The question came up over at Steve Sailer's blog if Jewish women are more likely than other women to be lesbian. It wouldn't surprise me since data reported on this blog indicate that lesbians tend to be smarter than average, and they are more likely to come from wealthy homes. According to GSS data, here are the percentages of women by religion who say they are lesbian (sample size = 10,981):
Percent lesbian
Protestant 1.8*
Catholic 1.6*
Jewish 1.4
No religion 4.0
*significantly less than the no religion group
No evidence here for more Jewish lesbians.
From what I hear, straight Jewish women are plenty good at denying men sex.
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
Hard to say if most Jews are in the "Jewish" or "no religion" group.
ReplyDeleteI think all this says is that religious Jews are less likely to be homosexual.
Half the lesbians I have met in person have been Jewish. Perhaps the survey skewed things by religion. Religiously, lesbians probably aren't Jewish. But ethnically and culturally is a different story. Lesbianism is contrary to most of what is called Judaism. On a religion survey, I doubt most Jewish lesbians would categorize themselves as religiously Jewish. On an ethnicity test however, I'm sure they'd be quick to point out their Jewishness.
ReplyDeleteYou're starting to see why the blond shiksa was such as a fantasy figure, and why the intermarriage rate is close to 50%. If a girl's Jewish, it actually counts against her in my book ;)
ReplyDeleteThe very high figure for lesbians among the "no religion" cohort strongly suggests that homosexuals tend to drop their religious affiliation.
ReplyDeleteI bet the data also indicates that homosexuals in general tend to be atheists.
@pat --
ReplyDeleteAnd how come people switch teams so often? Lesbians switch teams all the time.
I recommend to everyone that they read Simon LeVay on homosexuality. He is just about the only authority on homosexuality that you can trust - other than me of course.
ReplyDeleteLeVay points out that lesbianism seems to be less prescriptive than male homosexuality. Women who are attracted to other women seem to be able to indulge in normal sex with a man more easily than most gay men men can fake attraction to a woman. Gay males and lesbians are similar in their sex target inversion but different is many subtle ways.
Still sex orientation is something that happens to you not something that you choose. You can choose to act as if you are normal but you can't change your inner desires.
Human sexuality is plastic and can fixate on anything under the sun. People become oriented toward and aroused based on schoolgirl outfits or midgets, scat or whips and chains, big butts or small chests, old people or God forbid children.
ReplyDeleteIs all of the above innate? Please. One thing about humans that makes us different from your average animal is almost everything we do forms along plastic neural pathways that are changeable (although the pathways can become broad highways with enough reinforcement) rather than instinct and innateness.
I have met more than half a dozen people that have genuinely changed orientations. Those that claim orientation is fixed have never backed this up with hard data. Meanwhile the search for the gay gene continues without success, along with the hunt for the Loch Ness monster. I'm betting on Nessie first.
"I recommend to everyone that they read Simon LeVay on homosexuality. He is just about the only authority on homosexuality that you can trust - other than me of course."
ReplyDeleteJust to see if LeVay had some integrity, I looked up his book on Amazon and used the "look inside" feature to check out the index to see if LeVay ever mentioned the pathogen hypothesis of male homosexuality. There is no mention of it.
In either his intro or his first chapter, (can't recall as I did this last year), LeVay explains that the purpose of the book is to put forth the theories of homosexuality, no matter how he felt about the hypothesis itself, no matter the evidence or lack of evidence for the hypotheses.
How is it a man of science like LeVay can't even bring himself to mention the pathogen theory unless his gay bias is so strong that for political reasons he couldn't bring himself to mention it.
That left me realizing that LeVay is not so much a man of science as he pretends to be.