Saturday, 29 September 2012

Daily Mail: 99% Of Gay Men Don't Have Faces

One in 66 Britons is gay or bisexual - NOT one in ten, as previously thought

Only one in every 66 people say they are gay or bisexual, a nationwide survey revealed yesterday.

The numbers are in contrast with the decades-old and widely accepted 10 per cent figure for the gay population, and the 6 per cent estimate used by Whitehall when civil partnership legislation was drawn up in 2003.

The Office of National Statistics survey found that 1.5 per cent of men say they are gay, 0.7 per cent of women say they are lesbian, and 0.4 per cent of people identify themselves as bisexual...

The Daily Mail - clearly rejoicing in this news.
Not even Kinsey thought one man in ten was gay, you thick fuck.
If you think this survey tells us anything meaningful, you are clearly an even bigger thick fuck.
I came up with a pretty basic formula for calculating this - extrapolated from HIV figures - and it's (probably) somewhere between 2 and 4%.
You thick fucking fuck.

PS Great illustration - ever wonder why some gay men aren't out, when you can't even print photos showing their faces? For shame! You thick homophobic fucking fucks.


  1. You still haven't divulged your "basic formula" though, even after rigorous probing on here, I seem to remember.
    I like the way their headline says 1 in 66 IS GAY whereas the piece says 1 in 66 SAY they are gay, which is obviously a different thing entirely.
    Any result such as this should be taken with a large pinch of salt because there are obviously so many who wouldn't say they are gay - even privately, let alone to anyone in public.
    And then there are those who wouldn't even admit it to themselves. You're always going to be way off the mark with these kinds of polls.

    Not sure how HIV figures are indicative of anything other than how many people have been diagnosed with HIV???

    1. You can work it out based on how many gay men have HIV - including undiagnosed (bit of a grey area, admittedly) - compared to the general population.
      It is not rocket science, dude!

    2. Assuming you're not joking, even if you had access to 100% accurate figures for numbers of straight and gay men with HIV and those who remain undiagnosed, you absolutely cannot ascertain what percentage of the population is gay from those figures.
      There is no correlation whatsoever.
      Surely that's obvious???

    3. You can come up with a - as I said, rough - figure.
      My findings were backed up by Ford Hickson from Project Sigma, so I'm not totally up a Christmas tree with this.

    4. You may as well pluck a random figure out of thin air.

      Can you link me to anywhere on the internet that not only supports your "findings" but also lays out in more detail how in God's name this is a reliable indicator of what percentage of men are gay, please?
      One glaringly obvious flaw is that the numbers of gay men with HIV relative to straight men with HIV would only be useful if the rate of infection was equal amongst all types of men (even then there are some obvious and pretty fucking large flaws in your formula), but they clearly aren't.
      I'm pretty sure rates of HIV contraction are decreasing in the general population in the UK but increasing amongst gay men?
      Therefore, there will be more gay men with HIV relative to straight men with HIV in a few years time than there are now... and your formula will give very different results as a consequence.
      And it won't be due to a sudden dramatic increase in the amount of gay men in the world.

      I don't know what shocks me more; the fact you think this is in any way a reliable formula or the fact there's an actual man called Ford Hickson.

  2. There are millions of gays in the world, but none of them have a face.