[jen1447]

To conclude my data dump with some more recent info, here's the Natsal-3 - "British National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and lifestyles" - results (a series of three studies in the UK over three decades that measured everything sexual, including same-sex matters ....Natsal-1 in 1990-1991, Natsal-2 in 1999-2001, Natsal-3 in 2010-2012):

Sexual partners, practices, behaviors, and attitudes reported by men in Natsal-3, by age group

Sexual practices with male partners

Any sexual experience or contact with another man: 16-24 years, 7.0% / 25-34 years, 7.8% / 35-44 years, 7.4%
Any sexual experience with genital contact with another man: 16-24 years, 4.0% / 25-34 years, 5.7% / 35-44 years, 4.7%
At least one male sexual partner in last 5 years: 16-24 years, 2.9% / 25-34 years, 3.5% / 35-44 years, 2.3%

Sexual partners, practices, behaviors, and attitudes reported by women in Natsal-3, by age group

Sexual practices with female partners

Any sexual experience or contact with another woman: 16-24 years, 18.9% / 25-34 years, 18.1% / 35-44 years, 11.5%
Any sexual experience with genital contact with another woman: 16-24 years, 7.6% / 25-34 years, 8.8% / 35-44 years, 7.4%
At least one female sexual partner in last 5 years: 16-24 years, 6.2% / 25-34 years, 4.7% / 35-44 years, 3.5%

On the changes from Natsal 1 and Natsal 2, this condensation of data is probably easier on the eyes than more stats and charts. It's from the Huff Post blog by Arlene Schindler titled "Why Every Woman Over 50 Should Practice Bisexuality," dated 2/28/2014:

The findings of the latest National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL) reveals that the number of women reporting same-sex partners has increased from 1.8% to 7.9% over the past 20 years. Sexual lifestyles in Britain have changed substantially in the past 60 years, with changes in behavior seeming to be greater in women than men, most notably the continuation of sexual activity into later life.

From the same blog, this reference to a study called "Processes of sexual orientation questioning among heterosexual women" by Professor Elizabeth Morgan of Boise State University:

According to a recent study by professor Elizabeth Morgan of Boise State University, most women are naturally bi-curious when it comes to sex; 60 percent were sexually attracted to other women; 45 percent had kissed a woman and 50 percent had fantasies about the same sex. This suggests that women may be more capable of finding people attractive, no matter what orientation they claim. Additionally, it becomes more pronounced as they get older.

The above study is available in pdf format online and is an interesting (if technical and long) read.

[Stillness]

It's from the Huff Post blog by Arlene Schindler titled "Why Every Woman Over 50 Should Practice Bisexuality," dated 2/28/2014

Yes, I'm sure from the title that this is an impartial, scientific assessment.

[Something_Awesome]

Ohh, a sleep over ?? Let me see 7/8 years old, reading 'Spiderman' comics ?

I'm teasing Something

Well he would have been like 10th grade.

[Stillness]

Well he would have been like 10th grade.

Sorry to hear that. My contact was younger and it was with older boys too. Not that old I don't think.

[jen1447]

Yes, I'm sure from the title that this is an impartial, scientific assessment.

Did you make a determination on the validity of blog based on the title?

The content of the blog is irrelevant in terms of the data it refers to (unless you're going so far as to allege they're lying about the numbers), but scary titles notwithstanding, it's actually just advocating for women exploring fulfilling relationships as they age and encouraging them to consider other women to that end. I don't know that Arlene Schindler is even lesbian or bisexual, and HuffPost can hardly be considered a controversial news outlet.

It would be much more appropriate to consider the data I posted than nitpick on things like article titles, as surely you must know they don't validate or invalidate anything in themselves.

[Stillness]

Did you make a determination on the validity of blog based on the title?

Not validity, but bias. I've already commented on the actual data.

[jen1447]

You determined that the blog was biased based on reading its title? Also, no comment on any potential bias (if it even existed) being irrelevant in terms of repeating numbers from an unassociated study? And where did you comment on or acknowledge the Natsal-3 data? I didn't see that.

[Something_Awesome]

Sorry to hear that. My contact was younger and it was with older boys too. Not that old I don't think.

Sorry, why?

[rcoreyus]

It probably would have been better to directly quote the Lancet journal paper: Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles

Since it is a more primary source. The title of the blog does suggest that it might be biased. Studies like this are open to a huge amount of interpretation - there can be big differences in results depending on exactly how the questions are asked and in how they selected the people they asked.

I don't have any reason to doubt the conclusions in the paper, if anything the numbers are a bit lower than I would have expected, but haven't read the journal paper in detail so see if I agree with their analysis.

The increase in reported same-sex contacts over time is interesting. I wonder if it is an actual increase, or an increase in REPORTED contacts.

For me, the numbers don't change anything. I encourage people to explore any forms of sexuality that they find interesting, constrained only by the usual safe / sane / consensual requirements, and consistent with whatever agreement they may have with existing partners.

You determined that the blog was biased based on reading its title? Also, no comment on any potential bias (if it even existed) being irrelevant in terms of repeating numbers from an unassociated study? And where did you comment on or acknowledge the Natsal-3 data? I didn't see that.

[jen1447]

I did explain why I quoted the blog (a condensation of the data rather than me typing a bunch more stats), but I still see no reason why a blog with any particular title would affect the data from the cited study unless they were lying about the numbers, which seems unlikely from HuffPost. I didn't cite the analysis of the blog at all, and I did list the study being cited explicitly so that anyone caring to verify could do so fairly easily.

On the changes from Natsal 1 and Natsal 2, this condensation of data is probably easier on the eyes than more stats and charts. It's from the Huff Post blog by Arlene Schindler titled "Why Every Woman Over 50 Should Practice Bisexuality," dated 2/28/2014:

Saying that because a blog has a title that you may not not like or find threatening, the data from the study it cites is invalid, would be completely invalid itself. The main point here tho is that Stillness seems to be spinning his wheels pointing at things like that rather than acknowledging the obvious - a point that he contested eagerly up the thread.