you tell. And Texas has it's own unique accent, but it's not as pleasant as "real" Southern accents from points further East.

Feryl said...

I'd expect faces to be easier and healthier to shave than other places. It's easy to tell what you are doing and you do it frequently (which de-sensitizes that part of your skin to trauma). Not to mention that the face and upper neck are regions of the body not known for gathering excessive muck and bacteria, what with being cold and exposed to the elements for the most part.

Shaving your genitals, groin, and armpits has got to be the about the stupidest thing a guy could do, not that it's much safer for women. Men have an, uh, awkward bulk down there to deal with, and men are sweatier and dirtier than women (think about it, all that gunk down there isn't supposed to be seeping into razor nicks). Leg shaving back in the 1970's-1980's wasn't unheard of for certain male athletes (swimmers and cyclists, I would think in particular), but more intimate areas were left alone until some point in the 1990's when OCD got noticeably worse.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Nowehere do they admit that blacks males are more likely to engage in sex with other men, although they do note that blacks have more sex in general.

The down-low is one of those things that are an open secret in the black community but White/Jewish sociologists don't spend much time looking into. These men will never admit to being gay but one day they get high and decide to recreate the time they were a blow up doll for other black men in prison. Since condoms are a four letter word in the black community, it is practically a given for gay blacks to have it and it's no surprise that black women will get it eventually.

I also suspect that the reported statistics are understated because the type of black man who gets HIV from prison is not the type who goes to the doctor, let alone is willing to be subject to tests to confirm his status.

dc.sunsets said...

Feryl, given that many (if not most) gay men opportunistically screw women, you're entire comment makes no sense. Hetero transmission is all but absent.

I get the impression that my educational background renders me considerably more able to see the Emperor's New Clothes of the HIV-AIDS folly than are you.

The syndrome called "AIDS" has not moved out of the original risk groups. And not one iota of your response indicates that you read or considered Duesberg's explanations. I guess some indoctrination is overwhelming.