Is Bisexuality A Legitimate Orientation?

[DementedPixie]

For me I'll will be perfectly honest here.  You are what you are.  If it turns you on, if it makes you happy, We can do whatever, whenever, with whoever we want.  There isn't no other way to do. 

Im married to a very wonderful, have had thoughts of spicing up our lives.  He is all for it and I'm still new at it.  Just kissed a girl once.  But that was back in 2005. 

If you are happy with who you are it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks.  Its our life live it as we seen fit. IM for it!

[Host of Seraphim]

If bisexual means getting with both genders then once your in a commited relationship  then the term no longers applies, right or wrong? I am now just questioning the term, cause i'm not sure if its even correct to use gay, straight, bi, as sexuality. isn't it just relationship status or you status when doing it?

1. Wrong.  ;) Like Will said, it's about who you're attracted to, not who you're "getting with." When a straight man marries a woman, does he automatically stop being attracted to other women aside from her? If a straight woman decides to date a man, does she stop being attracted to other men? If a gay man isn't in a relationship with anybody-- not "getting with" anyone -- is he no longer considered gay?
2. I'm not exactly sure what your second question is asking, but I do think that there is too much emphasis on gay vs. straight vs. bi. People like what they like and do what they do and I don't see what's so important about putting a label on it. But if that's not what you were asking for, sorry if I couldn't answer your question.

[Serephino]

1. Wrong.  ;) Like Will said, it's about who you're attracted to, not who you're "getting with." When a straight man marries a woman, does he automatically stop being attracted to other women aside from her? If a straight woman decides to date a man, does she stop being attracted to other men? If a gay man isn't in a relationship with anybody-- not "getting with" anyone -- is he no longer considered gay?
2. I'm not exactly sure what your second question is asking, but I do think that there is too much emphasis on gay vs. straight vs. bi. People like what they like and do what they do and I don't see what's so important about putting a label on it. But if that's not what you were asking for, sorry if I couldn't answer your question.

This.  I am in a committed relationship with a man, but that doesn't mean I won't find a woman attractive.  It also doesn't mean that if my boyfriend and I ever break up that I won't end up with a woman.  That doesn't mean that I'm gay now, and then would be straight.  It doesn't work like that.

Your sexuality is who you're attracted to, not who you're with.  But of course it's been said many times on here that sexuality is a fluid thing that's hard to label.  I say I just have an appreciation for the human body.  And when it comes to relationships what's on the inside is more important to me than what's between their legs. 

[Host of Seraphim]

I say I just have an appreciation for the human body

I like this. This is pretty close to the answer I give people.

"Are you bisexual or what?"
"I'm just... sexual.   :-)"

[grdell]

"Are you bisexual or what?"
"I'm just... sexual.   :-)"

I like this. I may steal it.  ;)

I once had a co-worker talk to me about bisexuality. She thought it was selfish, wanting to have everything. I asked her if she knew M (another co-worker). She admitted she did. I asked her if she knew M's husband. She admitted that she knew him as well. They are an interracial couple, and I asked her how she felt about that. She said that she supposed when you love someone, color of skin isn't important. I replied with "And neither are genitals." People in interracial relationships often describe themselves as "color-blind." I told her I was simply "gender-blind." That cleared it up for her.

[Talia]

I like this. This is pretty close to the answer I give people.

"Are you bisexual or what?"
"I'm just... sexual.   :-)"

Very well said !!! =)

[Lycan Queen]

I'm sorry, but I have to completely discount the study as to set up and execution.

First of all, the targeting of men and exclusion of women. As a bisexual woman, I am offended that they can make a claim about bisexuality on a whole by only studying half the population.

2) The number of people used. 101 people is not nearly enough to make clear and accurate results. I see this with a lot of "studies", and the general standards for this is ridiculous.

3) The experiment itself and definition of sexuality. This idea has a lot more to it than just sex. In addition to that, they did not take personal taste into account.

Sexuality is not a checkbox to me, but more a sliding scale. And not a static one at that. It changes with personal experiences and just mood.

I have a boyfriend, so I'm more apt to think about men and heterosexual sex since I'm in a dedicated relationship with a man. However, there are some days that I want to think about female on female.

So I call bullshit on this study. People who think that bisexuality is a myth have an oversimplified view of sexuality in my opinion.

[kylie]

2) The number of people used. 101 people is not nearly enough to make clear and accurate results. I see this with a lot of "studies", and the general standards for this is ridiculous.

I've had some stats lectures that said you generally want 100, and some that say 200.  They do tend to qualify it by saying, it kind of depends what you're measuring.  Then I have had profs that allowed or even encouraged students to produce results with smaller numbers.  Some even encourage people to test-run qualitative data based on quite small samples (say, 30-50) through quantitative methods and see if anything appears worth noting.  The key is more that you have to specify and qualify whatever you do, using statistician language.  Smaller samples just need especially careful qualification and explanation of the theory and purpose behind the data and formulas selected.

         It's all too easy for people who consider stats as some cut-and-dried tool (rather than the range of flexible, conditional presumptions it is) to dismiss so many studies on the basis of sample size, without looking at their very real merits.  There are rather few circumstances where one can actually get a relatively random, controllable, large-scale study on private matters.  For example, things where medicine (and/or disease and drugs), big money, or other pre-existing federal policy leanings are involved.  If you go requiring very large samples to say anything about most subjects, then very soon you can claim nobody has a plausible guess at what might be going on anywhere in social reality.  Which I would find exaggerated.

        However, on the type of sample population and definition of orientation in this particular case:  There, I quite agree with you that the concept looks shoddy.  ::) 

[Will]

Well, clearly the reason that women weren't involved in the study is that everyone knows that all women are secretly bisexual!  ::)  /sarcasm

That's a particularly frustrating double standard.  Bisexuality in women is widely accepted and even encouraged (outside of more conservative communities), and yet if a man is bi, he's somehow fooling himself.  Uh... say what?  How does that work, exactly?

          I've had some stats lectures that said you generally want 100, and some that say 200.  They do tend to qualify it by saying, it kind of depends what you're measuring.  Then I have had profs that allowed or even encouraged students to produce results with smaller numbers.  Some even encourage people to test-run qualitative data based on quite small samples (say, 30-50) through quantitative methods and see if anything appears worth noting.  The key is more that you have to specify and qualify whatever you do, using statistician language.  Smaller samples just need especially careful qualification and explanation of the theory and purpose behind the data and formulas selected.

         It's all too easy for people who consider stats as some cut-and-dried tool (rather than the range of flexible, conditional presumptions it is) to dismiss so many studies on the basis of sample size, without looking at their very real merits.  There are rather few circumstances where one can actually get a relatively random, controllable, large-scale study on private matters.  For example, things where medicine (and/or disease and drugs), big money, or other pre-existing federal policy leanings are involved.  If you go requiring very large samples to say anything about most subjects, then very soon you can claim nobody has a plausible guess at what might be going on anywhere in social reality.  Which I would find exaggerated.

        However, on the type of sample population and definition of orientation in this particular case:  There, I quite agree with you that the concept looks shoddy.  ::) 

There were actually only 33 (I think, I haven't looked at the study since this thread started some time ago) people who self-identified as bisexual in this study.  I can't possibly consider that enough to make any real claims.

[kylie]

There were actually only 33 (I think, I haven't looked at the study since this thread started some time ago) people who self-identified as bisexual in this study.  I can't possibly consider that enough to make any real claims.

Okay, that's getting a little better...  Although I'd have to go back and look at just what sort of claims they made to be really sure.  There are some decent arguments (at least avenues for future study) that can be suggested using small samples, as I mentioned.  On the whole, what with the layout of the study as I understand it generally, I'm inclined to agree you're proably right in this case.

        I'm just touchy about that particular route to debunking studies in general.  So often, students and laypeople attempt to shoot down any statistic they don't like on the basis of sample size alone.  Lately, I'm leaning more toward thinking that should be one of the last pieces of evidence.  It might turn out to be a very good nail (or would that be stake!  ::) ) in the ready-built coffin, though.