March 20, 2015

Homo population size across metro areas (Gallup survey)

Gallup surveyed 50 major metro areas to uncover what percentage of residents identify as not heterosexual. Here are their results (scroll to bottom for the full list of 50).

No surprise that the West is the gayest region. The rootless inheritance of the Frontier makes it attractive for people who want to erase their personal history and associate only with folks who don't know who you are. Gays won't have bad memories of bullies if they uproot themselves from the community that shunned them. The laissez-faire norm of the Wild West also weakens any attempt to contain deviance.

For those following along with the bizarre nature of Mormon culture, you won't be surprised to see Salt Lake City landing in the top 10, at #7, edging out their regional rimjob rival of Denver, CO, as well as Los Angeles. I wonder if that'll be the next big thing for the Utah tourism commission -- "Salt Lake: More gay than LA! (It's official)"

Also not shocking to see how many queers there are in New England, although there aren't quite so many farther down the Bos-Wash corridor.

What might upset your expectations is how gay the plantation South is. New Orleans is all the way up at #4; Virginia Beach and Jacksonville land in the 11-20 spot. Atlanta is a bit more upland than the plantation plains, but still part of the Deep South. Miami, Orlando, and Tampa are also above the median in this list. The only low-ranking metros are Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte (although it's fairly upland).

The least gay region is in fact Appalachia, not the Deep South. The most fag-free metros in the nation are Birmingham and Pittsburgh, the southern and northern poles of hillbilly country. Other nearby but lower-elevation areas that rank pretty low include Memphis, Cincinnati, Nashville, and Charlotte. The only nearby areas that rank somewhat high are Louisville, Indianapolis, and Columbus (we've got to do something about that).

Much to the disappointment of Midwestern strivers, the region is about as devoid of homosexuals as Appalachia. The only somewhat high spots are those three sites on the border between the Heartland and Appalachia (Louisville, Indianapolis, and Columbus). In order to appear relevant to the homocentric media, SJWs from wholesome flyover country would have to result to hoaxes a la "my dead gay son" from Sherwood, Ohio.

It's worth comparing the ranking of how gay the population is with the ranking in this earlier post about how prevalent gay culture is. In other words, two cities may have the same concentration of homos in the population, but one may have a much more in-your-face gay culture.

Those differences would reflect the relative strength of enabling vs. containing forces from the surrounding normal population. They would not reflect differences in the dispositions of the gays themselves, since they are everywhere attention whores by inclination. Like how two cities may have similar fractions of the population being black, yet different crime rates, reflecting differences in the strength of the surrounding whites to contain black violence.

For the degree of gay culture, some metro areas rank about where you would expect based on how gay the population is. Salt Lake City is full of fags and has a "vibrant" gay culture, while Cincinnati has few of them and not much of one.

But other places have a much less palpable gay culture than you'd expect from their somewhat high ranking on percent of the population being queer. Boston, Providence, Columbus, and Las Vegas, for example. Las Vegas is too steeped in the commercialization of hetero vice to allow much room for gay culture. Boston's surrounding culture is sober and Puritanical, ditto for Providence. In their classical liberal view, as long as you don't let it show in public, what you do behind closed doors is no one else's business. And Columbus is too happily Middle-American to encourage its weirdos to fly their freak flags. (It didn't make the ranking of gay culture at all.)

On the other hand, several places in the Midwest are host to gay cultures that are far outsized for the tiny gay populations that live there, such as Minneapolis and St. Louis. Madison, Wisconsin was not surveyed by Gallup, but would probably not prove to be very much gayer than nearby Milwaukee. Yet it ranks sixth among cities for signs of gay culture, above San Francisco and Long Beach.

I doubt this is due to the reported gay populations being smaller than the actual size because of self-censorship. These are all liberal bastions that support gay marriage, so respondents would have little reason to lie about who they are.

Rather it seems like another case of Nordic permissiveness run amok, along with Scandinavian insecurity about how others view them, and exaggerating their credentials so that the elites will accept them. "We have pride parades, too!" "Des Moines in the new Brooklyn!" Pathetic.

So, in trying to figure out what factors make for a wholesome regional culture, we need to consider not just how common in the population deviants like homosexuals are, but also how enabling or containing it is of abnormality. This clearly tips the balance in favor of Appalachia over the Midwest as the beacon of cohesion to the rest of the nation that still cares.


  1. Boston. At Sailer it's been said that the young whites are unusually aggressive and sometime even scare blacks. That may dampen down the gay culture.

  2. "Rather it seems like another case of Nordic permissiveness run amok, along with Scandinavian insecurity about how others view them, and exaggerating their credentials so that the elites will accept them."

    Maybe it was modern mass media that changed Minneapolis:
    "Minneapolis was known for anti-Semitism beginning in the 1880s and through the 1950s.[28] The city was described as "the capital of anti-Semitism in the United States" in 1946 by Carey McWilliams[29] and in 1959 by Gunther Plaut.[30] At that time the city's Jews were excluded from membership in many organizations, faced employment discrimination, and were considered unwelcome residents in some neighborhoods.[31] Jews in Minneapolis were also not allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods of Minneapolis.[32] "

  3. Wisconsin is a lot more German than anything else, I believe. I wonder if the Germans who settled in the upper Midwest were primarily the outwardly docile but inwardly neurotic farmer types. It would explain why Wisconsin is essentially a twin of Minnesota, albeit the twin with much greater boozing (a definite sign of being more German than MN).

    If I'm not mistaken, Wisconsin used to have (still has?) laws permitting very young minors (as young as 12, maybe younger if memory serves) to drink in the presence of parents. Even in bars. Wisconsin has more bars per capita than many other states. Drunk driving laws are relatively weak. We joke in MN that greater enforcement would bring the state to it's knees. MN's liquor culture is considerably more puritanical.

    It's not as though the high drinking is reflective of a libertine type culture you see out West. Rather, it's a comparatively wholesome German legacy.

    With regard to a lack of homos in Minneapolis, let's be honest. The winters are absolutely brutal (I've experience 24+ hours with the temp below zero), warding off potential transplants from areas outside the NW Midwest.

    The Anti Jew stuff is a little goofy. I think the Twin Cities metro area has had for quite some time a decent sized Jewish population. With no proud warrior whites to keep the Jews (or anyone else, really) in line, the Jews were primed to began hurling paranoid invective at the Sven & Ole local goys during the 60's.

    As Steve Sailer often points out, the tired Jewish lament of relatively minor pre 60's WASP slights is much ado about nothing and has essentialy become the Jew blood libel against the American goy boogeyman. The more (increasingly scarce)"regular"Americans try to bend over backwards to appease Jews, the more screwed up the we get.

  4. Reflecting PC autism, the Gallup article makes the laughable claim that gays in less urban/liberal areas are more reluctant to tell a remote interviewer that they are gay. Really? It's so fashionable to be gay right now, the gays probably screech into the phone about their gayness if they're not among family. I'm sure plenty of gays hide stuff from family, but an anonymous interview or survey?

    Homos have such an uneven distribution in America because their deviancy is going to draw them to neo Sodom places like San Fran and Austin first. The places where the "made men" go. Secondly, the slightly more restrained gays will go to precious, naive, ultra liberal but comparatively staid places like Boston and Salt Lake City. The Aw shucks Mormons and gruff Yankees aren't quite as crazy as the brain dead hippies and headstrong outlaws of California and Texas.

    I was struck by the low NY/New Jersey numbers given how the area is touted for it's role in gay history. Maybe the area being very Jewish and the center of elite culture and the media has led to embroidering of the city's gay element. After all, the coastal elite continues to spin absurd yarns about the entire heartland having a nascent Neo Nazi revival that will surely exterminate Jews and gays. Get a clue. As the gay pop. chart shows, strongholds of goody two shoes liberalism and/or decadent rootlessness are far too easy to find in the (geographic) heartland.

    If the area ever did have lots of gays (proportionally speaking), what drove them out? Gentrification? Doubtful, San Fran is really expensive also but it doesn't keep gays out. Was it the explosive growth of the more libertine Western U.S. since about 1980 that drained the most depraved element from the Northeast? But then why does Hartford and Boston have higher numbers?

    It's a head scratcher to me. I can't think of a good reason why NY would have an intermediate level of gays.


    LGBT Americans Report Lower Well-Being

    Evidently Lesbian women report being much worse off than straight women while gay guys are marginally worse off than straights. In spite of the utterly abysmal excesses to which gay men descend.

    I guess this goes to show that in high inequality eras, women (at least ones who are hetero e.g. attractive and well adjusted) really are much better off than men. Financially speaking, any way.

    This also furthers my belief that women, on average, are better adjusted and more responsible then men. The handful of women who wander off the reservation big time are much more likely to be dykes.

    Meanwhile, among guys, there are quite a few wayward bums, addicts, criminals, scarred war Vets etc. but most never are interested in being gay. Though I know that gay guys are indeed more likely to be dysfunctional there still are a lot of straight guys coping with these issues as well.

    The typical hetero woman is relatively stable compared to the other 3 types.

  6. "Boston. At Sailer it's been said that the young whites are unusually aggressive and sometime even scare blacks. That may dampen down the gay culture."

    Maybe, but this survey looked at the entire metro statistical area, not just the city. Suburban Boston doesn't have those "don't fuck wit da Irish" wolf packs like the city proper does.

    Providence is like Boston in having a high gay population but a low level of gay culture. But they don't have Irish gangs or Italian mobsters wandering the streets. It's even more surprising since Brown and RISD are such liberal fag cheerleaders.

    Hartford also doesn't make the list of gay culture spots, despite having lots of them in the population.

    So it's something more general to New England, or at least southern New England.

  7. "I wonder if the Germans who settled in the upper Midwest were primarily the outwardly docile but inwardly neurotic farmer types."

    That's what I'm getting at with "Nordic," which I'm using broadly to include the dwellers of the Great European Plain, in contrast to the Germanics of hill and mountain country.

    A good proxy is Protestant vs. Catholic, with the Lutherans being farmers of the plains and Catholics being transhumance pastoralists of the Alps.

    A map of Lutherans per capita (in 2000) shows that just about every county in Wisconsin has between 10-25% Lutherans, with quite a few having up to 50%. MN and ND are even more heavily Lutheran, what with the Scandinavian presence in addition to the Germans.

    Lutherans are more spotty around Illinois, but still hanging on. But they drop off very quick as you cross east into Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan (minus the decently Lutheran Yoopers).

    There's a pocket of Lutherans in NW Ohio near Toledo, but in the main population centers and even the rest of the rural areas, the Germans of the eastern Midwest must be mainly Catholic. In the Old Northwest, there's more of a mix between upland and lowland Germans.

  8. NY/NJ number isn't low in absolute terms. Its just the relative strength is not present.

    Chicago doesn't rank particularly high as a city but the Boystown neighborhood ranks as one of the best (whatever that means) by the sexual deviants.


    It was my understanding that there are two vastly different groups of Lutherans.

  9. Another proxy would be entertainers. While MN/Wis. do have pretty big art scenes (Minneapolis in the 80's had a fairly notable music scene), seldom has the western upper Midwest produced widely popular talk show hosts/musicians/comedians etc. Prince was obviously a huge star, but he's black. Jewish Bob Dylan grew up largely in MN, but like with Prince, he's not Valhalla material.

    Nope, you gotta go further south and east in the Midwest to find charismatic and engaging stars. Michigan has a storied pop music history (inc. rock so you no it's not just the blacks). Ohio also has had underrated local scenes that you've brought up before which did produce charting artists (Devo and Chrissie Hynde among others).

    As for that 80's MPLS indie scene that's been called sort of a poor man's Seattle, how did those groups resonate with the public?

    The Replacements: Biggest hit: #51 in 1989 (when things were turning). No other songs charted. Never heard 'em.

    Husker Du: No hits as far as I could tell. Most popular album stalled at #114, though they probably would've had more sales if they would've lasted past '87 when alternative broke through. Never heard 'em.

    Soul Asylum: Definitely the most popular, with one song (Runaway Train) that most people know. Had two albums go platinum. It figures that their guitarist is named Dan Murphy.

    So that's, like, one relatively popular artist that's not black or Jewish. Not much to brag about. Well, we do have Louie Anderson, Jessie Ventura (mostly a Slav), and Gerrison Keillor. Excited yet?

  10. I agree with Sailer that the composition of the black population is important.

  11. Never heard the Replacements? They wrote a dropout anthem for Gen X back before it was the cool thing to do. And it was earnest and sincere rather than apathetic and mopey. Classic anti-video music video too:

    "Bastards of Young" (1985)

    Fun fact: the high school in Heathers is named after their frontman, Paul Westerberg.

  12. Boston gets the high gays from the colleges/federal jobs attached. Academia is the pusher of queer acceptance, and gays love the sinecure positions there.

    Also, people still think Boston is all Irish gangs, but that's just the movies remembering the 1970s before the commies used the federal busing to break up the ethnic neighborhoods and literally beat up anyone who opposed busing/blacks. Boston's all yuppie now. The Kennedys used to make sure that the fed jobs and state jobs were in irish or at least white hands; but they recently had an obama-loving black governor and Ted Kennedy is dead, so Boston should start feeling the effects of the Negro underclass following the money in the next 10-20 years.

  13. Other than those which represent concentration of people, a lot of those measures of "gay culture" seem like measures of civic engagement and striving by gays -

    LGBT elected officials, lesbian households (lesbians who have kids feel more like strivers to me than ones who don't), best gay bars (hip, PR fuelled striver joints), forming sports teams (striving yet also civic, when contrasted to going to the gym or otherwise being a loner), tranny protections, shops associated with gay gentrificaction (Whole Foods) etc.

    Which offers an alternative pathway for why stereotypically Scandinavian areas seem to have a high level of gay culture - they're pretty striving as well as pretty good at building civic engagement (despite these aspects in some ways being opposed). And so their gays are like you'd expect.

    Compare to Appalachia which is neither civic nor striving (rather "clannish", interpersonal, etc.) , as well as being unattractive for gays to live at for various reasons.

    Of course, civic and striving gays who organize as gays probably do tend to get up in people's grills (ACTing UP and so on).

  14. I thought Provincetown had a well known gay scene, like a gay arts scene. I know of a arts homo who lived there and another homo who would go to gay festivals there.

  15. I wonder if the barrenness of much of the West is what attracts sociopaths.

  16. There's an even stranger and stronger effect of rootlessness out West -- it tends to increase sociopathy among otherwise normal people.

    Nobody knows who you are and where / whom you came from, nobody knows where you'll be in 5-10 years, and nobody knows your family or friends from way back. Imagine this applying to the majority of residents, not just an occasional newcomer here and there.

    Those people will naturally behave more selfishly -- more likely to divorce, to have kids growing up in broken homes, to commit crime (controlling for race, e.g. Arizonan whites having the highest incarceration rates for their race), to commit suicide, and so on.

    They'll also focus more on crafting their public persona and image rather than just being themselves. When everybody knows you, you can't "fake it till you make it". It's not just people obsessing over their sex appeal out West, it's more general -- your whole image / identity that the faceless crowd will categorize you by, knowing nothing about who you really are.

  17. "Compare to Appalachia which is neither civic nor striving (rather "clannish", interpersonal, etc.) , as well as being unattractive for gays to live at for various reasons."

    Appalachia has historically been a center of civic engagement. Not quite so much these days, but that's true everywhere. West Virginians organized and acted to break away from Virginia over slavery during the Civil War (not out of a sense of duty toward blacks, but to protect their own lands from becoming another plantation run by rich elites and over-run with blacks under-cutting their livelihood).

    That continued through the Progressive Era, with West Virginia and the Pittsburgh region being strongholds of labor union activity. The most highly organized and committed labor uprisings by citizens against the elites and their cronies in the government were the Homestead Strike in 1892 (Pittsburgh), and the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921 (near the capital of Charleston in W.Va).

    We're talking coordinated armed rebellion to preserve a decent way of life -- hard to think of a more honest signal of civic engagement.

    Those areas have remained much more labor activist than other parts of the country, through the Great Compression and today. West Virginia was the longest holdout of Democratic voters simply due to the union factor, not race, feminism, etc. Only when it became clear that the Democrats had become another organ of elite power did the populist voters of W.Va stop voting blue.

    As you go further south in Appalachia, diversity increases and erodes civic engagement, so that labor organizing and collective bargaining was not as successful.

    Birmingham, Alabama was an industrial center by the turn of the 20th C., unlike the lowland agrarian economy. They organized themselves with the United Mine Workers in the late 1800s, but lost steam and cohesion in the early 1900s. Other major attempts to unionize or carry out a general strike ultimately failed, since racial tensions were a constant drain on working-class cohesion.

    Still, the Appalachian areas in the South (the "upland South") were far more civically engaged than the plantation region. Ditto for blacks organizing for civil rights -- that was mostly in Birmingham and Atlanta, two industrial-ish cities in the upland South that had no history of plantations or slavery, and were fairly new cities that had their origins in the second half of the 19th C.

    1. It's presumptuous of me to ask but I would love a post about this subject.

  18. Another good example of Appalachian civic engagement that most people wouldn't know about is the Amish. They are one of the most cohesive, group-oriented communities in the nation, and they live almost entirely in northern Appalachia (although they have recently begun to fan out into the Midwestern plains).

    The county with the highest proportion of Amish residents, around 85%, is Holmes County, Ohio. It's big in absolute terms too -- 36,000 Amish in that one county. About 45% of the county's residents speak one Amish German dialect or another as their first language.

    Holmes County is one of Ohio's Appalachian counties along the eastern and southern parts of the state.

  19. To summarize the distinctive nature of Appalachian vs. Midwestern civic engagement, it's more local in scope and smaller in scale.

    West Virginians felt strongly enough about slavery to break away from Virginia, but they didn't go evangelizing and colonizing around the Deep South to impose their civic ways on outside groups. That came more from the Anglo Yankees in New England.

    Pittsburgh felt strongly enough about labor activism to take on the steel mill bosses and politicians, but they didn't go trying to organize the entire country. That was more the Midwestern socialist bastion of Chicago - Milwaukee - Minneapolis. Or the New York / New Jersey area.

    This also ties into their lack of striving -- Appalachians don't care what the rest of the country thinks about them, and they don't feel much duty toward far-away regions. They don't go missionizing.

    Whereas the Scandinavian and Nordic types in the Midwest, whose civic engagement aims at a higher scale, are deeply troubled by remote parts of the country that don't agree with their values, and speak to distant outsiders in a patronizing and hectoring tone of voice, like anyone gives a damn what some hicks in Iowa think.

    In the religious context, contrast the Alpine-descended Amish who want to remain small and under-the-radar, vs. the Saxon-Scandinavian Mormons who want to convert the whole world and are eager to be visible and accepted by far-off regions of the country.

    Both are high-commitment, civically engaged religious groups, but only one is still about as cohesive and ethnically distinctive as it began (Amish), while the other has become steadily diluted over the 20th C (Mormonism), not only due to the influx of foreigners into the church, but also to weakening demands on native members.

    Nordic do-gooder-ism has led the Mormons to pursue growth at the expense of cohesion, while the Swiss-style Amish have kept a much lower "carrying capacity" and maintained their group identity and solidarity.

  20. hopefully, all regions of the country will reverse the horrible cocooning trend and the inequality trend. the cocooning trend is more a sickness rather than a part of anyone's culture; not sure about inequality vs. equality, though. is it possible some regions could continue to become more inequal while others become more equal?

  21. Interesting points re: the Appalachian groups, you know your region and, I guess their civic building / inclusion / law based institution building scales further than I thought, although not outside the region?

    I don't have the impression so much like Nordic groups tend to be evangelists or missionaries in European history (groups like the Irish more filled that role?), and Denmark / Norway are supposedly pretty excluding and homogenous to outsiders among European nations.

    Not sure about the Amish / Mormon comparison either - it kind of rings true, but the Amish doctrines seem to forbid expansion and dilution in a way the Mormon doesn't, even if the Amish cared for it. There wouldn't be anything really distinct about the Amish among Christians if they were to compromise all the ideas that keep outsiders uninterested in joining them. The binding element of their community is incompatible with a missionary stance.

  22. Nordic people are evangelizing at the grand-scale ideological level. Irish more at the grassroots level, physically wandering over the Continent to spread the Good News.

    As for Amish vs. Mormons, their doctrines aren't an entirely "exogenous" constraint. If the membership wasn't interested in setting themselves apart, they'd gradually weaken those doctrines to the point where they blended into the mainstream or conservative realm of the mainstream. It's their Alpine mindset that keeps them from wanting to draw in others, whether at the local level or the higher level (with more branches outside their founding region).


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."