Gay Marriage and the 10% Myth

As we deal with the controversial issue of gay marriage, one peripheral issue that may come into play repeatedly is the number of people who may be in need of this “right.” I expect calculations to be begin with the commonly asserted belief that 10% of the population is gay. In fact, the 10% number is a pillar of the P.R. effort to make homosexuality seem acceptable and normal because it is so common. According to Tom Stoddard, former member of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, “We used that figure [10%] when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness” (“The Homosexual Numbers,” Newsweek, March 22, 1993, p. 37). But the 10% number is truly a fraud.

The bogus 10% claim has been a centerpiece of sexual misinformation ever since the famous Kinsey report on sexuality shook up the nation in 1948 (Alfred C. Kinsey, W.B. Pomeroy, and C.E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1948). In its wake, sexual acts that were once widely considered to be perverted and unhealthy have been gradually reclassified as normal and acceptable in response to political pressures. The Kinsey report fueled the Sexual Revolution of the 60s and Kinsey’s conclusions and data continue to power efforts to make homosexuality acceptable and even a favored minority, rewarded with special benefits. But the 10% figure is simply propaganda. Gay activists and their advocates claim it is derived from the “scientific” work of Kinsey, but not even the grossly fraudulent Kinsey report supports the 10% number for the general population. Kinsey’s famous but fraudulent work would suggests that 10% of males are homosexual. He concluded that about 6% or less of women are lesbians, making “the general population” no more than 8% homosexual. But these conclusions are based on a terrible and even criminal fraud. Kinsey had an agenda – a very selfish agenda – and was not a dispassionate scientist in search of truth.

Kinsey’s errors, fraud, and even felony crimes associated with his world-famous study have been most fully exposed in the recent work of Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, a nonprofit technical education and research agency. She is the author, with Edward W. Eichel, of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lochinvar-Huntington House, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1990), and, more recently, she authored Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (The Institute for Media Education, Arlington, VA, 1998). A related Web resource is Dr. Reisman’s article, “Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution.”

Kinsey claimed he was trying to understand the sexual behavior of the average American male. However, there is no hiding the fact that Kinsey used a grossly disproportionate number of prison inmates and sex offenders in his study. Kinsey reports data for over 1,200 convicted sex offenders, and it turns out that most of these were included in the sample of 5,300 volunteers from which Kinsey’s most famous conclusions were drawn. One of Kinsey’s co-authors, Pomeroy, wrote a book in 1972, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research (Harper and Row), describing the work with inmates:

We went to the [prison] records and got lists of the inmates who were in for various kinds if sex offenses. If the list was short for some offenses – incest, for example – we took the history of everybody on it. If it was a long list, as for statutory rape, we might take the history of every fifth or tenth man. Then we cut the pie another way. We could go to a particular prison workshop and get the history of every man in the group, whether he was a sex offender or not [pp. 202, 203, as cited by Reisman and Eichel, p. 22].

By 1946, [we] had interviewed about 1,400 convicted sex offenders in penal institutions scattered over a dozen states [p. 208, as cited by Reisman and Eichel, p. 22].

Kinsey also sought out volunteers from various groups he contacted, including prison inmate leaders and leaders of homosexual groups. Among 32 groups of “contact” persons who helped obtain volunteers were male prostitutes, female prostitutes, pimps, prison inmates, and several other classes of criminals.

While Kinsey was not open about how many inmates and criminals were included in his sample of 5,300 men, a variety of indications discussed by Reisman and Eichel in Kinsey, Sex and Fraud confirm that roughly 25% of his total sample were prisoners. Further, members of the Kinsey team have noted that prison inmates have a much higher rate of homosexuality than those without prison experience.

Reisman and Eichel also point out the sampling problems that have long been known to make Kinsey’s numbers highly suspect (pp. 20-21). In his study of adult males, Kinsey relied on volunteers who were willing to talk about intimate details of their “sexual history” and sexual practices. In using volunteers rather than a set of people randomly selected from the general population, it becomes highly likely that bias is introduced. Those willing to volunteer don’t necessarily reflect the general population.

The issue of volunteer error in the Kinsey study is one of the most extreme and least publicized examples of dishonesty in an allegedly scientific study. At the beginning of Kinsey’s study, the famous psychologist, Abraham Maslow, warned Kinsey about the potential for error in using volunteers, for it would result in a sample having personality types unrepresentative of the population supposedly being sampled. In a 1942 paper on female sexuality, Maslow concluded that “any study in which data are obtained from volunteers will always have a preponderance of [aggressive] high dominance people and therefore will show a falsely high percentage of non-virginity, masturbation, promiscuity, homosexuality, etc., in the population (Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 259-294, 1942, as cited by Reisman and Eichel, p. 182).

At first, Kinsey agreed to work with Maslow to examine the possibility of error in his use of volunteers. Maslow already had psychological assessments of many of his students at Brooklyn College. By comparing the psychological data for students which volunteered for Kinsey’s study, Maslow was able to confirm that the volunteer bias would strongly affect Kinsey’s work. Kinsey was gathering data from volunteers who were likely to have a greater number of unconventional sex histories than would be seen in a truly random sample of the general population. At this point, when Kinsey could compare sex histories with Maslow’s psychological profiles, Kinsey broke off the cooperation with Maslow and refuse to give Maslow the sex history data he had obtained from Maslow’s students, data which would have allowed Kinsey and Maslow to quantify the error introduced by the volunteer effect.

Six weeks before his death, Maslow retold the story to a colleague:

[W]hen I warned him about “volunteer error” he disagreed with me and was sure that his random selection would be okay. So what we did was to cook up a joint crucial test. I put the heat on all my five classes at Brooklyn College and made a real effort to get them all to sign up to be interviewed by Kinsey. We had my dominance test scores for all of them and then Kinsey gave me the names of the students who actually showed up for the interviews. As I expected, the volunteer error was proven and the whole basis of Kinsey’s statistics was proven to be shaky. But then he refused to publish it and refused even to mention that it in his books, or to mention anything else that I had written. All my work was excluded from his bibliography. So after a couple of years I just went ahead and published it myself.

(Letter from Abraham H. Maslow to Amram Scheinfeld, April 29, 1970, Archives of the History of American Psychology, NB Box M424, University of Akron, Ohio, as cited in Reisman and Eichel, p. 182)

Kinsey and his associates acted as if the collaboration with Maslow never took place. The facts, apparently, did not support Kinsey’s agenda, which was not publishing scientific truth. Reisman and others have shown that he had a personal agenda of making perverse behavior seem normal – behaviors that were pat of his life – and had an agenda of obtaining fame. As Maslow wrote, “Al was setting out then to be the world’s No. 1 sexology (sic) – and by gosh, he succeeded, though by means which we’d hardly endorse.” (Reisman and Eichel, p. 183).

Independently of Maslow, Lewis M. Terman of Stanford University critiqued Kinsey’s report in 1948, collaborating with statistician Quinn McNemar. The internal evidence within Kinsey’s reported data alone demonstrated to McNemar that there was serious bias. According to Terman, McNemar’s calculations “confirm the suspicion that willingness to volunteer is associated with greater than average sexual activity. And since the volunteers account for about three-fourths of the 5,300 males reported in this volume, it follows that Kinsey’s figures, in all probability, give an exaggerated notion of the amount of sexual activity in the general population” (L.M. Terman, Psychological Bulletin, 45: 443-459, 1948, as cited by Reisman and Eichel, pp. 20-21). Terman also noted that many of the volunteers came looking for advice on their personal sexual problems, such as learning more about the potential harmful effects of excessive sex. Those volunteering out of a need for advice on such matters are likely to be greatly over represented relative to the general population. Careful random sampling is required if results are to be extrapolated to the general population.

Even apart from the bias introduced by relying mainly on volunteers is the bias introduced by Kinsey’s questioning. Rather than devising an objective means of polling people, Kinsey used a “burden of denial” technique which put pressure on his subjects to confess to high levels of sexual activity. Kinsey described this technique himself:

The interviewer should not make it easy for a subject to deny his participation in any form of sexual activity. . . . We always assume that everyone has engaged in every type of activity. Consequently, we begin by asking when they first engaged in such activity. [Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 53, emphasis in original.]

Kinsey’s work was tainted by blatant fraud and even gross criminal behavior (sexual molestation of young children) to justify Kinsey’s views. It was a fraud, and it is the result of ongoing fraud that his work is repeated as foundational truth even after it has been thoroughly exposed. From the perspective of some significant people in our society, it doesn’t matter whether Kinsey’s conclusions were true or not – all that matters is that his conclusions support favored lifestyles and attitudes of the immoral, self-anointed elitists who pursue their vision of how society ought to be – a vision that is remarkably immune to facts. The 10% myth fits the political objectives of the self-anointed ones, so it will be repeated, regardless of its disconnection to truth.

Depending on which study is used, more accurate estimations of the gay population range from 0.8% to about 3% – numbers well below the wildly inflated and mythical 10% figure. See How Many Gays? – an article from National Review by Michael Fumento. For example, in 1990, a study by the University of Chicago estimated that no more than 1.6% of the population in the United States was homosexual (Tom Smith, “Adult Sexual Behavior: Number of Partners, Frequency and Risk,” Paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, New Orleans, February 1990). Numerous other studies confirm that somewhere from about 1% to about 3% of the population is homosexual, depending in some cases on how homosexual is defined. Kinsey’s fraudulent claim of 10% remains unsupported. It’s time we drop that myth!

Interestingly, several major pro-homosexual groups have acknowledge in a legal brief that less than 3% of the population is gay. This admission is documented by Peter Sprigg in his article, “Homosexual Groups Back Off From ’10 Percent’ Myth” for the Family Research Council. The legal brief was filed as an amicus curiae brief in the Lawrence v. Texas case before the Supreme Court. I suspect that this backing off was for credibility purposes in their legal arguments. Will they back off from the 10% claim in other forums? Something tells me that students and the public in general will keep hearing that 10% of the population is gay.

See also my other blog posting, The Danger of Gay Marriage.


Author: Jeff Lindsay

3 thoughts on “Gay Marriage and the 10% Myth

  1. Most recent figures for the homosexual population is around three percent (3%). Of course the number doesn’t matter. The philosophy of individual rights, upon which the U.S.Constitution is based, asserts that EVERY individual has natural rights and that function of a moral government is to protect those rights–regardless of whether the per centage of the population in question is 3% or .00001%. The numbers and percentages are not important. If there were only two Mormons in the whole world, the government and laws of the US would have an obligation to protect their rights–the same as if their numeber were 12 million. The same is true with the natural rights of homosexuals.

  2. Info from the Kinsey Insitute site found @:

    Prevalence of Homosexuality

    Brief Summary of U.S. Studies (Compiled 6/99)
    This summary sheet is not intended to be a comparative analysis or recommendation of the studies referenced. Its purpose is to respond to inquiries received by the Institute by indicating the range of findings in the research literature, beginning with Alfred Kinsey’s two studies, often referred to together as the Kinsey Reports.

    Studies often differ sharply in: 1) definitions; 2) methodology; 3) response rates. The majority are based on nonrandom samples. Some look at current/previous year behavior only and others at extended time periods in respondents’ lives. They are listed in chronological order.


    1948 and 1953 Studies of Alfred Kinsey (and Reanalyses of Kinsey Data)
    Later Surveys
    Reviews of the Literature


    The 1948 and 1953 Studies of Alfred Kinsey
    Kinsey’s samples are best for younger adults, particularly the college-educated; they are poorest for minorities and those from lower socioeconomic and educational levels. The original male sample included institutionalized men. Paul Gebhard (Gebhard 1979), a Kinsey research associate and later director of the Institute, described Kinsey’s sampling method as “quota sampling accompanied by opportunistic collection” (p. 26). Kinsey’s data came from in-depth, face-to-face interviews (with 5300 white males and 5940 white females providing almost all of the data).

    Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) reported that:

    37% of males and 13% of females had at least some overt homosexual experience to orgasm;
    10% of males were more or less exclusively homosexual and 8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. For females, Kinsey reported a range of 2-6% for more or less exclusively homosexual experience/response.
    4% of males and 1-3% of females had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of the interview.
    Kinsey devised a classification scheme to measure sexual orientation. It is commonly known as the Kinsey Scale
    Reanalyses of Alfred Kinsey’s Data
    In the Final Report and Background Papers of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Task Force on Homosexuality (Gebhard 1972), Gebhard reanalyzed Kinsey’s data to eliminate sample bias. His refined figures showed that between one-quarter and one-third of adult white males with college education had had an “overt homosexual experience since puberty” (mostly in the adolescent years); weighting by marital status, he estimated that 4% of the white college-educated males and between 1-2% (and closer to 1%) of white females were predominantly or exclusively homosexual.

    In The Kinsey Data, Gebhard and Johnson (1979) reexamined the amount of homosexual experience in Kinsey’s basic sample of noninstitutionalized males and females. They found 9.9% of the males in the College Sample had extensive homosexual experience. 3.7% of females had extensive homosexual experience.

    Tabulations by Gebhard (McWhirter 1990) on Kinsey’s basic sample of noninstitutionalized males and females indicated that “13.95% of males and 4.25% of females, or a combined average of 9.13%” had had either “extensive” or “more than incidental” homosexual experience. These figures were not weighted by marital status.

    John Gagnon and William Simon (1973) also reanalyzed Kinsey’s data, focusing on the college sample. In their tabulations, 30% of males reported a homosexual experience to orgasm for the male or his partner; of this group, 25% had the experience(s) as adolescents or had only isolated experiences before the age of 20. The remaining 5-6% broke down evenly, with 3% having had “substantial homosexual histories” and 3% having had “exclusively homosexual histories.” The comparable figure for females having had a homosexual experience was 6%. Of these, 4% had experience limited to adolescence or scattered experience before the age of 20, leaving 2% with significant adult homosexual experience, and less than 1% with exclusively homosexual histories.

    Later Surveys
    Hunt (1974)
    Hunt’s survey of sexual behavior in the 1970s indicated that 7% of males and 3% of females had homosexual experiences during more than three years of their lives. In comparing his data to Kinsey’s, Hunt adjusted Kinsey’s 37% figure (for males having had some same-sex contact to orgasm) to 25% and Kinsey’s 4% exclusive-homosexuality figure for males to 2-3%. He considered less than 1% of females as “mainly to completely homosexual.” This was a volunteer survey of 2036 people using questionnaires.

    Pietropinto and Simenauer (1977)
    Pietropinto and Simenauer conducted a large-scale survey of 4066 men in which they asked: “With what type of partner do you usually engage in sex?” 1.3% responded “with men only”; 3.1% responded “men and women.” Field agents used a self-administered written questionnaire; participants were recruited at shopping centers, office buildings, sports clubs, colleges, airports, and bus depots.

    Fay, Turner, Klasser, and Gagnon (1989)
    Comparing national sample surveys from 1970 Kinsey-NORC data and 1988 National Opinion Research Center (NORC) interviews for males, the authors gave an estimated minimum prevalence of 20.3% of adult males having had a homosexual experience to orgasm, with 3.3% of adult men reporting having had homosexual sex “occasionally” or “fairly often” at some point in their adult lives (at age 20 or later).

    Harry (1990)
    Harry’s telephone survey was based on a national probability sample of 663 males. The survey included a question about sexual attraction to members of the same sex. In the weighted data, 3.7% gave their orientation as bisexual or homosexual.

    Smith (1991)
    Tom Smith looked at the sexual behavior data from the 1988 and 1989 National Opinion Research Center’s (NORC) General Social Surveys, and classified 5-6% of adults as homosexual or bisexual since age 18 (with the percentage for exclusive homosexuality as less than 1%). The GSS is a probability sample of approximately 1500 people, and nationally representative; the results are based on a one-page self-administered questionnaire on sexual behavior in the last year and since age 18. [Smith has issued a 1998 report of American Sexual Behavior: Trends, Socio-Demographic Differences, and Risk Behavior. He discusses some demographic issues surrounding prevalence of homosexuality. It can be found, in pdf format, from NORC at

    Janus and Janus (1993)
    Janus and Janus, in their cross-sectional (not random) nationwide survey of American adults aged 18 and over, stated that 9% of men and 5% of women reported having had homosexual experiences “frequently” or “ongoing.” In another measure, 4% of men and 2% of women self-identified as homosexual. The authors used a questionnaire, supplemented by 125 interviews (4,550 questionnaires were distributed, 3,260 were returned, and 2,765 were usable).

    Billy, Tafner, Grady, and Klepinger (1993)
    A national survey of 3321 men was conducted in 1991 by Batelle Human Affairs Research Center in Seattle, supported by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, to obtain data on the number of men engaging in sexual behaviors that put them at risk for AIDS. It was a national probability sample of 20-39 year-old noninstitutionalized males. 2% of sexually active men in the survey reported same-gender sexual activity during the last 10 years, with 1% reporting being “exclusively homosexual” during this time (p. 52). Participants were interviewed in person using a standard questionnaire; they also filled out a self-administered questionnaire.

    Taylor (1993)
    The Harris Poll published a critique of the Batelle 1% figure, comparing it with their own data from a 1988 three-national survey of AIDS’ risk behavior conducted for Project Hope’s Center for Health Affairs, which found more than 4% of men aged 16-50 and more than 3% of women in the same age group reporting a same-sex sexual partner in the previous five years.

    Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels (1994)
    A research team at the University of Chicago headed a project that conducted interviews in 1992 of a random probability sample of 3,432 men and women in the U.S. between the ages of 18-59 (National Health and Social Life Survey). Homosexuality was viewed as a complex of same-gender behavior, desire, and identity. 9% of men and 4% of women reported having engaged in at least one same-gender sexual activity since puberty. Given the identity category choices of heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or something else, 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women surveyed reported “some level of homosexual identity.”

    Binson, Michaels, Stall, Coates, Gagnon, and Catania (1995)
    Data on the prevalence of homosexual behavior and the demographic distribution of homosexual and bisexual men were analyzed from two national probability surveys (General Social Survey – GSS and the National Health and Social Life Survey – NHSLS) and a probability survey of urban centers in the U.S. (National AIDS Behavioral Surveys – NABS) and results from earlier surveys discussed. Combined data from the GSS and NHSLS surveys showed 5.3% of men reporting sexual activity with a same-gender partner since age 18. Data from the NABS showed 6.5% of men reporting sex with men during the previous five years. The highest prevalence was found in central cities of the 12 largest SMSAs (14.4% since age 18) and among “highly educated” White males (10.8%).

    Sell, Wells, and Wypij (1995)
    A later article on the Hope/Harris survey by Sell reported data on both homosexual attraction as well as homosexual behavior. The figures reported were: 6.2% of U.S. males and 3.6% of U.S. females with “sexual contact with someone of the same sex only or with both sexes in the previous five years,” and 20.8% of U.S. males and 17.8% of U.S. females with some homosexual behavior or some homosexual attraction since age 15. The percentage of respondents reporting sexual contact only with others of the same sex in the previous five years in the U.S. was below 1%.

    Bagley and Tremblay (1998)
    A stratified random sample of males in Calgary, Canada (a metropolitan region of .78 million) was questioned using a computerized response format and three measures of homosexuality. Based on one or more of the overlapping measures, 15.3% of males reported being homosexual to some degree.

    Reviews of the Literature
    Rogers and Turner (1991)
    While researchers at the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council, Committee on AIDS Research and the Behavioral, Social, and Statistical Sciences, Rogers and Turner analyzed estimates from five probability surveys, 1970 to 1990. They gave estimated minimums of 5-7% for males having experienced some same-sex sexual contact in adulthood.

    Diamond (1993)
    Diamond looked at studies done on the prevalence of homosexual behavior. He included some studies done on populations outside the U.S. The date ranges varied from country to country, but spanned 1948 to 1991. Those studies discussed were compared and displayed in tablular form. He found the mean of males surveyed to be 5.5% of the population, and the median to be 5.3%. The mean of females that engaged in same sex behavior was 2.5% and the median was 3.0%. The calculations were of all non-Kinsey data. Diamond found that methods employed by these studies were inconsistent.

    Gonsiorek, Sell, and Weinrich (1995)
    The authors reviewed methods used in defining and measuring sexual orientation, and briefly critiqued surveys of homosexual activity from Kinsey in 1948 to the 1994 study by Laumann, et al. Because of the possible risks involved in self-disclosure, it is posited that the recurrent 2-5% for same-gender sexual behavior in the studies reviewed represents a minimum figure. They suggest that the current prevalence of predominant same-sex orientation is 4-17%.

    Hewitt (1998)
    Hewitt analyzed past surveys on the prevalence of homosexuality in the United States, from 1970 to 1994, looking critically at the methodology of these studies. He offered a metanalysis of the typologies used in these surveys to classify the homosexual. He found five types: (1) open preferential homosexuals, (2) repressed preferential homosexuals, (3) bisexuals, (4) experimental homosexuals, and (5) situational homosexuals.

    Revised: 6/99


    Bagley, C., and Tremblay, P. (1998). On the prevalence of homosexuality and bisexuality, in a random community survey of 750 men aged 18 to 27. Journal of Homosexuality 36(2), 1-18.

    Billy, J., Tanfer, K., Grady, W., and Klepinger, D. (1993). The sexual behavior of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 25(2), 52-60.

    Binson, D., Michaels, S., Stall, R., Coates, T.J., Gagnon, J.H., and Catania, J.A. (1995). Prevalence and social distribution of men who have sex with men: United States and its urban centers. Journal of Sex Research 32(3), 245-254.

    Diamond, M. (1993). Homosexuality and bisexuality in different populations. Archives of Sexual Behavior 22(4), 291-310.

    Fay, R., Turner, C., Klassen, A., and Gagnon, J. (January 1989). Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 243, 338-348.

    Gagnon, J., and Simon, W. (1973). Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.

    Gebhard, P. H. (1972). Incidence of overt homosexuality in the United States and Western Europe. In National Institute of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality: Final Report and Background Papers, edited by J. M. Livingood. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

    Gebhard, P.H., and Johnson, A.B. (1979). The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

    Gonsiorek, J.C., Sell, R.L., and Weinrich, J.D. (1995). Definition and measurement of sexual orientation. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 25(Supplement), 40-51.

    Harry, J. (1990). A probability sample of gay males. Journal of Homosexuality 19(1), 89-104.

    Hewitt, C. (1998).Homosexual demography: implications for the spread of AIDS. Journal of Sex Research 35(4), 390-397.

    Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual Behavior in the 1970’s. New York: Dell.

    Janus, S., and Janus, C. (1993). The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., and Martin, C. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

    Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., and Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

    Laumann, E., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., and Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    McWhirter, D., Sanders, S., and Reinisch, J. (Eds.). (1990). Homosexuality/Heterosexuality. The Kinsey Institute Series. New York: Oxford University Press. [Includes 1977 Gebhard letter to National Gay Task Force on tabulations of Kinsey’s data.]

    Pietropinto, A., and Simenauer, J. (1977). Beyond the Male Myth. New York: Times Books.

    Rogers, S., and Turner, C. (1991). Male-male sexual contact in the U.S.A.: Findings from five sample surveys, 1970-1990. Journal of Sex Research 28(4):491-519.

    Sell, R. L., Wells, J. A., and Wypij, D. (1995). The prevalence of homosexual behavior and attraction in the United States, the United Kingdom and France: Results of national population-based samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior 24(3), 235-248.

    Smith, T.W. (1991). Adult sexual behavior in 1989: Number of partners, frequency of intercourse and risk of AIDS. Family Planning Perspectives 23(3), 102-107.

    Taylor, H. (1993). Number of gay men more than four times higher than the 1 percent reported in a recent survey. The Harris Poll #20. New York, NY: Louis Harris & Associates.

    Wells, J.A., and Sell, R.L. (1990). Project Hope’s International Survey of AIDS Educational Messages and Behavior Change: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Bethesda, MD: Project Hope, Center for Health Affairs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.