[ SECRET POST #2476 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2476 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.





















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 048 secrets from Secret Submission Post #354.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

As a gay person I'm pretty sick of people assuming I'm straight just because most people are. Why can't you just assume that anything is possible? I guess I don't really give a fuck if it's your headcanon for characters, as long as you don't get offended at the mere suggestion that someone might be gay, or go around ranting that it's not possible.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

[(Anonymous)]

Why do I assume? Because statistically you be straight. Generally sexuality doesn't come up in casual conversation. But if someone walked up to me and asked, "What do you think my sexuality is?" I am going to say straight. Because 9.5 out of 10 times I would be correct.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

On leading questions and bias: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Alternately, from Mark Twain/Benjamin Disraeli: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Statistics don't mean jack shit unless the methods and context of their gathering is unbiased. I think you've just spectacularly illustrated that at present the context surrounding questions of sexuality is anything but.

'Statistically' I be straight. In reality, I'm asexual, and I wouldn't presume to guess what anyone else might be.

[(Anonymous)]

It does mean jack shit when you are having to guess what something is.

If you have a jar of 99 blue marbles and 1 red marble. You reach in blindly and grab one marble. If you guess what marble is in your hand, you get one million dollars. What color are you going to guess?

[(Anonymous)]

My point being that you don't actually know that there are 99 blue marbles in the case of sexuality, because sexuality statistics aren't gauged visually but by reporting, and depending on the environment the difference between what gets reported and what is actually the case can be wildly divergent.

What you actually have, in this metaphor, is a jar full of marbles of undetermined colour that may or may not misrepresent themselves when you draw them out for a variety of reasons. They may be red, blue, green or black, or even a few rarer colours, but you really don't know until you pull one out which it will be.

Statistics are not clean things, especially when they are based on human reporting in a socially fraught context.

Statistial Application lesson ahoy

[nyxelestia]

I think you missed the point of the hypothetical. Of course you don't know what color the marble is until you see it - but that's the point. You have to guess the color without seeing it. And in the sexuality-reflecting scenario where about 80-90 marbles are of one color and 10-20 are of a bunch of other colors, if you pick a random marble and have to guess its color - without seeing it - you will guess the majority color.

You come up to me in a street, ask me to guess your sexuality, I will say "straight" or something along those lines. You will say "no, I am asexual" and I will be wrong. And that's how statistics work - I'm guessing on the basis of what is most likely, not what is. Statistics are what you use when you have no other information to rely on. If you tell me, "I am asexual, now guess my sexuality", that would a) completely defeat the point but b.) give me the information to correctly say "asexual". Or maybe you tell me to guess your sexuality first, and you don't tell me your sexuality, but I notice the way you're dressed (maybe you're crossdressing, maybe you're wearing something rainbow themed or just a lot of purple, etc), or maybe you aren't dressed in a way particularly informative of your sexuality but we're in a gay enclave of the city we're in (i.e. the Castro District of San Francisco, West Hollywood of Los Angeles, etc). That information would trump the statistics and I would say "probably gay or bi". Of course, in this case, I would still be wrong, because I'm still working on "what is most likely" not "what is". If you are wearing some kind of ace pride symbol, I will say "probably asexual" and in this instance, I would be right. But in that case, I wasn't working purely off statistics - I made a statistical value judgement based on non-quantitative data.

In other words, I still guessed. I just used something besides statistics to make that guess, and because I had something other than statistics, I was right. But I still guessed.

As for mis-representation and self-reporting skewing the data...

Even if the "straight" population is only 51%, with 49% being the rest of the spectrum of sexuality, it's still the majority and still the guess I would take. And honestly, even if it goes below that point, and hits something as low as 40%, the other 60% are composed of a multitude of sexualities, each less than 40%, so I would still guess straight because it is the one single answer that is most likely. Sure, there are a multitude of other sexualities, and all of them together are more likely than straight...but I'm only allowed to make one guess. I can't guess "all of the others together". I can guess one thing, and the one thing still most likely is straight. Until "straight" is a negligible portion of the population, that is what I will guess. And once it is negligible? I will guess the next dominant sexuality.

I will only be able to guess your sexuality correctly if asexuality happens to be the dominant single sexuality in society at large.

As for what you said a few comments up...

Why can't you just assume that anything is possible?

No one is insisting that if you are made to guess or presume someone's sexuality, they are the most likely sexuality. They are assuming anything is possible, but if they're picking one sexuality, they aren't going to assume "what's possible" but "what's probable".

Re: Statistial Application lesson ahoy

[(Anonymous)]

Just so you know, I'm the anon who said "Why can't you assume that anything is possible?", but I'm not the anon you just responded to.

I guess I just don't see the point in going around guessing people's sexualities. If it's math class, fine, your explanation makes perfect sense. But in real life I just find it rude. And when it comes to fictional characters, well, I don't like that the authors have to make a big deal out of a character being gay in order for people to get it (and even then, people find excuses to deny it), but nobody needs "proof" that a character is straight.

I might've taken it a bit personally, but then it's a personal subject for me.

Re: Statistial Application lesson ahoy

[nyxelestia]

I can understand where you're coming from (I'm bi, so I can see why it would matter). But if we're talking about guessing sexualities anyway, then yeah, the numbers would matter. I don't think anyone is actually suggesting we go around guessing random strangers' sexualities, we're just laying out the numbers for if we were.

As for fictional characters...I enjoy slash, I love it, but I really hate the attitude of "just because we've only seen them in straight relationships doesn't mean they are straight" attitude because it starts to feel like a cop-out - writers don't have any obligation to try and include actual queer characters, because if fans are just going to claim that straight characters are secretly or subtly queer anyway, why bother? I would rather get a few actually (and more importantly, visibly) queer characters rather than a lot of could-be-queer-but-in-practice-are-straight characters.

Re: Statistial Application lesson ahoy

[(Anonymous)]

This, oh so much. You put much better than I could have.

Re: Statistial Application lesson ahoy

[(Anonymous)]

Er... You can still be "heterosexual" and fit under the asexual umbrella. I'm asexual. I'm female. I have romantic relationships with men. Sometimes even have sex with them, even though I don't enjoy sex. (And probably would enjoy it less with females)

[(Anonymous)]

NA

Both of you are misusing statistics and statistical terminology.

I have seen references to studies claiming 90% of the population is heterosexual, also studies saying 95%, and 99%. Off the top of my head, I do not remember the sample size, target population, or methodology of any of these studies. I do remember one of the above-90% ones claimed its findings overrode the 90% one.

Statistics don't mean jack shit unless the methods and context of their gathering is unbiased. Yes. The true value probably varies in different target populations, and study methods can create bias either in what population they target or how the data is gathered. I think you've just spectacularly illustrated that at present the context surrounding questions of sexuality is anything but. No it is not statistically unbiased, because a context doesn't have that attribute! A study can be statistically biased, or a result, but not a context.

Because statistically you be straight. You cannot be "statistically straight". That's ridiculous. Statistically speaking, a random individual drawn from a given population is most likely to be straight.

But if someone walked up to me and asked, "What do you think my sexuality is?" I am going to say straight. Because 9.5 out of 10 times I would be correct. Probably not, because since sexuality generally doesn't come up in casual conversation, if they're bringing it up out of nowhere it is probably not what you're assuming it to be.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

Well fuck you too. I prefer people didn't make assumptions about my sexuality. If it's not brought up it's not your business.

And honestly 1 out of every 20 people you know is not actually a small number.

[(Anonymous)]

1 out of every 20 people is 5%. Seems small to me (especially compared to 95%).

[(Anonymous)]

Generally, for a hypothesis to be statistically "true," there is an error margin of 5% or less. In this case, the statement "everyone in the world is straight" would be considered true if only 1 out of every 20 people was not straight.

So. Yes. 5% is a small amount.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT - But see, what I generally assume is "I don't know what they are, they could be anything, it's none of my business unless they tell me." I don't really get why you can't do that. Do you just go around looking at people and consciously say "Yes, all of these people are heterosexual, if they tell me they are not I will be very surprised because it goes against statistics!"? I'm honestly asking that because it seems like a strange way to think, to me.

And maybe you don't notice it in conversations, but I do. All the time. "I'm pretty sure that person is gay because [lists all the stereotypes]." "Omg that girl over there is a lesbian!", "All these people keep coming out to me and I totally support their rights but ew I'm sure never hugging them again."[Generic comment about the boyfriend or husband the person assumes I have].", etc. At best it comes off as rude, at worst it makes me think that the person would potentially be hostile if I came out to them.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

"I don't know what they are, they could be anything, it's none of my business unless they tell me."

This is a good mindset. It is probably the closest description to what I - less eloquently - live by.

[(Anonymous)]

Because you are a minority. Deal with it.

[(Anonymous)]

this minority is not as small as you seem to think it is

psychological study suggests that more and more "straight" people are also capable of being incidentally bisexual.

also, you are statistically chinese. jsyk

[(Anonymous)]

Because people assume. It's not actually possible for people to not make assumptions, because the human brain is not capable of ranking all possibilities for all human traits equally. Those are the breaks.

[fingalsanteater]

Because interpreting characters as bi or gay (especially if they've only been heterosexual relationships) is offensive to their character and shows you aren't a good fan. (Someone told me this. Here, actually)

wtf

[(Anonymous)]

Were they serious??

[(Anonymous)]

this, this, this

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

Unless you wear a T-shirt that says "I'm gay! Stop presuming I'm straight!" or are the biggest camp-gay in the world*, I'm not going to guess you are gay just by looking at you on the street.

*Even then I could wonder if you're camp straight.