"Gay Straight or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited," Revisited - Part 1

[Brian]

By Bill Burleson

http://main.bisexual.com/forum/images/misc/miscstuff/author23.jpg One of my guilty pleasures is reading various men’s magazines. Not the centerfold kind, but the kind packed with useful articles about manly things, like how to get “Six-Pack Abs!,” “Build Wealth Fast!,” and “Your Ultimate Cardio Plan!,” not to mention plenty of pictures of handsome men and pretty women. Little bite-sized stories are typical in these magazines, and I’ve noticed that many begin with the phrase, “Researchers have found…” or “Scientists say…” often without ever telling us who these researchers and scientists are, their methodology, or even where the study was published. Before I try downing olive oil to reduce my risk of colon cancer (if not my waist line), I’d like to know if the study results have been reproduced, if it was a double-blind study, and if the researcher was reputable. It’s not that I don’t believe in scientific inquiry, I do. I think that’s how we can most reliably find out about our world. But I do know that, at times, science also has let us down.

Take for example the relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence. In the mid-to-late 1800s, several scientists measured the cranial capacity of various races of humans. What they reported was that ‘Caucasoids’ had the largest brains, ‘Mongoloids’were next, and ‘Negroids’ had the smallest, thus “proving” that white Europeans were the most intelligent. This was a very popular idea at the time for two reasons: it fit in with the new theories of Darwin, and it gave license to racists. Never mind there is no proof that brain size has much if anything to do with intelligence. In fact, it seems unlikely since this would mean whales are the most intelligent creatures on earth (or, if one prefers to look at percent of body weight, then it’s birds). Never mind that men, who are on average larger than women, would then be more intelligent (wait, a sec, they probably liked that aspect, too). Despite all that, physical anthropologists happily stuffed skull cavities with seeds to measure the space the brain took up and proved…and what did they prove? Exactly what they wanted to prove.

Even accepting the premise that brain size and intelligence are related, the studies were deeply flawed. How? In this case, it appears a scientist consciously or unconsciously packed the seeds a little tighter in some skulls than in others. Another way would be to have a non-representative sample, as in this case where American Indian skulls were more likely to be those of women, and thus smaller.

This is what comes to mind for me when I read the study by Michael Bailey with Gerulf Rieger and Meredith L. Chivers of Northwestern University, “Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men,” (2005 American Psychological Society). Here, it is popularly believed, Bailey proved there are no bisexual men.
As a bisexual man (having identified as bisexual for thirty-one years and a man for all of my forty eight years), let’s just say the study caught my attention.

But it all started with a July 5, 2005 New York Times headline: “Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited.” The story by Benedict Carey said, “…a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.” The Times article touched off a firestorm of controversy, from those whose long held beliefs were supported, to those arguing the importance of academic freedom, to those who were angered, appalled, offended, saddened, you name it.

What’s the real story? Could the study be right? Is Bailey trying to prove something with skulls and seeds? And, for that matter, did the New York Times get the headline right?

Here is the study in a nut shell: Bailey set 33 bisexual, 30 heterosexual, and 38 homosexual men in a room and showed them sexual films. Their arousal was measured through self-assessment and through measurement of circumference changes of their penis. The result? While the self-assessment found the predicted “bisexual pattern,” the penis measurements did not. “…We found no indication of a distinctly bisexual pattern of genital sexual arousal among bisexual men.”

Simple enough. What’s wrong with that?

First, of the 101 men recruited for the study, about a third had no “actual” genital arousal, defined as measurable increases in penile circumference. Bailey elected to simply ignore that and focus on those with measurable responses. That brings up two questions in my mind: if increases in penile girth are the measure of sexuality, shouldn’t the Times headline have read, “New Study Reveals 1/3 Of Men Are Asexual”? And less cheeky but more important, are 22 bisexual men a large enough study sample?
Next, the study subjects’ sexual orientation was determined by their ranking themselves on a Kinsey Sexual Attraction Scale, with zero being heterosexual and six homosexual. Bailey decided that everyone ranked greater than one and less than five was bisexual. One must ask: does that really make these men bisexual? What did these men call themselves?

Let’s look at the results of the study according to their self-assessed Kinsey ranking. Bailey doesn’t break it down for us, being more interested in putting the men in the three categories, but he does provide a graph with the data. The first thing one may notice is that there appear to be two men who were equally aroused by the male and female films. Interestingly, neither were in Bailey’s bisexual range: one was a Kinsey one and thus ranked as heterosexual, and the other a six, and put in the homosexual group. Also interesting, two of the twenty-five homosexual men were more stimulated by the films featuring women. Neither of these two outcomes was discussed in the article. In fact, considering three of the “homosexual” men were also attracted to women, perhaps the Times headline should have read: “12% of Gay Men are Bisexual.”

Looking at the group that Bailey calls “bisexual,” it appears there were men spread across the scale, from a Kinsey 1.5 to 4.5. What were the results? In fact, the lower the number, the more they leaned toward being measurably aroused by the sexual films featuring two women, and the higher the number the more they leaned toward films featuring two men. One would think that to be the expected outcome. So why the headlines then? If the researcher was looking for a linear relationship between Kinsey ranking and arousal, three’s equally attracted to men and women, fours a bit more to men, etc., that’s not what they found. Instead, they are scattered around, with the middle ranges, 2.5 on up, leaning more toward the male films than the female. In total, three quarters of these “bisexual” men were more aroused by men, while the rest were more aroused by women.

Interestingly, the self-assessment of arousal showed the expected bisexual pattern, meaning what the men felt differed from what the penis meter detected. Perhaps instead of deciding that “bisexual” men weren’t self-aware enough to know how they feel, the researchers need to re-examine assumptions about expected sexual response to stimuli.

New Times headline: “Sexual Attraction More Complex than Expected, Research Shows.”

Another question that begs asking is the nature of the movies. The study used an 11 minute, non-sexual film, followed by four two-minute sexual films. Two of the sexual films showed two men in sexual situations, and the other two showed two women. On what evidence do they base the assumption that men who are attracted to women must enjoy woman-on-woman porn? For example, what if men generally enjoy porn more if it includes a man to identify with? Plus, is four minutes each really enough material to draw a conclusion? What if the women in the films weren’t especially attractive to those 22 men? Bailey’s assessment of attractive may well be different than mine, and with such a small sample, that may be important.

Something interesting that is discussed in the study but not included as part of the results, is that to some degree most of the men in the study were aroused by all of the sexual content. According to Bailey, “This suggests that most men may possess a certain capacity for bisexual arousal, although the magnitude of this arousal is quite modest.” Maybe the headline should read, “All Men Are, to Some Degree, Bisexual, Study Finds.”

For me the bottom line is that sexual attraction cannot be reliably measured in penile blood flow. Consider how complex attraction is. It’s well known from the work of Fritz Klein that sexual orientation is informed by things like romantic attraction, sexual behavior, fantasy, community affiliation, and visual attraction, not all of which may be measured by a device on a subject’s willy.

But what did Bailey really claim to have proved? At first, Bailey is cautious about his conclusions: "Male bisexuality appears primarily to represent a style of interpreting or reporting sexual arousal rather than a distinct pattern of genital sexual arousal." And "our results suggest that male bisexuality is not simply the sum of, or the intermediate between, heterosexual and homosexual orientation." But then he goes a step too far: "Indeed, with respect to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists." While perhaps literally true in the world of these 22 men in lab rooms with penile girth-measuring devices, it’s certainly not true in the lives of millions of men who are bisexual. Finally, Bailey told the New York Times, "I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation." "…for men arousal is orientation"? According to whom? What proof is offered of this?

In “Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men,” the only conclusion I can draw is that Bailey and company ignored data that didn’t fit their desired result, drew the wrong conclusions from the results they got, and then exaggerated those conclusions. In other words, Bailey stuffed a few more seeds into the skull, consciously or unconsciously, to make sure the results are as expected.
With science, part of the equation is for all of us to be a skeptical consumer. We can’t look to the New York Times to always get it right, any more than we can be satisfied with “researchers say…”

Left unasked is why does this study get so much mileage. Why did it warrant “Gay, Straight, or Lying?” We know why. Just like in the 1800’s where there were plenty of people looking for support for their prejudices and happy to find some, there are plenty of people around now looking for proof people like me don’t exist. The study not only reinforced the researcher’s pre-existing beliefs, but also gave people who hate bisexuals plenty of ammunition.

We’ll explore this more in part two, when we look at the media and the effects the study and stories about it have had, and find out that controversy isn’t new for Michael Bailey.

Part 2 - http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4349 (http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4349)

***

William Burleson is the author of Bi America: Myths, Truths and Struggles of an Invisible Community, from Haworth Press. In addition to being a columnist for Lavender Magazine in Minneapolis and a regular contributor to the Lambda Literary Report, Burleson essays about bisexuality have appeared in many publications. Burleson is currently the producer of a weekly Minneapolis cable access television show, BiCities!, has helped coordinate BECAUSE: the Midwest Conference on Bisexuality and the Eight International Conference on Bisexuality. He is a frequent speaker at college campuses, bookstores, and conferences. You can contact him at http://www.bi101.org.

(c) Copryight 2007 Bill Burleson

[brudegan]

Without hesitation I disagreed with the conclusions brought forth in that particular study. I couldn't have explained why I felt that way, at least until reading this article. After reading the description and analysis of the study I feel justified in my knee jerk reaction to the study.

In a bit of coincidence I just recieved a copy of William Burleson's book "Bi America" from Amazon today. After reading this article I am more than ever looking forward to reading the book.

[Skater Boy]

Its poor methodology I guess... making the facts fit around his conclusions rather than drawing his conclusions from the actual facts. I wonder who funded this "research"... shouldn't they be searching for a cure for cancer instead or something? :confused:

[rissababynta]

Its poor methodology I guess... making the facts fit around his conclusions rather than drawing his conclusions from the actual facts. I wonder who funded this "research"... shouldn't they be searching for a cure for cancer instead or something? :confused:


it's funny, as i was reading it i was thinking "a cure for cancer would be nice but, i think it's more important to measure a penis."


and it's true about porn preference. just because you are a bi male doesn't mean you always want to watch two men going at it. it doesn't mean you are always going to be attracted to the men in the porn. hell, maybe you just really don't feel like watching the porn to begin with so your mind is telling your body "eh, whatever".

there are many times that i watch a porn of two women and while i truly enjoy it, i don't get all hot and bothered either...

[bigregory]

Bailey is a jurk.
He is still searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Just make it up as you go ...

[12voltman59]

I also agree-this study is "junk science."

As far as the media is concerned--there is no such thing as bisexuality--and to the Gods of our modern media--if they declare something "ain't so--it ain't so" so don't confuse them with the facts.

I don't think there was any mistake made in the headline the copydesk editor at "The Times" put on that story when he or she was putting that edition containing that article---writing a headline to support a story debunking "the myth" of bisexuality fits in quite well with the status quo that the good folks at the NY Times want to preserve-just like it would take alien spaceships landing on the Mall in Washington DC and elsewhere to make papers like the Times even consider there might be beings from another world--it will take an avalanche of overwhelming evidence to convince the guardians of the gates of our social mores that bisexuals exist and bisexuality is for real.

[FerSureMaybe]

Why would a guy pretend to be bisexual? Girls, I could see since it's so "hot" as I tend to hear entirely too often for it not to annoy me. But guys? Like a guy walks out of his house and says "I think I'll start pretending to be bisexual today. Maybe I'll fake arousal at various forms of pornography even though my little buddy downstairs does nothing." Some people are just so silly.

And I'd rather have a cure for AIDS than know if bisexuality is fake, especially since I already know the answer to that question.

[MarieDelta]

Good ol' Bailey. What a F*ckwit.


His analysis of the trans* community is equally biased and crazy(the Androphilic(men loving) trans are just gay men who are ashamed of their sexuality, the gynophillic(women loving) trans are just fetishist.) There is no way to win, all trans* people are F-ed up to the nth degree.

In other words, don't pay attention to Bailey. He's one of *those* guys.

m

[newman33461]

All people are bi chemically. We all have both male and female hormones in our body. The degree of which may account for some of our bi-ness. I would be interested in seeing a study done on the hormone levels in straight, bi, and gay men and women. The fact is, no one knows what makes a man or a women what he/she is (sexually). Will a truly straight person go down on a member of the opposite sex, or allow another of their own sex go down on himer? If only having limited sex with a person of the opposite sex is the true definition of being straight, there are a lot fewer “straight” tight ass men and women than supposed. But then that is true anyway… because in our society most bi and may gay people pretend to be “straight”… because “straight” is the most acceptable posture out of the bedroom… or is that board room: It is to many. I don’t know what it is about two girls or women kissing that turns me on; except I know I am slightly curved in the birection of an erection when I see two girls making out, and I love to help them out in the process. Does that make me one, or a 1.5 or a 2?

On the other hand, I can enjoy watching a couple of guys find the surprise in their cracker -Jack’s big mouth and box too.

As far as the erection… it is a form in perfection… and a lovely thing to behold, in more ways than one. But for any ass hole to say there is no bi sexuality… he did not investigate right; and deserves to have a cock stuck up his ass to see how he likes it. Or perhaps he should have a cock in his mouth… and I would volunteer mine. Oh, maybe he is just trying to get us, up-in-arms, or hands… to jerk him around a bit to prove our points that friendly cocks can be aimed at one another on fun and friendly occasion(s), and pussies don’t have to have a cock crammed in to be delighted ( a tongue or dildo will do): To the benefit of all who participate.

Well there, I have had my mouth open long enough… let me know if there are any of you other folks who would love to participate in another study… in the din…living room… bedroom…or board room (which wouldn’t be a boarding room afterwards.)

newman33461@yahoo.com

[Tygress75]

Bailey's misuse of proper scientific research methods makes him a "horrible warning" rather than a "good example." He's an embarassment to those of us who pride ourselves in knowing and using proper scientific research methods. As a "bad apple spoiling the bunch," he give scientific research a bad name!

When I teach my students (I'm a h.s. science teacher) about the Scientific Method, nowhere in any of the 5 steps I drill into their heads does it say "If the results from the experiment do not fit your hypothesis, you are to change your results in order to make them fit."

He's a man with an agenda, nothing more, and his "research" shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Now try telling this to the press... <sigh>

[bigirl_inwv]

I think with any study you have to look at what the person trying to prove to begin with. Did he go into the study saying "I'm going to prove that bisexuality doesn't exist"? If so, then yeah, he's going to omit some information to get his results to say what they want.

The only way for this study to truly work is for someone who has no agenda to do it. It can't be done by someone who is homophobic, or by a gay person who doesn't like bisexuals...and it can't be done by a bisexual because we would all feel like we had something to prove. Which would, consciously or unconsciously, change how "strict" we were with our results.

Honestly, I get fired up about this sometimes. But lately, I've had the attitude of....It's just not worth getting up in arms about. I know I exist, the people in this forum know that we exist. I could honestly care less about what other people think. If they want to slap a scarlet letter on my chest defining my sexuality...let em do it. They'll have a hard time when I walk in with a guy on one arm and a girl on the other. ;)

[azcentral]

I personally believe it depends on the day of the study. Somedays I want women and other days I want men. So the study blows hot air.

[AdamKadmon43]

I guess the problem has always been that since I DID NOT KNOW that bisexuality did not exist, I just went on being bisexual anyhow.

Now that Bailey has show that bisexuality does not exist, I suppose that I shall have to stop being bisexual !!!!

Adam ;)

[Kuragxo]

Warning: Sociologist Talking...

As many sociologists will point out, one of the chief difficulties with using lab studies to understand any human behavior (from competitive behavior to sexual arousal) is that human behavior always occurs in a social context that channels, influences and defines it. The laboratory is not a neutral "variable-less" context but one with it's own unique influence on human beings who take that context into account and behave accordingly. In other words, this study, at best, may only tell us about the patterns of sexual arousal among men under laboratory conditions... How might any of us react under these conditions? You are in some "neutral" place you may not feel comfortable in with something attached to your penis knowing you're reactions are being monitored by a scientist while you watch movies not of your own choosing. Unless you are some type of guinea-pig exhibitionist, I'm surprise they found any arousal at all.

[rissababynta]

i would also like to add that i think an erection is hardly enough to prove anything considering that those things stand at attention when ya wake up in the morning! does that mean that you are turned on by daylight?

[Skater Boy]

i would also like to add that i think an erection is hardly enough to prove anything considering that those things stand at attention when ya wake up in the morning! does that mean that you are turned on by daylight?

Yup, I have been known (in the past) to get an erection from the vibrations whilst sitting on a bus. But needless to say, I do not find public transport the slightest bit sexy. :bigrin:

[BluesnCoffee]

For me the bottom line is that sexual attraction cannot be reliably measured in penile blood flow.

This was an excellent article, but I think you kind of danced around the major problem without directly naming it. This study did not have a reliable control group. The purpose of using hetero-, homo-, and bisexual men is, supposedly, so that he has not one but two control groups to work from. In order for the results to have meaning, the control groups must behave as predicted in the hypothesis. Since neither control group behaved as predicted, any attempt at extracting results from the study would have to be considered "data mining", a practice considered unethical.

I wonder, have you made any attempts at contacting him with your faults? I think his interpretation of the results of the study is not consistent with academic standards, and, as I said above, possibly unethical, and I would like to here how he responds to the challenges you laid forth.

[BluesnCoffee]

I think with any study you have to look at what the person trying to prove to begin with. Did he go into the study saying "I'm going to prove that bisexuality doesn't exist"? If so, then yeah, he's going to omit some information to get his results to say what they want.


This is an non sequitur. Just because you expect a certain result does not necessarily mean you will be biased towards the results. The whole scientific method is built on the idea that you must have a hypthosis to test. Simply performing an experiment and looking at the results leads to data mining, which I mentioned in my first post.

Bailey's problem is not having an agenda. People always have an agenda. His problem is skewing the facts in order to have them meet it. However, thankfully academic standards indicate he publish not only his results, but his data, allowing others, like Bill here, to look at the same data and come to unique conclusions.

[FalconAngel]

okay, as a BI man I can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that not all straight porn turns me on, but I know some that it does; Not all Gay/lebian porn turns me on, but I know some that it does; Not all bi porn turns me on, but I know some that it does.

According to this dink's flawed study, I am not Bi.

This Bailey guy has clearly disregarded scientific analysis principles by not eliminating the variables produced by individual tastes in porn.

Almost 2 decades ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tried something similar on motorcyclists to get race-style bikes banned. It didn't work because their study was, interestingly enough, flawed in a similar way.

Like the IIHS, Bailey failed to take into account the important individual variables and has made his conclusions based on a standard based on ONE set of standards which are unrealistic; disregarding things such as personal taste, sexual proclivity, etc.

It took 2 years for motorcycling to overcome the flawwed IIHS study and that was with a heavy lobbying force and people dropping their policies from blackballing insurers and finding other ones to go to.

In order for the Bisexual community to overcome this, Bailey and his study must be put under the public microscope and shown for all of the flaws and poor scientific processes that it has.

[rissababynta]

According to this dink's flawed study, I am not Bi.

.

i couldn't help myself. i just had to laugh at this. i haven't heard somebody call someone a dink in the longest time. that just made my day

[BIMUSCLEBOY2007]

One of the first lines of this article showed me that something was amiss with this study:"Using 30 htererosexual men, 30 bisexual men and 30 gay men....." Bailey TOTALLY RELIED ON SELF-REPORTING!!!
Each participent could have lied about his sexual identity as soon as he hit the lab's front door, and Bailey wouldn't have been the wiser. Unlike other studies which use absolutes like height, weight, gender, hair color, medical histories, ethnicity, etc., which can't be faked(maybe hair color), ANYONE CAN LIE ABOUT THIER SEXUAL IDENTITY, thus throwing any hopes for reliable scientific data right out of the window.
Any one of those guys who did get aroused could have averted his eyes from what was on the screen and begin to think of what really turned them on, as in, "Man, this vid sucks! Here's what I wish was on the screen!!" And the imagination goes wild. Then, bada-boom, bada-bing, there's the hard-on....and the complete destruction of any hope of an accurately reported SCIENTIFIC study.
bailey's misadventure will just go onto the pile of misreported, agenda-ridden, unscientific LGBT-centered studies with poor methods and even poorer results which the conservatives will try to use to their advantage, but will always get slammed for its inaccuracy by the larger, more accomplished scientific community...whose studies aren't financially backed by conservative groups whose people are desperate to discover why little Timmy won't stop beating off to both Matthew Rush and Jenna Jameson vids.
BTW, it's a good idea to always list Bailey's previous attempts at destroying the LGBT community through these so-called studies. Once people see this guy's patterns, they'll begin to question "what's his deal" and he will be toast.
I like toast.

[CardShark]

You know what? I have no clue what I am when it comes to labels,terms or classifications that I fit in. I am turned on pretty much by women only. Strange thing is I have learned in the last few years that the more wild a girl is? The more interesting she generally becomes to me and the more attraction I have towards her. The ultimate taboo in my mind for society per say is a girl being with two men in a bi threesome. Ok in some odd way my desire for the wild erotic side of the girl who is turned on or has a fantasy about that makes me desire doing things cause it turns her on. Now I am probably the most open and sure of my likes and dislikes person in the world, i get alot of responses about it. I honestly have trouble explaining it. Does a guy and a girl sharing a cock during a bj turn me on? No doubt. Does a girl talking dirty and wanting to climb the walls while someone gets fucked in the ass? Yep sure does. But!!!! I never desire that when she is not there. It's kinda like i'm pleasing her by doing him in way very hard to explain. And you think some of you don't fit in when it comes to labels lol! Obviously lesbian and gay is out. Hetero think odd thoughts. And yes even bisexual people especially bi men (almost solely the men) either say it is denial or hell i dunno whatever. LOL When truth is if i wanted to fuck a dude believe me....I'd be the first to stand up and say it. I read some comments in the lobby other day of guys making phone of how could you suck a dick but not kiss a man. My answer is simple. Sucking a dick relates to fucking and pure sex. Kissing to me relates to desire and passion. Sticking your tongue up someones ass is just something that gets them off. To me? Kissing someone is probably the most passionate personal loving act two people can do with one another. So you know the moral to all this ? No two people on earth are alike! I wish folks would forget titles and just look at it is sex. That is all it is. Nothing more nothing less. For every human on earth they will vary on desire,love and lust on every single detail. So how is it possible to say your either this or that. Course that is how i see it anyways. :cool:

[PickBiMan]

Everyone's sexual identity is as individual as their fingerprint.

[sphlinxa]

I think people were since allways afraid of what they dont understand, this is allso the case in understanding or accepting bisexuality, wich is no more diffrent than understending homosexuality. People will reject if not even condamn enything wich is of no understanding to them, bringing them to reject, judge, even condamn becouse of a simple feeling of fear, a instinctual feeling wich activates a defence sistem. As we know humans tend to destroy, reject, condamn, execute(in the old times) what they can not understand using diffrent political or religiouse sistems to do it. The situation didn't unfortunatly change much since the old times. The only thing that apears to be change is the way to cover and justifey theyr ideeas not only about sexuality but allso about everything else. All that is left for the rest of us with open minds and free spirits is to hang in there and not forget ho we are and what we represent for this society freedome for all maybe even a way to be saved. :bipride: :bipride:

[REALBICPL]

Bisexuality, or Polysexuality, or whatever you call it is a wild , wonderous, and Many Varied thing...I look at it like the ability to enjoy a LARGE buffet table :grouphug: , Mmmm, a taste of this, a taste of that,,MMmmm MMm.

True hardcore "Hetero's", like a burger, then another burger, than a burger with mustard, then another burger,,LOL

[K.D.Lucky28]

So what if it showed a more dominant attraction to one or the other in some men, that doesn't mean they are any less Bisexual, it just means they like one a little more.....that test was garbage anyway, that guy seems to have alot of theories about sexual minorities and none of them really make any sense anyway so I wouldn't even pay attention.

[CardShark]

Yeah i agree :rolleyes: people make something simple way to in depth and try to analyze things to death. Honestly i could give a fuck less what label or term i fall into. I do what feels good and turns me on and don't really care about the rest. All this coming out or closet stuff i've never dealt with cause I just don't see it as a big deal. I mean sex is sex and if it gets you off and nobody is hurt because of it, then cool! Right on. I mean a person can go crazy trying to analyze something that no two people will be alike and trying to figure out all the genres. Relax and enjoy life man......if it blows your hair back do it! Live your life for you not somebody else. Once you do that and you meet that right person you will be truely happy. :cool:

[Mercutio]

When reading about any scientific study one must always take into account where the research was conducted, who conducted the study, the methodology used and perhaps most important, was the reported study peer reviewed. It is always best to read the original report in the reputable journal in which the study was published. Also beware of false conclusions drawn from insufficient numbers used and the lack of proper control(s). The AMA is great for violating this one. Notice how many times over the years that cofee is bad for you then later it has become good for you and then bad again. This is based on bad science. Simply, they take advantage of the lay public. Non scientific sources should always be looked at with some skepticism and they should provide direct quotes from reputable people in the field and not insert their own editorial evaluation.

[jedinudist]

It has taken me over 30 years, 2 attempts, and a very understanding and loving wife for me to finally accept the fact that I am indeed bisexual. They can stick their study in their ear.

[Billi]

Yeah i agree :rolleyes: people make something simple way to in depth and try to analyze things to death. Honestly i could give a fuck less what label or term i fall into. I do what feels good and turns me on and don't really care about the rest. All this coming out or closet stuff i've never dealt with cause I just don't see it as a big deal. I mean sex is sex and if it gets you off and nobody is hurt because of it, then cool! Right on. I mean a person can go crazy trying to analyze something that no two people will be alike and trying to figure out all the genres. Relax and enjoy life man......if it blows your hair back do it! Live your life for you not somebody else. Once you do that and you meet that right person you will be truely happy. :cool:

I have been actively bi for about 8 or 9 years and still get the guilts about it. Like this member said, if it blows your hair back do it. I have met a lovely man who is very understanding of this and takes me on my terms for who I am.
Wait a minute, for who I am.
Wow.
What a thought.

[*pan*]

hi, well my assumption of this study is that it's useless and a complete waste of time, let me explain, different things turn on different people, one flick might turn on some people and not others, what they find stimulating maby some would not, i am a married bisexual, i have sex with my 2 woman all the time and love it, so when company of a man in the bed with us, it's only natural that i'm more stimulated by the man at the time, reasons being we don't have many bisexual men friends to play with, so does this make me gay? sexuality is a complex mix of feelings, expirences, thoughts, desires, ect..... , too complex to just simplify and catagorize, thats the problem with society they want to catorgize and standardize everything so they can label it. i only call myself bisexual so other people will know my sexual preference and for no other reason, i hate labels. lables are for identification only. i am a sexual human being, who loves sex with men and woman. the problem with these studies is once they lable it then they find faults in it, and look to make them abnormal to others in the community. which leads to laws. it's a shame there is so much dogma and controversy over such a natural act as sex. it is more natural to be bisexual because men are beautiful too, the greeks, romans and others were bisexual, it's only natural. sex was seen as a natural and necessary function of the human body and it is. christianity came in and changed everyones perception of sex, calling it sin, and they are the ones that made sex an un-natural act. only to be done for procreation purposes and by married couples only. even today there are still sodemy laws on the books influenced by the christian society. all i have to say to them is get over it, get a life and quit worrying how much others are getting and get your own lol.
:2cents:

[kyliekairamone]

Bill,

Thank You!

Thanks for this site. Thanks for debunking bunk research. Thanks for your fabulous, affirming book Bi America which has welcomed me into the bi and single world.

You've done wonderful work to help us learn about, accept and celebrate all that we are!

K

[PunkGRL5]

"For example, what if men generally enjoy porn more if it includes a man to identify with?"

This part really struck me. When it comes to written porn, I enjoy all pairings. But with video porn, I want a woman in there to identify with.

[Psykels]

as far as porn is concerned you have to account for peoples tastes, I have not found any porn, bi, gay,straight or other wise, that does it for me, i mean, some people, infact most people in the porn industry are plastic, and fake, and covered in fake tan with piecrings in weird places, what happened just two people or more enjoying themselves...no offence to anyone that it does it for, but give me hentai, or home video's anyday :rolleyes:
so how was this resercher to know he could account the any of the mens tastes at all, and wouldn't they find it hard to get it up anyway with people studying them, and brandashing a measuring tape next to their penis!? wouldn't the fact they're expected to 'get it up' make them more nervous and less likely to perform?

[dportrait]

Surely he needed to show Bi porn too :D

I'm not sure why he thought that showing bi guys lesbian and gay porn would prove anything.... surely if they were going to be turned on by one type of porn more than another then the one that aligned with their orientation would have produced the biggest response.

There were many other issues with the study and some of the alternate headlines were much better. I especially like "All Men Are, to Some Degree, Bisexual, Study Finds"

Im not sure if its true - but imagine the reaction ;)

[*pan*]

hi, my perspective on the title is that it in it self is narrow minded and biased,(gay straight or lying. this title in it self proves the bigotry that exists still with in the community and leads one to believe there are absolutes such as one or the other not both. the term gay relates to only homosexual relationships and the term straight relates only to hetrosexual relationships, and this is a product of biblical association, so my question is a male with a wife and kids who loves his wife and family but seeks the affection and touch of another man also dose this make him gay. if yes then this would be absurbed in any definition. so my logic dictates that this whole article because of it's title is bogus and not worth the time it took to write it let alone argue over. wake up people there is more to life then absolutes and titles. being bogus and all things being equal , no one is lying here. peace and blessings > pan /|\

[philly1]

what ever,bi or gay who gives a fuck,you whant to have a man or women that's what your mind whant,so what if he or she don,t get aroused as long if they feel it's right thier going to ingaged, gay men do this bull shit of the study because they feel if you are this or that,that's why i don't deal with people with low self worth, who gives a fuck if that person :male::female::(:three::flag4::flag3:whant's to fuck let them.

[pdrap]

a note on cranial capacity. Well, yes this author sinks to the level of 'ad hominen' attack; which is a fallacy, for good reason. You see you can hardly assert "it gave license to racists...", a deceptive judgment with no scientific ground. Yes, it definitely fits into the populace morality, but for someone who claims to use only science as a guide, you cannot tenably include such a biased evaluation. Indeed , scientists did have very good reason, not racism, for making this error in a connection between cranial capacity and intelligence. I am referring to the large body of anthropological study, which shows how as humans evolved , so did their cranial capacity increase, eg, Homo Erectus would have a smaller cranial capacity than modern Homo Sapien Sapiens. Indeed, every link in the human evolutionary chain has had this same tendency. Yes it may be an error, but we needn't find the big bad bogeyman, called "racism", behind everything.




By Bill Burleson

http://main.bisexual.com/forum/images/misc/miscstuff/author23.jpg One of my guilty pleasures is reading various men’s magazines. Not the centerfold kind, but the kind packed with useful articles about manly things, like how to get “Six-Pack Abs!,” “Build Wealth Fast!,” and “Your Ultimate Cardio Plan!,” not to mention plenty of pictures of handsome men and pretty women. Little bite-sized stories are typical in these magazines, and I’ve noticed that many begin with the phrase, “Researchers have found…” or “Scientists say…” often without ever telling us who these researchers and scientists are, their methodology, or even where the study was published. Before I try downing olive oil to reduce my risk of colon cancer (if not my waist line), I’d like to know if the study results have been reproduced, if it was a double-blind study, and if the researcher was reputable. It’s not that I don’t believe in scientific inquiry, I do. I think that’s how we can most reliably find out about our world. But I do know that, at times, science also has let us down.

Take for example the relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence. In the mid-to-late 1800s, several scientists measured the cranial capacity of various races of humans. What they reported was that ‘Caucasoids’ had the largest brains, ‘Mongoloids’were next, and ‘Negroids’ had the smallest, thus “proving” that white Europeans were the most intelligent. This was a very popular idea at the time for two reasons: it fit in with the new theories of Darwin, and it gave license to racists. Never mind there is no proof that brain size has much if anything to do with intelligence. In fact, it seems unlikely since this would mean whales are the most intelligent creatures on earth (or, if one prefers to look at percent of body weight, then it’s birds). Never mind that men, who are on average larger than women, would then be more intelligent (wait, a sec, they probably liked that aspect, too). Despite all that, physical anthropologists happily stuffed skull cavities with seeds to measure the space the brain took up and proved…and what did they prove? Exactly what they wanted to prove.

Even accepting the premise that brain size and intelligence are related, the studies were deeply flawed. How? In this case, it appears a scientist consciously or unconsciously packed the seeds a little tighter in some skulls than in others. Another way would be to have a non-representative sample, as in this case where American Indian skulls were more likely to be those of women, and thus smaller.

This is what comes to mind for me when I read the study by Michael Bailey with Gerulf Rieger and Meredith L. Chivers of Northwestern University, “Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men,” (2005 American Psychological Society). Here, it is popularly believed, Bailey proved there are no bisexual men.
As a bisexual man (having identified as bisexual for thirty-one years and a man for all of my forty eight years), let’s just say the study caught my attention.

But it all started with a July 5, 2005 New York Times headline: “Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited.” The story by Benedict Carey said, “…a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.” The Times article touched off a firestorm of controversy, from those whose long held beliefs were supported, to those arguing the importance of academic freedom, to those who were angered, appalled, offended, saddened, you name it.

What’s the real story? Could the study be right? Is Bailey trying to prove something with skulls and seeds? And, for that matter, did the New York Times get the headline right?

Here is the study in a nut shell: Bailey set 33 bisexual, 30 heterosexual, and 38 homosexual men in a room and showed them sexual films. Their arousal was measured through self-assessment and through measurement of circumference changes of their penis. The result? While the self-assessment found the predicted “bisexual pattern,” the penis measurements did not. “…We found no indication of a distinctly bisexual pattern of genital sexual arousal among bisexual men.”

Simple enough. What’s wrong with that?

First, of the 101 men recruited for the study, about a third had no “actual” genital arousal, defined as measurable increases in penile circumference. Bailey elected to simply ignore that and focus on those with measurable responses. That brings up two questions in my mind: if increases in penile girth are the measure of sexuality, shouldn’t the Times headline have read, “New Study Reveals 1/3 Of Men Are Asexual”? And less cheeky but more important, are 22 bisexual men a large enough study sample?
Next, the study subjects’ sexual orientation was determined by their ranking themselves on a Kinsey Sexual Attraction Scale, with zero being heterosexual and six homosexual. Bailey decided that everyone ranked greater than one and less than five was bisexual. One must ask: does that really make these men bisexual? What did these men call themselves?

Let’s look at the results of the study according to their self-assessed Kinsey ranking. Bailey doesn’t break it down for us, being more interested in putting the men in the three categories, but he does provide a graph with the data. The first thing one may notice is that there appear to be two men who were equally aroused by the male and female films. Interestingly, neither were in Bailey’s bisexual range: one was a Kinsey one and thus ranked as heterosexual, and the other a six, and put in the homosexual group. Also interesting, two of the twenty-five homosexual men were more stimulated by the films featuring women. Neither of these two outcomes was discussed in the article. In fact, considering three of the “homosexual” men were also attracted to women, perhaps the Times headline should have read: “12% of Gay Men are Bisexual.”

Looking at the group that Bailey calls “bisexual,” it appears there were men spread across the scale, from a Kinsey 1.5 to 4.5. What were the results? In fact, the lower the number, the more they leaned toward being measurably aroused by the sexual films featuring two women, and the higher the number the more they leaned toward films featuring two men. One would think that to be the expected outcome. So why the headlines then? If the researcher was looking for a linear relationship between Kinsey ranking and arousal, three’s equally attracted to men and women, fours a bit more to men, etc., that’s not what they found. Instead, they are scattered around, with the middle ranges, 2.5 on up, leaning more toward the male films than the female. In total, three quarters of these “bisexual” men were more aroused by men, while the rest were more aroused by women.

Interestingly, the self-assessment of arousal showed the expected bisexual pattern, meaning what the men felt differed from what the penis meter detected. Perhaps instead of deciding that “bisexual” men weren’t self-aware enough to know how they feel, the researchers need to re-examine assumptions about expected sexual response to stimuli.

New Times headline: “Sexual Attraction More Complex than Expected, Research Shows.”

Another question that begs asking is the nature of the movies. The study used an 11 minute, non-sexual film, followed by four two-minute sexual films. Two of the sexual films showed two men in sexual situations, and the other two showed two women. On what evidence do they base the assumption that men who are attracted to women must enjoy woman-on-woman porn? For example, what if men generally enjoy porn more if it includes a man to identify with? Plus, is four minutes each really enough material to draw a conclusion? What if the women in the films weren’t especially attractive to those 22 men? Bailey’s assessment of attractive may well be different than mine, and with such a small sample, that may be important.

Something interesting that is discussed in the study but not included as part of the results, is that to some degree most of the men in the study were aroused by all of the sexual content. According to Bailey, “This suggests that most men may possess a certain capacity for bisexual arousal, although the magnitude of this arousal is quite modest.” Maybe the headline should read, “All Men Are, to Some Degree, Bisexual, Study Finds.”

For me the bottom line is that sexual attraction cannot be reliably measured in penile blood flow. Consider how complex attraction is. It’s well known from the work of Fritz Klein that sexual orientation is informed by things like romantic attraction, sexual behavior, fantasy, community affiliation, and visual attraction, not all of which may be measured by a device on a subject’s willy.

But what did Bailey really claim to have proved? At first, Bailey is cautious about his conclusions: "Male bisexuality appears primarily to represent a style of interpreting or reporting sexual arousal rather than a distinct pattern of genital sexual arousal." And "our results suggest that male bisexuality is not simply the sum of, or the intermediate between, heterosexual and homosexual orientation." But then he goes a step too far: "Indeed, with respect to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists." While perhaps literally true in the world of these 22 men in lab rooms with penile girth-measuring devices, it’s certainly not true in the lives of millions of men who are bisexual. Finally, Bailey told the New York Times, "I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation." "…for men arousal is orientation"? According to whom? What proof is offered of this?

In “Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men,” the only conclusion I can draw is that Bailey and company ignored data that didn’t fit their desired result, drew the wrong conclusions from the results they got, and then exaggerated those conclusions. In other words, Bailey stuffed a few more seeds into the skull, consciously or unconsciously, to make sure the results are as expected.
With science, part of the equation is for all of us to be a skeptical consumer. We can’t look to the New York Times to always get it right, any more than we can be satisfied with “researchers say…”

Left unasked is why does this study get so much mileage. Why did it warrant “Gay, Straight, or Lying?” We know why. Just like in the 1800’s where there were plenty of people looking for support for their prejudices and happy to find some, there are plenty of people around now looking for proof people like me don’t exist. The study not only reinforced the researcher’s pre-existing beliefs, but also gave people who hate bisexuals plenty of ammunition.

We’ll explore this more in part two, when we look at the media and the effects the study and stories about it have had, and find out that controversy isn’t new for Michael Bailey.

Part 2 - http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4349 (http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4349)

***

William Burleson is the author of Bi America: Myths, Truths and Struggles of an Invisible Community, from Haworth Press. In addition to being a columnist for Lavender Magazine in Minneapolis and a regular contributor to the Lambda Literary Report, Burleson essays about bisexuality have appeared in many publications. Burleson is currently the producer of a weekly Minneapolis cable access television show, BiCities!, has helped coordinate BECAUSE: the Midwest Conference on Bisexuality and the Eight International Conference on Bisexuality. He is a frequent speaker at college campuses, bookstores, and conferences. You can contact him at http://www.bi101.org.

(c) Copryight 2007 Bill Burleson

[bimwmdecatur]

I personally believe it depends on the day of the study. Somedays I want women and other days I want men. So the study blows hot air.

Exactly. I enjoy being with either sex, but I have never been in love with a man. I have though been in love with a woman, several times. But somedays I just enjoy being with a man.

Some people just don't get it.

[ace len]

Now a days it is really hard to determine boys if they are straight or a gay because of their looks. Watch more videos of straight gays to easy determine if they are straight or not. Watch here to have more knowledge in sighting gays. best GAY porn sites http://bigpornlist.com/

[elyna]

Gays are handsome. They like a straight men if you don't know the qualities of gay. Try to study their qualities in paid GAY porn sites http://paidpornsites.net/ . After this you will understand.

[softfruit]

Nice to see since then that the author of that 2005 study has admitted it reached the wrong conclusions and published newer stuff that finds the opposite.