Assuming Heterosexuality

[small]

new person walks into your life. *rolls dice* critical success person is gay!

people are more likely to be heterosexual, its simply a matter of numbers

 

[Vault101]

Heterosexual people are in the vast, vast majority. Chances are by assuming they're heterosexual you're right. Furthermore, for the vast, vast majority of conversations you're likely to have, sexuality has no relevance (for example, if you're talking about toast, and whether or not you prefer raspberry jam or blackberry jam, sexuality has fuck all to do with that.)

If you want to be 100% on the sexuality of everyone you meet, you'll have to make it a question very early on in the conversation with them, and that's fine if you're planning in talking about things where ones sexuality is important.

I think youre underestimating how much it comes up in casual conversation, not only talking about significant others but making comments about saaay....fictional characters and such

I was talking about OITNB and how much I thourght Alex was awsome and oh my god fuck larry, piper needs to be with Alex...then afterwards I had to step back and think "oh shit...tone it down a bit man"

 

[Entitled]

is it wrong to assume that someone you meet is heterosexual?

Yes.

About 5-10% of people are gay, and it's wrong to assume instead that everyone falls into the other 95-90%.

It's "wrong" in the most fundamental way something can be wrong, it's not mathematically accurate, since 100=/=90.

Morally speaking, it's more complex. I would assume that you have four limbs, but I wouldn't assume that you have dark hair, even though it's a majority. Likewise, you are statistically likely to be male, but keeping gender-neutral pronouns is the norm when addressing online strangers.

It seems to me, that as long as possible alternatives have no practical influence on you, not making any assumptions is the norm, even if one possibility is more common than the other. In this sense, assuming that someone is straight is problematic, because it implies that it's not an equally valid alternative like hair color, or like gender in a random discussion, but a situation where a norm has to be set for your convenience.

 

[The White Hunter]

No, the vast majority of the population is heterosexual, and a significant proportion of those that aren't don't have real behavioural differences to distinguish them anyway.

Tbh the more people assume I'm heterosexual the easier life is. Prevents those annoying questions people ask.

 

[Denamic]

Heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation, so assuming strangers to be heterosexual is a generally safe bet. It's not like you're deciding on vital matters regarding the global balance of military power. Just change your mind as necessary when you're more informed.

 

[DANEgerous]

This is actually a rather hot debate, as a bisexual male I fall fiercely on the side of no despite having people outright disbelieve I have had people outright deny I have ever had a Homosexual relationship. The idea is known as Heteronormativity and it is intensely disliked by some people. Personally I just can not be bothered to care, I am open about my relationships and sexuality I do not where such things on my sleeve but if they come up they do and if you do not believe me I simply do not care, and it goes the other way once someone found a porn involving me an another guy my reaction was almost nonexistent other than hitting on him.

 

[Molinism]

Often when first meeting people sexuality would be the last thing on my mind. The first thing on my mind is whether or not they're friendly to me and others around me.

 

[Something Amyss]

I assume everyone is gay unless proven otherwise.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Only about 1 in 5 people are gay, and probably less are bisexual or of any other LGBT orientation. So even without those statistics in mind, it's probably normal to assume everyone you meet, unless you are informed otherwise, is heterosexual.

Most gay people I know don't really acknowledge or adhere to many stereotypes, if any at all. They'll like pretty darn homosexual things - like witches, and Judy Garland - but their sexual partners would tip you off sooner than their non-existent campness would.

 

[The Lunatic]

Well, as somebody who is gay.

We're a small minority of people. It is natural to assume most people are straight based on the numbers alone, and I personally take no offence to it.

I'm of the opinion that having homosexuality impact my life in such a small way that I'm no different from anyone else and thus mistakable, is probably the best form of equality.

 

[Skatologist]

Okay, I thought about this line of reasoning. Would the responses be any different if the OP had said "Assuming Monotheistic Belief" or "Assuming Afterlife belief"?

 

[Danny Dowling]

A while ago I met someone at work. I never talked much with them but later found out that they were homosexual and it surprised me. I don't care about other people's sexuality but It got me to thinking: is it wrong to assume that someone you meet is heterosexual?

just need to tweak your gay-dar mate. mine's so strong i knew Tom Daley was gay when he still had a girlfriend.

like other people said though you'll naturally assume people are straight unless they're extremely camp, so no harm no foul.

 

[The Lunatic]

Okay, I thought about this line of reasoning. Would the responses be any different if the OP had said "Assuming Monotheistic Belief" or "Assuming Afterlife belief"?

Would depend upon the place you live.

But, in a lot of places, the numbers are just different.

In a survey in 2009 by the BSA, the UK was found to have a 50.7% population which defined themselves as "No Religion".

Thus, assuming religion in this instance would be incorrect.


For comparison, in the UK, a survey in 2011 by the Office of National Statistics found only 1.1% of participants entered "Gay or Lesbian".

 

[lowtech redneck]

I don't care about other people's sexuality but It got me to thinking: is it wrong to assume that someone you meet is heterosexual?

Its no more morally wrong than assuming that someone can see in color or cannot taste a sound....there are exceptions, but they are just that, and the opposite is, for all practical purposes, the 'human condition' around which any sustainable society must be based. There is no inherent moral relevance to individuals having the atypical characteristics in question, and its immoral to deny someone equal rights or privileges on just that basis, but its simply irrational and likely counterproductive toward utilitarian social ends to bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging standard human characteristics because some people use such differences as a reason to unnecessarily discriminate against people.

 

[Silvanus]

its simply irrational and likely counterproductive toward utilitarian social ends to bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging standard human characteristics [...]

How would it be counter-productive to utilitarian social ends to refrain from assuming anything about somebody's sexuality?


I'm not arguing we should never assume; I often assume, myself, though I also frequently remind myself that I may be wrong.

 

[wadark]

Depends on the context of the interactions and conversations. If you're having conversations about things relevant to those areas, then it would be best not to assume.

BUT, considering that the majority is heterosexual and that heterosexuality is, in some ways, a biological default (clarity: I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong in any way, shape or form), I don't think its that big a deal if you do assume, regardless. I'd hope it wouldnt be too much for your friend to say, "Oh, yeah, well I'm actually into other guys." And you say "Oh, cool, not for me but I respect that." And life goes on with sunshine and rainbows...gay rainbows.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Specific and/or direct examples? I can't immediately think of any, but it seems likely that, because human society is largely a matter of institutionalizing and perpetuating the socialization between heterosexual males and females, avoiding this consideration in the creation of social norms out of a desire to make an inherently small minority feel less alienated will take away more utility from the majority than is gained from the minority, resulting in a net utilitarian decline. As an example, changing the American currency, which presently causes difficulties for the blind (and yes, I know its not the exact same category as the three examples I gave), is likely to be highly inconvenient for people who rely on automated transactions much of the time, such as at grocery stores or vending machines, as well as current manufacturers of such equipment, not to mention the inconvenience of holding differently sized bills. If, however, there is am inexpensive way to change the design of currency without making them incompatible with current machines or unwieldy to use, then that would be a reasonable accommodation that should be instituted for a disadvantaged minority.

I agree, however, that one should always be aware that such assumptions are just arguably necessary shortcuts, and could always be wrong.

Edit: this is a reply to Silvanus, I forgot to quote him.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

It could also depend on location. In an area like San Francisco or Key West, it would be a bit more difficult to make assumptions about a person's sexual preferences. A better question: is it wrong to guess that someone is gay based off of their mannerisms? I see it a lot and do it a lot (in private or silently to myself). I don't make any other assumptions about a person's personality when I guess their sexuality and I don't attach anything negative to it, but a lot of people would.

 

[Skatologist]

snip

I suppose I could agree to that general assessment. No religion may somewhat imply a lack of monotheistic belief, but it does not do so completely. I'm not entirely certain, but I would think forms of deism and theism along with other beliefs could fit in that 50.7% but I am still completely aware of much of Europe generally having larger numbers of non religiously minded individuals. I usually assume "no religion" numbers are approximately 1/2 atheist or close enough, considering I had seen maybe 1 or 2 polls breaking down the "nones" in a US poll where admittedly, a large chunk of atheists and agnostics were identified, but another large chunk identified as "spiritual, but not religious" which I am still not entirely what that 100 % means in terms of those demographics. Wiccans? Buddhists? Something entirely different?

As for the my 2nd question, the only poll I ever saw regarding the question I think was US based and I think it had approximately 20 % of people identifying as not believing in any form of an afterlife. I haven't seen any for other countries, so I am unsure if a place like Sweden would have a similar answer, but despite having these relatively high numbers, it is still often assumed that I believe in an afterlife along with a single God until I express my opinion otherwise. I suppose I could blame that on the 76 % percent of self identified Christians in the US though.

Now, regarding your poll[footnote] I am going to refer to as a poll instead of a survey because when looking up the differences between the two, it seems how you phrased it, it was only asking and desiring an answer for 1 question, which is how polls generally operate. [/footnote] with 1.1 % answering "Gay or Lesbian", I would ask if it included bisexual in that poll as well, considering the fact bisexuality is also technically not heterosexuality. If not, then maybe the % of no answers or other possibilities? I ask this because I know polls/surveys are incredibly tricky and may usually have limited answers or phrase questions in specific ways. I don't disregard polls very often, but I do like to have a general knowledge on the things that are usually most important to them, like all the numbers, how the question was phrased, group size, etc., considering the fact I know how people are able to manipulate polls into getting desired results and how polls don't take into account thinking of subjects very often when outrageous results occur.

 

[Andysweden]

A while ago I met someone at work. I never talked much with them but later found out that they were homosexual and it surprised me. I don't care about other people's sexuality but It got me to thinking: is it wrong to assume that someone you meet is heterosexual?

It's not wrong at all to assume hererosexuality, Homosexuality is still sadly a taboo in many places and religions, so as a result we currently don't really know the true figures on "sexuality" and therefore assume the norm is hetero.