How Many People are Lbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgenr? - Williams Instute

Contents:

• MANY SUCCSFUL GAY MARRIAG SHARE AN OPEN SECRET
• HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENR?
• NEW TRENDS GAY MALE RELATNSHIPS: THE CHOIC STUDY

MANY SUCCSFUL GAY MARRIAG SHARE AN OPEN SECRET

Addnal data om YouGov Profil suggts that Amerins who intify as heterosexual/straight (22%) are about half as likely as sexual mori (46%) – meang those who intify as lbian, gay, bisexual, or “other” – to say they are terted havg an open relatnship. MeasurDemographic Characteristics We rporated measur for sex (male, female), sexualy (heterosexual, gay, lbian, bisexual, other), genr inty (transgenr, nontransgenr), age (6 tegori, rangg om 18–24 to 65+), annual hoehold e (ordal sle rangg om 0/ls than $10, 000 to 9/$100, 000 or greater), tn (ls than high school, high school or GED, some llege, bachelor’s or higher), and race/ethnicy (Whe, Non-Hispanic; Black, Non-Hispanic; Other, Non-Hispanic; Hispanic). Due to sample size ncerns, and an tert rporatg sexualy and sex as separate variabl, we llapsed the sexualy variable to three tegori for data analysis cludg heterosexual, gay/lbian, and bisexual/other.

Relatnship stcture was not associated wh sex, tn, or hoehold e bivariate 1Demographic characteristics by relatnship stctureFull samplen (%)Monogamyn (%)Openn (%)NCNMn (%)Relatnship stcture Monogamy2010 (89%)––– Open relatnship 83 (4%)––– Nonnsensual nonmonogamy 178 (8%)–––Sex Male1098 (48%)962 (48%)50 (61%)86 (49%) Female1172 (52%)1048 (52%)32 (39%)91 (51%)Sexualyc Heterosexual/straight2155 (94%)1937 (96%)51 (61%)166 (94%) Gay/lbian 58 (3%)34 (2%)19 (23%)4 (2%) Bisexual/other 58 (3%)38 (2%)12 (15%)8 (4%)Genr intya Transgenr 23 (1%)19 (1%)3 (4%)1 (0%) Nontransgenr2248 (99%)1991 (99%)80 (96%)177 (100%)Age 18–24 169 (7%)134 (7%)11 (13%)24 (14%) 25–34 510 (22%)470 (23%)15 (19%)15 (14%) 35–44 434 (19%)370 (18%)22 (27%)42 (24%) 45–54 397 (17%)347 (17%)17 (20%)33 (18%) 55–64 423 (19%)380 (19%)10 (12%)33 (18%) 65+ 338 (15%)309 (15%)8 (9%)21 (12%)Hoehold e Unr $10, 000 99 (4%)83 (4%)6 (7%)10 (6%) $10, 000–29, 999 329 (15%)271 (13%)19 (22%)41 (23%) $30, 000–49, 999 395 (17%)366 (18%)13 (16%)17 (9%) $50, 000–74, 999 439 (19%)395 (20%)13 (16%)31 (19%) $75–99, 999 376 (17%)331 (16%)12 (15%)33 (19%) $100, 000 or more 631 (28%)564 (28%)21 (25%)46 (26%)Edutn Ls than high school 235 (10%)193 (10%)14 (17%)27 (16%) High school 679 (30%)607 (30%)19 (23%)53 (30%) Some llege 648 (29%)566 (28%)28 (34%)54 (30%) Bachelor’s or higher 708 (31%)644 (32%)21 (26%)43 (24%)Race/ethnicyb Whe, Non-Hispanic1568 (69%)1413 (70%)44 (53%)111 (62%) Black, Non-Hispanic 228 (10%)183 (9%)13 (16%)32 (18%) Other, Non-Hispanic 153 (7%)137 (7%)11 (13%)5 (3%) Hispanic 322 (14%)277 (14%)15 (18%)30 (17%)As noted above, addnal bivariate analys addrsed relatnship stctur among participants wh different sexual orientatns.

When analyzg the whole sample, approximately 2% of heterosexual participants, 32% of gay participants, 5% of lbian participants, 22% of bisexual participants, and 14% of those who scribed their sexuali as “other” reported beg open relatnships; approximately 8% of heterosexual participants, 14% of gay participants, 6% of lbian participants, 18% of bisexual participants, and 6% of those who selected “other” for sexualy reported nonnsensual non-monogamy (p <. When analyzg male participants, approximately 3% of heterosexual mal, 33% of gay mal, 23% of bisexual mal, and 24% of “other” mal reported open relatnships; approximately 8% of heterosexual mal, 14% of gay mal, 34% of bisexual mal, and 6% of “other” mal reported nonnsensual nonmonogamy (p <. When analyzg female participants, approximately 2% of heterosexual femal, 0% of gay femal, 5% of lbian femal, 22% of bisexual femal, and 8% of “other” femal reported open relatnships; approximately 7% of heterosexual femal, 0% of gay femal, 6% of lbian femal, 12% of bisexual femal, and 6% of “other” femal reported nonnsensual nonmonogamy (p <.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENR?

While some studi dite that gay and bisexual mal are particularly likely to engage CNM, others argue that lbian and bisexual women have been neglected empiril rearch, which mak such patterns difficult to substantiate (Rubel & Bogaert, 2015). One benef of workg wh NSSHB data is that, 2012, this study oversampled sexual mory persons and provid distct post-stratifitn weights for analyzg subsampl of gay, lbian, and bisexual participants (Dodge et al., 2016). But they knew om the begng that their bond would be fed on their own terms, cludg what they ll “play” wh other the trial phase of the nstutnal battle to overturn the Proposn 8 ban on same-sex marriage nclus feral urt, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewre the tradnal l of matrimony.

NEW TRENDS GAY MALE RELATNSHIPS: THE CHOIC STUDY

And while that may sound untertuive, some experts say boundary-challengg gay relatnships reprent an evolutn marriage — one that might pot the way for the survival of the rearch at San Francis State Universy reveals jt how mon open relatnships are among gay men and lbians the Bay Area.