Is Bisexuality A Legitimate Orientation?

[Marguerite]

In the 'Things That Piss Me Off Thread', there was the mention of Prop 8 commentary posted. Not by any Elliquiy members but by what they read on forums reacting to Prop 8. From there, the discussion came up of some theorists believe 'bisexuality' is not a legitimate sexual orientation. The theory is written

It was a theory talked about in class which the Professor speaks about as one of the 'half-ass' theories brought up. I need to find the author in my lectures notes. I do recall (since I had to remember it for an exam)his main focus is actually on male bisexuality and completely ignores female bisexuality to which he states is a false sexual orientation for women. The quote about hacking it as a lesbian is also applied to men not hacking it as homosexuals in his experiment.

Edit: Found it!

The article is called: Is Bisexuality A Legitimate Orientation (Rieger, Chivers & Bailey, 2005)

Male Bisexuality Is A Myth?

A new study concludes that the large majority of men purporting to be bisexual are actually gay, while the rest are more likely to be heterosexual.

Senior author Michael Bailey, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said: “Bisexual male behaviour certainly exists, but the study suggests that a bisexual orientation, an actual sexual preference for both men and women, does not exist in men. If such men exist, they are certainly very rare and we didn’t find them.”

Researchers recruited 101 young adult men, 33 identifying themselves as bisexual, 30 straight and 38 homosexual.

They were questioned at length about their sexuality before being seated alone in a laboratory to watch erotic films while their arousal levels were monitored by a sensor.

Gay men were aroused by images of men, while heterosexual men were aroused by women. But psychologists said those claiming to be bisexual were only aroused by one or the other – 75per cent by men and the rest by women.

Dr Bailey said some men claim to be bisexual as it is easier than admitting to being gay, while others might consider it some kind of achievement and be proud to swing both ways.

I tried to find the longer version of the theory but the erotic films were of a M/M couple and another of a F/F couple. The films were two minutes long and the vasocongestion was monitored by placed around the male shaft a device. The device would measure out how much blood goes through the shaft thus giving an idea of which film arouses the males the most.

This really made me wonder about this whole ordeal of bisexuality. I have met various individuals who also feel bisexuality is a myth and not actually a true sexual orientation. Some even say that bisexuality is a 'fad' started to make one look cool. Now, what are your opinions members of Elliquiy?

Warning: Should it go off track or turn into flinging insults or attacking each other, I will shut this thread down. Thank you.

[Moonhare]

Funny that they don't include women in this study, but then they weren't studying exclusively on men claiming to be bisexual. I understand the need for control groups, but that they claim this with only 33 bisexual men, not taking women into account. Something begs that women have again been placed into the "Not able to orgasm so they don't matter" category, but that is another argument as well.

[Jude]

If I recall that study had some serious methodological problems with it.  Personally, I think the question is kind of self-evident:  sexuality is based purely on feeling.  If people feel that they are bisexual, isn't that enough?  I just don't get the motivation behind judging other people's orientations in that way.

EDIT:  In addition, I have to wonder if the study was ideologically oriented, because why else would you be studying that?  I don't know, I'm completely baffled.  I'll do a bit of research on it.

[Will]

This might not be the study I'm thinking of, but it sounds very similar.  The one I read up on recruited the majority of their subjects through publications aimed at the gay community.  It stands to reason that most of their subjects, then, were men looking for men. Right?  Those men may have been very much attracted to women, but were leaning more towards men at that time, hence why they were browsing gay periodicals.  If they had caught these guys on another day, maybe things would be different.

Ahhh, found it.  study  This is the same one - 33 bisexual subjects, which is another problem entirely. ::)

[Jude]

This might not be the study I'm thinking of, but it sounds very similar.  The one I read up on recruited the majority of their subjects through publications aimed at the gay community.  It stands to reason that most of their subjects, then, were men looking for men. Right?  Those men may have been very much attracted to women, but were leaning more towards men at that time, hence why they were browsing gay periodicals.  If they had caught these guys on another day, maybe things would be different.

Ahhh, found it.  study  This is the same one - 33 bisexual subjects, which is another problem entirely. ::)

Will nailed it.  I did some research and the participants in the study are subject to self-selection bias, which means the study is basically worthless.

[Will]

Not to mention "Centre for Addiction and Mental Health" smacks of someone trying to treat or cure deviant behaviors.  Like Jude, I have to wonder at their motivation for the study.  The errors in method only make me more certain that they were trying push an agenda rather than useful science.

[Jude]

Not to mention "Centre for Addiction and Mental Health" smacks of someone trying to treat or cure deviant behaviors.  Like Jude, I have to wonder at their motivation for the study.  The errors in method only make me more certain that they were trying push an agenda rather than useful science.

In the name of fairness and full disclosure, I did find that the principle scientist conducting the study (Michael Bailey) doesn't have any black marks on his record and is a long-term researcher of sexual orientation who doesn't appear to be ideologically motivated at a glimpse (some of his other research concluded that homosexuality was not a choice, for example).  The study does make a bit more sense put into that context.

[Marguerite]

This might not be the study I'm thinking of, but it sounds very similar.  The one I read up on recruited the majority of their subjects through publications aimed at the gay community.  It stands to reason that most of their subjects, then, were men looking for men. Right?  Those men may have been very much attracted to women, but were leaning more towards men at that time, hence why they were browsing gay periodicals.  If they had caught these guys on another day, maybe things would be different.

Ahhh, found it.  study  This is the same one - 33 bisexual subjects, which is another problem entirely. ::)

That is the one and it did have problems with the study. As you stated the small number of subjects which does not represent the whole population though they did want to make it seem that way. There was also a volunteer bias and again where they were focusing on homosexual and not really trying to find as many self-reported bisexuals.

If I recall that study had some serious methodological problems with it.  Personally, I think the question is kind of self-evident:  sexuality is based purely on feeling.  If people feel that they are bisexual, isn't that enough?  I just don't get the motivation behind judging other people's orientations in that way.

EDIT:  In addition, I have to wonder if the study was ideologically oriented, because why else would you be studying that?  I don't know, I'm completely baffled.  I'll do a bit of research on it.

A lot of research over the years has been focused on various sexual orientations, mainly homosexuality to figure out if sexual orientations differ in their lifestyle, pattern of relationships, sexuality, way of going about things and so on. Recently, there are more about lesbian orientation, transgender and bisexuality research but it is a small percentage.

Edit: Yes, you two are hitting the same marks in class when it was discussed on their disadvantages and critiques.

[Marguerite]

In the name of fairness and full disclosure, I did find that the principle scientist conducting the study (Michael Bailey) doesn't have any black marks on his record and is a long-term researcher of sexual orientation who doesn't appear to be ideologically motivated at a glimpse (some of his other research concluded that homosexuality was not a choice, for example).  The study does make a bit more sense put into that context.

He even wrote a book: The Man Who Would Be Queen. However, he was investigated and many individuals are probing close if he does have an agenda.

[Jude]

I suppose it's relevant to the discussion to mention (although I am not trying to color anyone here with this particular brush, I just thought it was a related subject) that the Gay to Straight Activists and Crazies (aren't they one in the same?) also believe that homosexuality is a fake orientation.  They have a bunch of crazy theories about how it actually arises out of having bad relationships with your parents or something.  For a long time I think that was the Freudian view as well.

I do have to wonder how Freud would even begin to tackle the concept of bisexuality given his binary worldview.

[Host of Seraphim]

They were questioned at length about their sexuality before being seated alone in a laboratory to watch erotic films while their arousal levels were monitored by a sensor.

Gay men were aroused by images of men, while heterosexual men were aroused by women. But psychologists said those claiming to be bisexual were only aroused by one or the other – 75per cent by men and the rest by women.

What if the erotic films featuring women were just really crappy? Or they didn't find the women attractive because they had massive fake boobs or something? Likewise, what if the "straight" guys didn't find the men attractive or the film had bad lighting or something? What if the "straight" men weren't aroused by the gay films because they featured muscly hunkerdoodles when they preferred more twink-type guys?

If you give me a video or a photo of a man and a woman, and I find the man more appealing than the woman, I'll probably be more turned on by the man. Does that make me straight?

But if I find the woman more appealing than the man, I'll be more turned on by the woman. Does that make me a lesbian?

Just because I'm attracted to both men and women doesn't mean I'm equally attracted to both 100% of the time! In fact, I tend to have periods where I like women more than men and vice versa. Does that somehow negate my sexuality?

edit: realized I sound kinda confrontational -- didn't mean to direct it at you, OP, just at the study.  :-)

[Moonhare]

They should let them bring their own material, both male and female and other, and see what the person likes for themselves. Whether movie, picture, or written material, it is hard to gauge what will attract someone.

[Oniya]

I remember from my statistics class that anything with a sample size of less than 50 was too subject to random variance to be reliable. 

[Marguerite]

What if the erotic films featuring women were just really crappy? Or they didn't find the women attractive because they had massive fake boobs or something? Likewise, what if the "straight" guys didn't find the men attractive or the film had bad lighting or something? What if the "straight" men weren't aroused by the gay films because they featured muscly hunkerdoodles when they preferred more twink-type guys?

If you give me a video or a photo of a man and a woman, and I find the man more appealing than the woman, I'll probably be more turned on by the man. Does that make me straight?

But if I find the woman more appealing than the man, I'll be more turned on by the woman. Does that make me a lesbian?

Just because I'm attracted to both men and women doesn't mean I'm equally attracted to both 100% of the time! In fact, I tend to have periods where I like women more than men and vice versa. Does that somehow negate my sexuality?

edit: realized I sound kinda confrontational -- didn't mean to direct it at you, OP, just at the study.  :-)

Not at all confrontational. You are right about a few things: What is a turn on for someone, it may be a turn off for another.

Another thing is whether there were some individuals who were shy about being watched no matter if it was a study they volunteered for? Ever heard of performance anxiety?

[MajorTeroh]

I consider myself bisexual, though I feel it is a sort of transition period...I like women, that I am sure of, and I like men, sometimes, but I feel that in the future I will choose one or the other really. Maybe it will just be I get into a serious relation with a female and don't think of men anymore or perhaps the other way around. Talking to a lesbian friend of mine, she concluded that I was a "boy tease." I suppose this made a little sense, as I can't particularly see myself in a long term relationship with a male, though at this moment, I also don't see myself in a long term relationship with women either. I suppose at this moment I am just distanced from other people and feelings of intimacy past close friendships. While there is a completely homophobic person at my workplace, who constantly ridicules me as being gay, will admit that he thinks I'm not "really" bisexual, that is when he's having a "good" day. I suppose this might discredit my bisexuality to some degree. I do get aroused by situations involving females, though I don't get aroused by male on male situations, I do get the "teenage girl flutters" and like reading the stories and the such. I am much more picky with things involving males than females.

Aaaanywhoo....I suppose this turned into more of me telling about myself, but I suppose it just works for, if I end up being bisexual, it tells how my view on it from personal experiences.

[DarklingAlice]

The study seems terribly flawed for many of the reasons listed above. Although what strikes me as odd is that the films were apparently M/M or F/F? Shouldn't one of the defining things about heterosexuality be an attraction to depictions of heterosexual sex?

I do have to wonder how Freud would even begin to tackle the concept of bisexuality given his binary worldview.

Not sure what binary worldview you are referring to, but Freud did write a good deal on bisexuality and believed that since we go through a period of embryonic development without determined sex, that sexual attraction to solely one sex is an artifact of culture overlaid on the primary bisexuality that survives as a remnant of this hermaphroditic period of development. Now these still suffer from Freud's inability (along with his contemporaries) to distinguish gender from sex, and the inferior understanding of physiology of the day. Along with the assumption that heteronormativity was a 'proper' developmental path. As a result his theories are flawed, yet they do still make for interesting reading and even prompted some of the research Kinsey did.

[Oniya]

The study seems terribly flawed for many of the reasons listed above. Although what strikes me as odd is that the films were apparently M/M or F/F? Shouldn't one of the defining things about heterosexuality be an attraction to depictions of heterosexual sex?

That struck me as particularly odd myself.

[RubySlippers]

Didn't the Kinsey studies conclude using just raw statistics that bisexuality is there, that is enough for me. And his studies had a HUGE sampling of people I would find that far more acceptable as a reference than a small sampling of just one gender.

But as a personal reflection women seem far more likely to consider acting on feelings for other women than a man would with a man ,if bisexual or even curious, but prefer men. Might be an interesting study right there.

[Silk]

Didn't the Kinsey studies conclude using just raw statistics that bisexuality is there, that is enough for me. And his studies had a HUGE sampling of people I would find that far more acceptable as a reference than a small sampling of just one gender.

But as a personal reflection women seem far more likely to consider acting on feelings for other women than a man would with a man ,if bisexual or even curious, but prefer men. Might be an interesting study right there.

That tends to be more because women are more encouraged to be open about things, while guys still have alot of pressure to deal with their stuff on their own.

[Aviva]

I have to agree with others from what I have read there is many errors that were made when doing this study to try and see if a bi male is a myth but should that not also lead to the fact (if it was true) that a female bi is also a myth?

I have known I am bi since my early teen years but I can count only on my hands and feet the number of women I have been truly attracted to enough to get me hot and bothered. Just because I like women does not naturally mean all women turn me on and the same for men. I like men but not all of them would get me going for various reasons.

As stated above I am sure the same can be said for men as well. Also if it was a porno movie I tend to feel rather inadequate watching such and that could of been a contributing factor into this test also along with the aforementioned stage fright so to speak.

I am not sure what he was trying to put across in truth beyond what he appears to have tried but failed in my opinion at least miserably.

Though having read he also tried to prove that being homosexual is beyond a persons control hints that he sits on the fence as it were and trying to be open minded.

Personally why can we not accept people for who and what they are as long as they are not going out to hurt people.

I have friends that have been told by loved ones should they ever come out as being gay or bi they would have them put in a mental institute as they feel that their family member is sick rather than acting on how they simply feel or are.

I am not sure any time soon any one shall be able to prove that sexuality is a illness/fake etc because then we would have to consider one big fact.

If being bi or homosexual was wrong or a illness how does that make heterosexuality normal as the feelings come from the same places. Is heterosexuality just simply a over time/generations a accepted/enforced sexuality by human conditioning against anything else?

Hope that was clear enough.

[Will]

I'm still not really convinced that the research was impartial.  Just because Bailey believes that homosexuality is not a choice doesn't mean that he's open to the idea of bisexuality.  It's not a package deal. : /  You can be fine with one, and still be totally dismissive of the other.

[Remiel]

Wasn't Kinsey the one who theorized that bisexuality was like a spectrum, and that all people were bisexual, only to a greater or lesser degree?

[Oniya]

Kinsey's scale had more discrete divisions as follows:

0    Exclusively heterosexual
1    Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2    Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3    Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
4    Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5    Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6    Exclusively homosexual
X    Asexual, Non-Sexual

Personally, I think the truth is closer to a continuum (still allowing for values of 0 and 6, but also allowing values of, say, 3.5.)

[Gwynevere]

For me, sexuality is something that can't be pinned down. On a given day I may crave M/M erotica, or F/F, or M/M/F. On another day, I may crave something else from that list. At the same time, I'm a woman in love with and living with a woman. One of my purposes in role playing is to safely indulge cravings that I don't want to sacrifice my life partnership for.

[DarklingAlice]

That tends to be more because women are more encouraged to be open about things, while guys still have alot of pressure to deal with their stuff on their own.

This brings the added consideration of nationality and culture into the issue. It seems that if anyone were to actually attempt this experiment properly they would need to look at differences in cultural conditioning across populations. Of course, that assumes that all sexuality is not merely a result of cultural conditioning (much like our preferences for specific foods and standards of beauty) and that there is an individual baseline apart from pure bisexuality.

Regardless, I can't actually even think of a good reason to do this research (which is a rarity given my general inclination to investigate everything), do they ever mention what end they were working towards? Other than to just go around telling bisexuals that they are wrong, that is <_<

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm reminded of a character from the Omaha the Cat Dancer who said she was bi and that meant that 'everyone thought she was a pervert'. I looked over the stuff sited here and there seems to be some serious gaps in the approach to the studies going over the whole orientation thing.

[Serephino]

I don't know what I am.  I know I'm mostly attracted to men, but can be attracted to a woman.  I too had a problem with them showing only M/M and F/F videos.  I love M/M for the most part (don't like big hairy men), and I occasionally enjoy M/F, but F/F is just gross to me.  How does it make me not bi-sexual if I don't find two women together appealing? 

[Florence]

If I recall that study had some serious methodological problems with it.  Personally, I think the question is kind of self-evident:  sexuality is based purely on feeling.  If people feel that they are bisexual, isn't that enough?  I just don't get the motivation behind judging other people's orientations in that way.

EDIT:  In addition, I have to wonder if the study was ideologically oriented, because why else would you be studying that?  I don't know, I'm completely baffled.  I'll do a bit of research on it.

Thank you! I never got this... who... cares? Let people say they're whatever sexual orientation they claim. If they're... lying... or trying to be cool... then... good for them, someday they'll realize that nobody cares. If they generally feel that way... who the hell are you to care?

The simple fact, though, is that sexuality is a fluid thing. Most people generally float around in one area or another, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as people like to pretend. I am potentially attracted to anything. In fact, ftm transexuals are pretty much the only type of person I've never found attractive irl. (no offense to any ftm transexuals), but it's not that I don't find the idea of them to be attractive, it's merely that I've never seen one in practice that I've found attractive. I have found men, women and ftm transexuals, and the various little niches and subtypes involved there-in.

What if the erotic films featuring women were just really crappy? Or they didn't find the women attractive because they had massive fake boobs or something? Likewise, what if the "straight" guys didn't find the men attractive or the film had bad lighting or something? What if the "straight" men weren't aroused by the gay films because they featured muscly hunkerdoodles when they preferred more twink-type guys?

If you give me a video or a photo of a man and a woman, and I find the man more appealing than the woman, I'll probably be more turned on by the man. Does that make me straight?

But if I find the woman more appealing than the man, I'll be more turned on by the woman. Does that make me a lesbian?

Just because I'm attracted to both men and women doesn't mean I'm equally attracted to both 100% of the time! In fact, I tend to have periods where I like women more than men and vice versa. Does that somehow negate my sexuality?

edit: realized I sound kinda confrontational -- didn't mean to direct it at you, OP, just at the study.  :-)

I have to wonder about that as well. I honestly thing it's very possible that I would be barely turned on by either, even considering what I've said above. I simply find a lot of mainstream porn to be incredibly boring. The blatant fakeness of it just doesn't... do it, and I'm actually a bit picky when it comes to men, and if they showed porn of guys I'm not in to, it wouldn't show me as being too terribly attracted to men, would it? Ignoring the fact that when I find a guy I AM in to, I am REALLY in to them xD (my boyfriend being a testament to that x3)

[Host of Seraphim]

I simply find a lot of mainstream porn to be incredibly boring. The blatant fakeness of it just doesn't... do it

This, x1000! If someone were to try and identify my sexuality by how turned on I got by watching your standard porno flick, they'd think I was asexual.  ::)

[Endorphin]

I suppose it really depends on why you watch porn. Is it a device for getting in the mood, while you're at it, casually, solo, with a partner etc? Who do you associate with, are you interested in the visuals, do you watch the softer stuff for the (meager) storylines, ideas.

For the record, I think that bisexuality is a legitimate orientation. In fact, I'm quite jealous at times. So much more potential. I just haven't built up the courage or desire to cross that line just yet.

[TheDarkMiko]

I had someone tell me that bisexuality is the ultimate equality. You truly experience both worlds and are kind of in the "zen" of sexuality.

[Will]

I don't think it's helpful to refer to it as somehow "better" or "more enlightened."  It just is what it is, just like being gay or straight. :P

It surely has its perks, though. ::)

[Oniya]

"The good thing about being bisexual is that it doubles your chance of a date on a Saturday night."
  --  Woody Allen

[TheDarkMiko]

"The good thing about being bisexual is that it doubles your chance of a date on a Saturday night."
  --  Woody Allen

*chuckles* Indeed it does.

[kinetika]

I'm not sure what my sexuality is. At times I think I'm heterosexual, other times bisexual, and then sometimes asexual; I'm just... sexually confused. I feel that my bisexuality/attraction to men is whenever I'm single, and I probably would end up with a guy if he were incredibly sexy/hot to me. I also find myself lean more towards women, because for every ten women that I'm attracted to, there is only one man that arouses me. And on the porno topic: I could never watch gay porn... or even lesbian porn--I need M/F.

But on subject: I could see why the study considers bisexuality a myth, because people do end up choosing one gender or the other. I still wouldn't say that's an accurate observation, since a person that claims to be bisexual would choose a person based on who they got emotionally involved with first, rather than their gender alone. I guess bisexuality could also be considered a sexuality that comes in phases, like those above me stated: sometimes you're attracted to women more at one point, and men another.

What I do know, though, is if I were a woman, I'd love to be bisexual so I could have a boyfriend AND girlfriend. ;p

[ShadesofGrey]

People end up picking one or the other? I don't know if that's true. Unless the relationship you're in when you die determines your sexuality, I think it can go back and fourth for however long. Honestly, I think it's impossible to definitively classify most people with a sexuality. If you just look at people and judge them on the qualities you find attractive, not limiting yourself to the mindset of finding things appealing in men and others in women, then everyone can be more or less bisexual to an extent.

I do definitely agree with you all about the studies mentioned in the thread. Hooking a guy up to a few random pornos is just not an effective measure for something as infinitely complex as sexuality. Not everything can be concluded with science, and I think when it comes to something as relative and personal as sexuality, scientists just can't convince me that you have to either dig guys or gals if you have a knob . ^^;

[King_Furby]

I believe bisexuality is bull$h!t, it's for people who are still trying to find their orientation or are not mature enough to decide. While i'm ok with it if someone is in a discovery phase but at somepoint you need to decide. but sadly some never can.

[Nyarly]

I believe bisexuality is bull$h!t, it's for people who are still trying to find their orientation or are not mature enough to decide. While i'm ok with it if someone is in a discovery phase but at somepoint you need to decide. but sadly some never can.

I would say something about that, but anything that comes to my mind could be seen as insulting. So, I just let this post speak for itself.

[Kip]

I believe bisexuality is bull$h!t, it's for people who are still trying to find their orientation or are not mature enough to decide. While i'm ok with it if someone is in a discovery phase but at somepoint you need to decide. but sadly some never can.

While that's your opinion and you are more than entitled to it, sexuality is not as cut and dry as this suggests.  It certainly isn't an issue of maturity - as one matures, there is a discovery of sexuality and orientation however a particularly orientation is not a marker of maturity or what 'stage' one is in.

This is not a situation where there has to be a decision one way or the other.  It is not something that should be considered sad.  If it can be understood that a man or woman could be attracted to either a man or a woman, why are they necessarily limited to that particular gender attraction.  They're not.  There is a spectrum and just because we aren't of a particular orientation (or can't understand it) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

All power to those who can find people attractive for who they are outside of the bounds of gender.

[Will]

I believe bisexuality is bull$h!t, it's for people who are still trying to find their orientation or are not mature enough to decide. While i'm ok with it if someone is in a discovery phase but at somepoint you need to decide. but sadly some never can.

Why?

[Jude]

I believe bisexuality is bull$h!t, it's for people who are still trying to find their orientation or are not mature enough to decide. While i'm ok with it if someone is in a discovery phase but at somepoint you need to decide. but sadly some never can.

I think that sort of comment comes from a cultural point of view with strong emphasis on monogamy; if you set that aside, a decision never needs to be made.

[kckolbe]

One thing that caught me as well was "Why only male bisexuals?"  One theory was proposed, that since women "don't orgasm" they don't matter, but I think it is because bisexuality (in women) and lesbianism are socially more acceptable, something that always peeved me.

[Oniya]

One thing that caught me as well was "Why only male bisexuals?"  One theory was proposed, that since women "don't orgasm" they don't matter, but I think it is because bisexuality and lesbianism are socially more acceptable, something that always peeved me.

I think it's because most of the 'researchers' doing these studies are personally turned on by female bisexuals - or at least they don't want to write off the possibility that the hot lesbian might be interested in them as well.

[Host of Seraphim]

I would say something about that, but anything that comes to my mind could be seen as insulting. So, I just let this post speak for itself.

Decided that's the best course of action as well... :|

[King_Furby]

I think that sort of comment comes from a cultural point of view with strong emphasis on monogamy; if you set that aside, a decision never needs to be made.

Everyones view comes from their own cultural environment, even yours. I shared my view i dont expect everyone or anyone to agree. but i expect the right to share what i think.

I agree that the study is flawed by not including women

[Trieste]

Everyones view comes from their own cultural environment, even yours. I shared my view i dont expect everyone or anyone to agree. but i expect the right to share what i think.

I agree that the study is flawed by not including women

This does not answer Will's question. I'm very interested in hearing the answer.

Why?

[King_Furby]

i dont know why he asked why honestly. i don't hate bisexual people, i simply don't agree wth it, i don't fully understand the mindset either. i know i'm more reserved then most of E but i'm trying.

[Trieste]

I believe it was meant as a short version of "What brought you to that conclusion?", i.e. "What is your reasoning?" which is what I'm interested in as well.

[King_Furby]

I believe it was meant as a short version of "What brought you to that conclusion?", i.e. "What is your reasoning?" which is what I'm interested in as well.

thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess it's kinda a lack of decision thing for me, do people really just go around their entire life not knowing what they want. I think at some point people need to settle down and make a firm decision. I just do not get why so many now-a-days don't make the choice. But maybe i'm the only person here who thinks that.

[kckolbe]

I will agree that bisexuality at least seems more common these days, but there is also less pushback for being bisexual.  In women it is considered sexy by most (~shakes head~).  A similar argument could be made for poly amorous relationships.  Are so many more people interested in having more than one lover because that is how they are, or is it connected to the notably shorter attention spans this generation has?  I don't know the answer, but admit it is a valid question. 

[Trieste]

thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess it's kinda a lack of decision thing for me, do people really just go around their entire life not knowing what they want. I think at some point people need to settle down and make a firm decision. I just do not get why so many now-a-days don't make the choice. But maybe i'm the only person here who thinks that.

You're welcome. :)

I'm wondering if you're confusing bisexuality with bicurious-ness (and I could be mistaken here, so please correct me if I'm wrong). There are a lot of people who identify as bicurious (including a not-insignificant number of young ladies who like the appeal of seeming like they might kiss a girl, especially for their boyfriend, who call themselves bicurious) who are in general people that haven't really made up their minds as you describe. They can usually be considered as 'still experimenting'.

Most of the folks who identify as bisexual, however, aren't really unsure. They just... enjoy both sexes for their relationships. It's a little bit like enjoying chocolate chip cookies as well as brownies; it's not that you're unsure which one you like, it's that you really do like both. There are also those who don't really care about the physical aspect of a person; they most often find themselves attracted to people regardless of sex, though it doesn't always have to be a purely mental attraction.

Does that make sense?

[King_Furby]

I may have been confusing it, not sure

[Jude]

Everyones view comes from their own cultural environment, even yours. I shared my view i dont expect everyone or anyone to agree. but i expect the right to share what i think.

I agree that the study is flawed by not including women

It wasn't my intent to demean your opinion -- I think monogamy is a very healthy, good thing (then again I don't look down on people who aren't monogamous or associate it with morality in any way).  I can understand how monogamy and bisexuality can be seen as being at odds:  if you have to choose one person to be with, then there is a choice being made between the sexes ultimately that you have to make.  There is also an argument that can be put forth that questions whether or not someone can be truly polygamous in a sense of equal attraction (which I personally think isn't possible for reasons of chemical-interactions within the brain).

It wasn't a slight against your opinion -- I can sympathize.  No two things are equal; I suppose you could say if your attraction to one gender exceeds the other, then you're either gay or you're straight.  It just seems like it's overthinking the problem for the sake of being needlessly judicious.  There is nothing to be gained, as a species, to define things so narrowly other than the alienation of your fellow man.  So I don't see the point.

[Trieste]

Out of curiosity, Jude, do the same chemical interactions that (theoretically, anyway; the brain is so damned complex) prevent one from being equally attached to two lovers also prevent one from favoring neither sex over the other? I'd be interested in the chemical literature if you have it.

[kylie]

I can understand how monogamy and bisexuality can be seen as being at odds:  if you have to choose one person to be with, then there is a choice being made between the sexes ultimately that you have to make. 

Unless you happen to land someone who is medically designated intersex, or in that ballpark.  At least until someone in the medical industry finally caves and admits that so very many birth certificates have long  been based on wildly inconsistent penis standards.  Since most people are thinking about average ranges of body shapes or certain stereotypical bio shapes of various features:  Anyone could land someone who they happen to interpret as something besides exclusively male or female.  All it would take is applying that same sort of fluid principle the doctors have been applying to thousands of penises (edit: and not a few "unusual" vaginas), to other parts of the body -- parts that are more visible in daily life by far -- and noting a few that make one think twice.  Since experientially, orientation as such is not only about what's socially available.  It's also about what one is subjectively looking for.

        There is the gay gene sort of argument that a certain percentage of object orientation is genetically driven, but that doesn't fully account for the vast range of very specific body types people can and do choose to pick over in hunting for partners.  I think that would also logically open up the possibility that any "natural" ability to identify a biological sex might also be confused through others' variations.  Plenty of individuals just are not shaped to cue the usual bio-sex readings...  Does one "really" like this woman because she's seen as masculine, or was one actually searching for more signs of a male body per se?  I'm doubtful that we have the means to evaluate where pursuit of gender ends and where pursuit of bio-sex begins, consistently across the population.  Plus, that is assuming that people actually operate in the way that orientation suggests to begin with:  Only making choices based on perceived bio-sex and not based on gender. 

        Generally speaking:  If we had to look for some externally measurable, "legitimate" orientation apart from claims of the person in question, could we tell?  Sure, we can strap people down to chairs and measure their responses to images -- Or is that more their response to being strapped down and fed any image whatsoever?  Heh.  And then the ethical dilemma!  This goes off in various messy directions if you think it through, both scientifically and politically.

        Of course what's totally pure and honest reporting for one is not approved as socially "legitimate" according to so many others.  Noisy moralizing minorities and oversimplifying, complacent majorities may reject whatever individuals say about their orientation.  Particularly when the individuals in question take the more politically threatening choices, such as bi.

[HairyHeretic]

I think polygamy (polyamory? What's the proper term anyway?)  and bisexuality are two entirely different topics. You could be one without being the other, and I don't think there is necessarily any relation between the two.

[Oniya]

I think polygamy (polyamory? What's the proper term anyway?)  and bisexuality are two entirely different topics. You could be one without being the other, and I don't think there is necessarily any relation between the two.

Polygamy is the act of having more than one wife (usually practiced by fringe religious groups, and commonly associated with dubious attitudes towards women, child-marriages, and eviction of younger/less-powerful males).

Polyamory is the act of loving more than one person.  It's perfectly possible to be straight and polyamorous - partners are not obligated to be intimate with all other partners - although people new to the concept frequently try to hunt down the mythical HBB.  (That being the Hot Bi Babe/Boy, who is not only attractive to both partners, but also happens to be 'into' both of them.  Meeting the first half is less of a challenge than meeting the latter.)  Mr. Oniya and I are polyamorous, but neither of us identify as bisexual.

[HairyHeretic]

Yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking.

[Jude]

I was trying to say that if you define bisexuality as equal attraction between the sexes, then I can see how his point of view makes sense, then I was trying to point out how defining it like that is of no actual utility:  it just makes people upset.  Theeen I was making the point that you could apply the same logic to polyamory (wherein it does nothing but offend people again).  I wasn't trying to criticize polyamory, but I will clarify my views on it for the sake of discussion...

Out of curiosity, Jude, do the same chemical interactions that (theoretically, anyway; the brain is so damned complex) prevent one from being equally attached to two lovers also prevent one from favoring neither sex over the other? I'd be interested in the chemical literature if you have it.

I think I may have accidentally misrepresented my stance when I made my last post, making it sound more factual and less theoretical (and personal) than intended.  The only science involved in the formulation of my opinion was a study about "chemical love" and married couples wherein they found that after about 9 months most people fall out of "chemical love" and into a different sort of bond (though there are some unique and rare couples who continue to experience that same chemical reaction long-after).  If you're interested in seeing the sourcing of that, I can dig it up for you.

But I guess if I had to describe what I think, it's this:  relationships have two stages, the intense chemical beginning (passionate love - highly chemical in nature) and prolonged commitment (often referred to as duty love - more of a social and personal connection).  I've experimented with and observed polyamory before, and it always seemed to me that in the mind of an individual there is only enough room for one chemical romance at once, and the other partner is relegated to the prolonged commitment which is associated with a lesser state of attraction (though a greater degree of fidelity, it seems).

I'm wary of polyamory in a personal sense for that reason:  if I'm with someone I don't want to be relegated to sharing half of that bond, as rare as long term relationships that preserve chemical love are, that's what I'm looking for in a mate.  But that is merely my opinion on what is best, I don't look down on people who feel different than I do -- to each their own.  I'm not trying to make a moral or factual statement, as I said earlier, I don't think polyamory is wrong.

I wasn't trying to pass my views off as fact, I apologize for anyone I offended with what I said about polyamory.  I was just sharing my personal experiences and thoughts I've formulated and I completely recognize the very real possibility that either:  a)  I am totally wrong b)   My observations only apply to myself and the people who I've had relationships with, not everyone.

[Oniya]

Wasn't offended in the least :-)  The two 'poly's are a commonly confused pair of concepts, and so I attempted to clear up the differences.

There's actually a term used in the polyamory boards for that 'chemical romance' (pun intended) that you describe - namely 'NRE', or 'New Relationship Energy'.  I wouldn't be at all surprised that one could only sustain one 'NRE-level' connection at a time, but polyamorists in a general sense believe that it is possible to sustain multiple prolonged commitments.  I have a slight twitch about calling it 'duty love', since that makes it sound like a chore, but I'll acknowledge the more social/personal aspect of it, compared to NRE.

[Zaakmaal]

I consider myself to be Bisexual, but I know if I took that test I would probably come up as either straight or gay (probably gay). Although most of the time my thoughts are all about men, there are other times where my brain does a complete 180 and I like women for awhile. I almost never prefer men and women equally at the same time, but I always default back to men. When i am in a straight mood I have little desire to look at guys and while in a gay mood I don't care about looking at women. I would say I am gay 90% of the time, but if I took the test while I was in the opposite mood the result would be different. I don't know if I am the only one like this, but if I'm not then the test is flawed.

[kylie]

          I wouldn't buy that anything about bi absolutely "requires" self-identification as poly by any means.  I'm still looking askew at that initial term, "legitimate."  The only limits upon the number and type of categorical boxes that various other people might publicly push to get one officially categorized as, are the social trends of the day.

         Here's a blurb about the relative probabilities of non-monogamy by orientation and sex.  I'm posting an image of the excerpt, because I can't seem to turn this particular PDF's data into pastable text.  The quote is from:  Wosick-Correa, Kassia 2010.  "Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships."  Psychology & Sexuality 1(1):44-61.

          For what it's worth to the discussion...  I gather from this that the going understanding is that while only a few bi's actually are poly, bi's are more likely as a group to identify as poly than those of other orientations. 

[Wolfy]

Hmm..O_o..what's the term for having more than one husband...o3o

[Oniya]

I've seen it referred to as 'polyandry', but the term isn't terribly common.

[Wolfy]

I've seen it referred to as 'polyandry', but the term isn't terribly common.

Well..I think that's because most people think Men are evil perverts who want several women to sleep with while women are pure and only want one mate in their life at all times....buuut that's just me. :D

I also wonder why Gay men don't get their own term.

The word "Gay" can refer to either a man or Woman, as can Homosexual. Lesbian, however, can only refer to a gay woman. Who do Gay men not get their own term? O_o (Outside the nasty, hateful, idiotic ones, that is.)

Hmm....

[Trieste]

*points Wolfy to his woolgathering thread* These posts belong there.

[Nyarly]

I also wonder why Gay men don't get their own term.

The word "Gay" can refer to either a man or Woman, as can Homosexual. Lesbian, however, can only refer to a gay woman. Who do Gay men not get their own term? O_o (Outside the nasty, hateful, idiotic ones, that is.)

Isn't "gay" actually the term for homosexual men? I know that in English it gets used for men and women, but in German the word "schwul" (the German for gay) is only used for males. Also, I read somewhere that using the word to describe lesbian is actually wrong, because it is exclusively for male homosexuals.

At least, it seems that it was originally only used for males, but somehow it became a word for lesbians too.

[King_Furby]

I think maybe it isn't a sexuality at all but more just a life style choice like say picking to be a vegetarian.

Cause if you become loyal to just one person then technicaly you're no longer bisexual right? Technically if your a vegetarien then eat a burger can you still call yourself a vegtaren?

in this age we need new terms i think. what do you call it when someone is married to two people each of different genders?

[HairyHeretic]

Cause if you become loyal to just one person then technicaly you're no longer bisexual right?

How on earth do you figure that? The fact that you're not acting on your desires doesn't mean they've changed any.

[Host of Seraphim]

Cause if you become loyal to just one person then technicaly you're no longer bisexual right?

I like brownies and cookies.

I just ate a brownie for breakfast. It was delicious.

Doesn't mean I don't like cookies anymore.

I like men and women.

I am in a committed relationship with a man. He is delicious.

Doesn't mean I don't like women anymore.

[King_Furby]

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?

thoughts?

[Will]

It's a question of attraction, not involvement.

[grdell]

As a bisexual male, I find the question inherently absurd. I am attracted to men. I am attracted to women. What am I if not bisexual? They can take their so-called "studies" and shove 'em.

Just my two cents, of course.

[Will]

As a bisexual male, I find the question inherently absurd. I am attracted to men. I am attracted to women. What am I if not bisexual? They can take their so-called "studies" and shove 'em.

Just my two cents, of course.

*laughs* I think this is just about the only thing that really needs to be said.

[Oniya]

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?

thoughts?

Back in the day, there were thousands of highly-closeted gay men out there who married - and stayed committed to - women, just because of the social stigma that came with being gay at the time that they got married.  Many of them found a woman who didn't want/couldn't have children, so there wouldn't be a question (not that people talked about such things) about why this married couple wasn't having sex.  Does that mean that they were not gay? 

[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.