Assuming Heterosexuality

[OldNewNewOld]

Well it's normal to assume that the person you meet is heterosexual because statistically you're most likely to be right. Only a small part of the total population is not heterosexual.
I'm gay and I still assume that all the people I meet are heterosexual... okay, I don't assume that all of them are. Statistically speaking I should have at least a few friends who aren't heterosexual. But since I can't say who it is, I behave as if all of them are heterosexual.

Spoiler

Though secretly I hope that that one cute friend is gay and that he will ask me out. Not gonna happen now that he has a girlfriend. ;_;

 

[Silvanus]

Gay people are kinda the minority. Like said earlier, it's like assuming that adults can drive or a Kid goes to school.

As an aside, I don't tend to assume adults can drive, since there are so very many who don't (particularly in the city). I may assume it more often in a rural area.

 

[FancyNick]

It's statistics really. There are more straight people than gay people. It makes sense to assume someone is straight rather than gay. It's just a safer bet. I would tell you not to make assumptions about people before you talk to them but lets be honest. Everyone makes assumptions, it's just how we operate. I am sure someone with a Psych background could tell you why. Overall, it's not inherently wrong to make assumptions about others.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

When I came out of the closet as gay I was not in a very friendly place.
I lived in Florida close to the only all-black neighborhood in the state, and the middle school I went to was very ghetto, and in general not a very friendly place. There were times when I was afraid to set foot on campus because I thought that one day someone would beat the crap outta me. I already had people calling me fag in the hallways before I even came out, so I came out to my friends, and didn't respond to anyone else.
In those times, assuming everyone I met was straight (Aside from those guys you could tell were gay by just looking at them for two seconds) was something that saved me, even into high school. It helped me form a detachment from those around me, sure, I had crushes on some guys, but they were straight, so I could completely disconnect myself from those feelings and get over it.

 

[Dalrien]

Whether or not you're born heterosexual, or you're born with a fluid sexuality. Assuming that people are heterosexual by default isn't a crime as it is the most common orientation to encounter.

Just be wary that there are other orientations and you're golden.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

People's sexuality never even crosses my mind, unless they're really...blatant about their preferences.

Otherwise, I suppose I just go with the default (and it IS the default operational mode for humans), ie. hetero. If I'm actually interested enough to know, I'll ask, otherwise it doesn't exactly matter what I think the other person is or isn't in relation to sexuality.

 

[maxben]

It isn't wrong. When the large majority of a population has a certain attribute(I believe only about 5% of the US is homosexual/bisexual) then there isn't anything wrong with assuming that people belong to the vast majority. Its like assuming someone is right handed because they probably are.

Its like when I assumed Darius Rucker was white because most country artists are. That doesn't make me racist, what would make me racist is if I suddenly stopped loving Wagon Wheel.

To be honest, I did feel bad when I found out hat David Durham, author of the fantasy series Acacia, was black. I automatically assumed he was white because black people don't write fantasy.

Being inherently biased is not in itself bigoted, as you've noted, but you have to be aware of your biases and see them for being problematic. Everyone talks statistics, but they ignore the effects that these biased assumptions have. For example, the immediate assumption that black people don't write fantasy is both caused by a lack of black writers in the genre AND perpetuates a lack of black writers in the genre. An assumption of on the norm of heterosexuality, which exists, makes it harder for people to come out. Notice that in all studies the amount of people with homosexual/bisexual urges versus those who self-identify as homosexual is a completely ridiculous ratio.

So my answer to OP is that: 1) It is not your fault, so immediately you have nothing to feel bad about. 2) It is not wrong to make such an assumption. 3) These kinds of realizations about your self are important and valuable. To understand the other you first have to understand yourself, and so many people just reject self-analysis because it shakes the core of who they think they are. If more people understood themselves and their inherent biases, society would be better.

Is it? That sounds like you've just taken a step from assuming your sexual orientation is the norm, to assuming your sexual orientation is biologically necessary. Which is a big ole' fallacy when you remember that bisexual people can do the whole gamete exchange thing just as well as straight people can. Hell, gay people can do (and have done for large chunks of history) the "lie back and think of England" thing for the purposes of reproduction. You don't have to be straight to do the old in-out until the dude spaffs his baby batter.

You, I like you. I like your whole post but I just wanted to quote that particular part for truth. Most people don't seem to understand that making babies and sexual attraction/preference are completely different issues. They make it and either/or scenario that just rationally makes no sense.

 

[Dandark]

I usually assume everyone I meet is heterosexual but keep in mind that they could be homosexual.

I don't see it as that important and since most people are straight, it seems fine to me to just assume most people you see are straight as long as you don't freak out or anything.

I assume most people I see also like whatever music artist is popular right now but if I later found out they don't then im not going to throw my hands up in surprise and shout "WHAT REALLY?!", im just going to be like "okay". Same with sexuality.

 

[Souther Thorn]

I don't know that's it's 'wrong' per se. I have been called on my privilege for trying to talk to a girl who was quite put out I didn't notice that she was a *epithet removed despite her use of it*, and she assumed (somewhat rightly) that I was interested in more than conversation. I left the encounter kind of put out but realized that her offense and outrage were her damage and issue, I was perfectly respectful and hadn't hedged at anything sexual, and so wrote it off. Can't control how people react to our assumptions if they're made with no offense, but we can control our own in retrospect.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

Sorry for the long wait for a reply!

The utility it takes away from the majority, though, is a fairly tiny convenience. They only need ask (when relevant), or avoid acting in such a way as would alienate non-straight people (for example, asking whether someone has a girlfriend if they're male). Nobody really suffers if we take these minor conveniences away.

The utility gained by the minority-- that they needn't feel alienated so often-- is rather larger, individually, than the utility lost by the majority-- minor convenience.

I think we're both in agreement on the approach, though; that assumptions are near-impossible to entirely leave behind, so we should just keep a little post-it at the back of our minds to remind us that we may be wrong.

 

[Rastrelly]

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?

IIRC, gay population rarely goes over 1%. So it's rather safe to assume people you meet to be heterosexual.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

I always assume someone is hetero until further notice. If someone corrects me, fine. If someone wants to get all bent out of shape about it, fine, but almost %100 of the time I'm correct in my assumption.

 

[PatrickXD]

Assuming that someone is going to fall into within 90-95% of a population seems reasonable to me. There's a novelty to homosexuality that is unavoidable if it is not something that you come across in your day to day life. Surprise by it's definition can't be ill intentioned, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Homosexuality will still take some time to become properly 'normal' for people, but it seems we're on track at least.

 

[Silvanus]

IIRC, gay population rarely goes over 1%. So it's rather safe to assume people you meet to be heterosexual.

That's at the lower end [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results] of the estimates, as far as I know.

Of course, surveys rely on self-reporting. It's safe to say that a significant number of people may be in denial, considering societal pressures.

 

[And Man]

I would say that, unless given a reason to believe otherwise (not just mannerisms and appearance, but also location/environment, community, etc.), most people subconsciously "assume" that a person is heterosexual, with emphasis on subconsciously; when I meet someone, I'm not gonna mull over their sexuality. I'm not gonna meet a new person and think to myself, "Yeah, he's probably heterosexual." I'm just going to subconsciously assume they fall into the norm, because I'd have no reason not to.