The Only Gay In WIT

attention18

Some times i feel like i am the only gay in WIT.I know there are others but not as many as there should be for a college the size of WIT.Is there a reason for so few gays?

bp_me

Have you gotten involved with the LGB society? Not everyone is openly gay.

attention18

i am in the LGB club

bp_me

Well then I cant help you beyond that. What was your expectation? Were you expecting every other person to be gay/bi/willing to experiment?

How many should there be amoung 6000 full time students?

Sully

I think the major thing about gay and lesbians is the fact that not all of them are as open as yourself. A lot of people keep themselves to themselves, and wont be "open gay" - if you get me. I found out a friend of mine was bi the other day, and that person only tells close friends and wont really make it public knowledge. However, that friend has found going to the gay bar in town to attract that kind of group.

I guess people are afraid if they will come out that people will either bully, harras or shun them. Pitty really. *shrrugs*

Have you not met anybody through the club?

attention18

"How many should there be amoung 6000 full time students?"

I dont know.Its said that 1 in 10 guys are gay so about 300 gay guys

bp_me

I'ld agreee with Sully, the likely hood is that there are lots of gay/bi people in the WIT, but most are not that open about it. They are probably afraid of being shunned by their class (and from experiences I have heard, not unjustified fears either). It's a shame so many of us are still so close minded.

I suggest you have a look over on the LGB board here on boards also, and see if there is anything relevant to Waterford.

Do the forum still run the gay club? Bubbles or something wasnt it? Havent seen it advertised in a while.

The_Minister

attention18 wrote:

"How many should there be amoung 6000 full time students?"

I dont know.Its said that 1 in 10 guys are gay so about 300 gay guys

1) if it was 1 in 10 it would be 600.
2) Kinsey skewed the study horribly, by using a massive amount of prison convicts and sex offenders. The real figure is far less than 1 in 10.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote:

1) if it was 1 in 10 it would be 600.
2) Kinsey skewed the study horribly, by using a massive amount of prison convicts and sex offenders. The real figure is far less than 1 in 10.

So everybody who goe to WIT is male?

Tar.Aldarion

I think it is about 3-4% for men and lower for girls, amybe 1%.

The_Minister

Deleted User wrote:

So everybody who goe to WIT is male?

sigh.
6000 go there according to a previous poster
10% of 6000 is 600.

bp_me

The_Minister wrote:

sigh.
6000 go there according to a previous poster
10% of 6000 is 600.

Its reckoned there are somewhere around 6000 full time students with a roughly 50/50 male female split, and the OP appears to be only concerned with the males.

The_Minister

bp_me wrote:

Its reckoned there are somewhere around 6000 full time students with a roughly 50/50 male female split, and the OP appears to be only concerned with the males.

Ah. Now I get you.

neon_glows

the internets a good resource, why dont you try online dating or maybe LGB have a bebo section, you cud hook up with someone there.

Boston

attention18: The LGB clubs and the like aren't for everyone, you'll meet other Gay men in most walks of life.

bp_me wrote:

Well then I cant help you beyond that. What was your expectation? Were you expecting every other person to be gay/bi/willing to experiment?

How many should there be among 6000 full time students?

Studies of the Irish college student put the percentage at about 18% so about a 1000.

attention18 wrote:

"How many should there be among 6000 full time students?"

I don't know.Its said that 1 in 10 guys are gay so about 300 gay guys

The figure of 1 in ten comes from a combination of the figures for males and females. Homosexuality is about twice as prevalent amongst males as females.

The_Minister wrote:

1) if it was 1 in 10 it would be 600.
2) Kinsey skewed the study horribly, by using a massive amount of prison convicts and sex offenders. The real figure is far less than 1 in 10.

What do you base your "Real figure" on? The thing about Kinsey's study is that is the only one of it's kind on a decent scale. It's recognised that it's has it's problems but it's still the main study reference for a reason

Tar.Aldarion: Pulling figures out your arse? The figures you mentioned are even lower than most religious zealots quote.

neon_glows: Maybe he doesn't want just sex?

The_Minister

LiouVille wrote:

What do you base your "Real figure" on? The thing about Kinsey's study is that is the only one of it's kind on a decent scale. It's recognised that it's has it's problems but it's still the main study reference for a reason

Tar.Aldarion: Pulling figures out your arse? The figures you mentioned are even lower than most religious zealots quote.

The stats that Tar is quoting are not "out there" in terms of what various studies have found, several reliable ones have found results in that area (the problem is that results tend to jump alot from test to test, based on different factors). His ones are slightly lower than the average that I have seen, but not by too much.

Kinsey was a pioneer, and he should be respected for it, but his work in this area holds little merit. Any scientist or social researcher who used population samples as flawed as Kinsey's would be laughed out of respectable circles today. It's not that his study isn't ideal, it's that there are such huge flaws in it that it is bollocks (no offence to Kinsey, it was a difficult task). The population sample is grossly unrepresentative, with, as said above, large numbers of prisoners included, which renders any results obtained meaningless. Studies that use correct methods today get far lower percentages than ten.

Boston

The_Minister wrote:

The stats that Tar is quoting are not "out there" in terms of what various studies have found, several reliable ones have found results in that area (the problem is that results tend to jump alot from test to test, based on different factors). His ones are slightly lower than the average that I have seen, but not by too much.

Personal Bias tbh. As I've said I've seen studies of Irish College students which indicate up to 18% on average are homosexual. Problem with all these studies is not the environment they are conducted in (prison is as good as any when you look at the reasons he used prisoners), but that each of them define homosexuals in a different manner, often taking anybody in the middle and lumping them into groupings dictated by personal bias.


One more thing about kinsey and prisons. America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole. Of course it can be also argued that people in prison act in a way they may not normal act.

lukaszx

i suggest going on www.gaydar.co.uk and search somebody by city

CiaranC

LiouVille wrote:

Personal Bias tbh. As I've said I've seen studies of Irish College students which indicate up to 18% on average are homosexual. Problem with all these studies is not the environment they are conducted in (prison is as good as any when you look at the reasons he used prisoners), but that each of them define homosexuals in a different manner, often taking anybody in the middle and lumping them into groupings dictated by personal bias.


One more thing about kinsey and prisons. America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole. Of course it can be also argued that people in prison act in a way they may not normal act.

Wasnt being openly gay a crime punishable by prison at the time of the study? That alone makes the sample unrepresentative.

Sangre

LiouVille wrote:

Personal Bias tbh. As I've said I've seen studies of Irish College students which indicate up to 18% on average are homosexual. Problem with all these studies is not the environment they are conducted in (prison is as good as any when you look at the reasons he used prisoners), but that each of them define homosexuals in a different manner, often taking anybody in the middle and lumping them into groupings dictated by personal bias.

There is just no way nearly 1 in 5 people are gay.

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

Wasnt being openly gay a crime punishable by prison at the time of the study? That alone makes the sample unrepresentative.

You've no idea how the study was conducted do yea? Openly gay wasn't a requirement.

Sangre wrote:

There is just no way nearly 1 in 5 people are gay.

Depends how narrow or wide your definition of gay is tbh.

The_Minister

LiouVille wrote:

Depends how narrow or wide your definition of gay is tbh.

Wants to place either penis or fingers in someone of the same sex.


Part of the problem with using prisons is that prisoners tend to have higher chances of havin had homosexual experience, which was one thing that biased the figures a bit. That and he used a higher % of prisoners then even the good old USA has.

Most modern studies hit the figure around 5% or lower in men and about two % or lower in women. 18% is highly unlikely.

Boston

The_Minister wrote:

Wants to place either penis or fingers in someone of the same sex.

Thats how you define gay and you seriously believe figures are as low as 5% -2%. Even kinsey had a stricter definition than that. You talk about desires (wants) kinsey based his results on past sexual history, which is allot more valid.

Part of the problem with using prisons is that prisoners tend to have higher chances of havin had homosexual experience, which was one thing that biased the figures a bit. That and he used a higher % of prisoners then even the good old USA has.

Kinsey wasn't just studying homosexuality, he was studying sexuality in general.

Most modern studies hit the figure around 5% or lower in men and about two % or lower in women. 18% is highly unlikely.

5% is about as realistic as 18% tbh. Being honest you seem pretty clueless given you're definition of what makes someone gay. 5% is probably right for what you specified.

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion: Pulling figures out your arse? The figures you mentioned are even lower than most religious zealots quote.

What the hell are you talking about?
I googled and those are what I found from the first few studies.

As for 'definition of gay', I tend to use the dictionary version.
What is yours?
And do you believe the amount of gay people is near as high as 18%?
Maybe your definition will help clear up why you would think that...

Boston

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What the hell are you talking about?
I googled and those are what I found from the first few studies.

I see, the intraweb, excellent.

As for 'definition of gay', I tend to use the dictionary version.
What is yours?

I like kinseys way of defining it, but I'm not in the business of doing studies and as such I don't have a need to label people and just accept whatever they tell me they are.

And do you believe the amount of gay people is near as high as 18%?
Maybe your definition will help clear up why you would think that...

I never said anything about believing it, I merely quoted it. It was a survey by the irish times conducted about 3 years ago. Some/allot of people have a simple black and white view of sexuality in which gay = anybody thats had any type of sexual contact with a member of the same sex. Now believe it or not there a huge number of people he fall into that group. So yea how you define it makes a difference.

dlofnep

Sorry but Tal.Aldarion is making sense. 18% of people are not gay. I'd say maybe 5%. I know alot of people, maybe 400 over school, family and working in numerous places - And I can safely say, I've only ever known maybe 3 or 4 gay people. Maybe 5 if you include 1 or 2 people who come across as gay.

Tar.Aldarion

LiouVille wrote:

I see, the intraweb, excellent.

Where else?
I'm not in the mood to conduct a study or read a biased book either.

I like kinseys way of defining it, but I'm not in the business of doing studies and as such I don't have a need to label people and just accept whatever they tell me they are.

As in, 4, 5, and 6 on the scale would be counted?
3 as well?
Or just the way he defines it.
Anyway, no matter...

Labels are handy, the more accurate they are, the better you can learn abut somebody quickly.
It's better to have one definition for something, say a 'man', so when it is said, one can learn something about a person and can ask a question.

I never said anything about believing it, I merely quoted it. It was a survey by the irish times conducted about 3 years ago. Some/allot of people have a simple black and white view of sexuality in which gay = anybody thats had any type of sexual contact with a member of the same sex. Now believe it or not there a huge number of people he fall into that group. So yea how you define it makes a difference.

Well, somebody believing something doesn't make it true, a lot of people appear to have a wrong definition of gay then.
If somebody calls a pescetarian a vegetarian or somebody calls me the king of England, I don't care how many people believe it, it is not true to me.

A Primal Nut

I go to college and just from observation I would say 18% isn't true regardless of definition. There are 27 men in my course and none are openly gay. There's no way more than one or two are secretly gay or have had gay experiences. It's not a great reflection of society but it's surly less than 10%. The study which showed 10% is just wrong.

Boston

dlofnep wrote:

Sorry but Tal.Aldarion is making sense. 18% of people are not gay. I'd say maybe 5%. I know alot of people, maybe 400 over school, family and working in numerous places - And I can safely say, I've only ever known maybe 3 or 4 gay people. Maybe 5 if you include 1 or 2 people who come across as gay.

You're persuming you're in a position to determine sexuality, and that all gay people are out to the world and that the environments you speak of are ones which Gay people feel free to express themselves.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Where else?
I'm not in the mood to conduct a study or read a biased book either.

Why read a book when you can just google the answers you want.

As in, 4, 5, and 6 on the scale would be counted?
3 as well?
Or just the way he defines it.
Anyway, no matter...

Kinsey defined some as being Gay if they where in exclusively same sex relationships for the previous 3 years. I'm paraphasing but thats pretty much it. Of course this isn't a perfect definition, and isn't the one from which the 1-10 figure comes from. Why don't you go look it up, you like the internet so much, theres a site.

Labels are handy, the more accurate they are, the better you can learn abut somebody quickly.
It's better to have one definition for something, say a 'man', so when it is said, one can learn something about a person and can ask a question.

Labels are tools of oppression, used by peopel without the ability to think and judge for themselves.

Well, somebody believing something doesn't make it true, a lot of people appear to have a wrong definition of gay then.
If somebody calls a pescetarian a vegetarian or somebody calls me the king of England, I don't care how many people believe it, it is not true to me.

Who are you to tell someone what they are or arn't? Do you walk up to people that call themselves catholic and ask how many tiems they go to church?

I go to college and just from observation I would say 18% isn't true regardless of definition. There are 27 men in my course and none are openly gay. There's no way more than one or two are secretly gay or have had gay experiences. It's not a great reflection of society but it's surly less than 10%. The study which showed 10% is just wrong.

You see, you don't know all 27 people intimately, you've no idea what the past sexual history of every member of your class is. Wrt being openly out, it's complicated, just because no one is out, doesn't mean they don't exist.

btw through my life, school and college I've found the 1 in 10 figure to be acurate, even a little low. I bet most of the lads in my old school thought their where no Gay guys. Their was however 5 Bi-sexuals out of a class of 40. People look a round for the buch lesbian or the Fab Gay guy. My experience is that these people are a minority be far.

Most of you are completely closed minded on the issue. You're convinced that the world is how you see it.

Time Magazine

LiouVille wrote:

America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole.

Louville, you know me. I'm always respectful when I get into debates and the like. But for fuck's man, that actually made me laugh.

Do you not think you're more likely to be in prison in the States if you're, for example:

1. Black
2. Poor
3. Male

They represent nothing like a fair demographic sample. There are two main reasons you're in prison, (i) you committed a crime, and (ii) you didn't successfully defend yourself. Both of these isolate certain groups.

Furthermore, the only use for prisons in terms of social studies is how much it f*cks you up, no pun intended. Prison does not breed normal social practice. And almost by definition inmates' nature are not that of social norms/averages.

Tar.Aldarion

LiouVille wrote:

Why read a book when you can just google the answers you want.

Well, don't you reek of a everybody is against the gays complex...
If I read that correctly.
mm, you sound like this guy damien I saw post...

Kinsey defined some as being Gay if they where in exclusively same sex relationships for the previous 3 years. I'm paraphasing but thats pretty much it. Of course this isn't a perfect definition, and isn't the one from which the 1-10 figure comes from. Why don't you go look it up, you like the internet so much, theres a site.

No, it's far from perfect, very far, as in down right shabby.
I already know his definition, thanks for the inane comment.

Labels are tools of oppression, used by peopel without the ability to think and judge for themselves.

Too stupid an opinion to require a countering one.
All labels are for evil purposes eh.

Who are you to tell someone what they are or arn't? Do you walk up to people that call themselves catholic and ask how many tiems they go to church?

I am in no place, the definition of a word is what decides something.
Surely if you tell me you are a god I must accept that, in fact, i should accept whatever you say, and language is obsolete, as all it is is labels.

America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole.

I laughed out loud.