Interesting...

[Cid87]

The writer's views is dominant in the second half, very interesting (offending).

Do Bisexual Men Exist?
By Dale Carpenter

First published July 21, 2005, in the Bay Area Reporter.

I’ve long suspected that bisexuality, in many men, is the stage between shame and acceptance. That is, men who call themselves “bisexual” are often gay men who aren’t quite ashamed anymore of their homosexual inclination but who, for any number of reasons, also aren’t fully accepting of it. By calling themselves bisexual, they cling to some thin reed of their heterosexual identity.

A new study, following other studies reaching similar conclusions, lends support to these suspicions by concluding there are few, if any, bisexual males, defined here as those who are about equally aroused by both sexes. The study is being criticized by gay-left groups that have an ideological and political investment in the “B” in “GLBT.” While the study is not definitive — what study could be? — and more work needs to be done to shore up its conclusions, the criticisms of it have not been very persuasive.

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual,” wrote Alfred Kinsey. “The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats.” Kinsey considered sexual orientation a spectrum along which many people were somewhere between the extremes of total homosexuality and total heterosexuality.

Ever since, “queer” theorists have argued that sexual orientation is itself a social construct. The categories “gay” and “straight” are creations of language and culture. Sexuality is plastic; it can change and be molded. In this view, everyone is in some sense bisexual.

Now a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto is publishing a study that questions this fashionable academic view. The researchers studied 101 men, about equally divided among men who called themselves gay, straight, and bisexual. They then showed the men pornographic images involving only women or only men, and measured their genital arousal.

Unsurprisingly, the straight men were aroused by the images of women. Also unsurprisingly, the gay men were aroused by the images of men.

And what aroused the men who called themselves bisexual? Three-fourths of them were aroused only by the images of men; one-fourth of them were aroused only by the images of women; and none of them were aroused by the images of both men and women. That is, their arousal patterns were indistinguishable from either the gay or straight men. In the memorable headline of the New York Times, the “bisexual” men in the study were either “Straight, Gay, or Lying.”

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force was predictably “stunned.” The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, never missing a chance to promote a dull conformity of language, called the Times headline itself “derogatory.”

The findings are consistent with past studies of bisexual arousal and sexual behavior.
The criticisms of the study have been underwhelming. One criticism has been that the sample size — 101 men, of whom 33 identified as bisexual — was too small. One could make that criticism of just about any sample size, and more is almost always better in these matters. But gay advocates have relied on studies with even smaller sample sizes to argue that homosexuals make good parents. There’s also not much reason to believe a larger sample size would have yielded significantly different results, especially given that the findings are consistent with past studies of bisexual arousal and sexual behavior.

A second criticism has been that the sample — drawn from personal ads in gay and alternative newspapers — was not representative of all bisexual men. Some bisexual men, for example, may not self-identify as bisexual and thus wouldn’t be in the study. Yet there’s no reason to believe that these men would have exhibited different arousal patterns. Indeed, one would expect a greater degree of bisexual arousal in bisexual men who actually identify themselves as bisexual.

A third criticism has been to attack one of its leaders, Michael Bailey, some of whose past work on transgenders has been ethically questionable. Whatever the merits of Bailey’s past work, this wasn’t Bailey’s study; he was part of a team of researchers who designed and conducted it. Plus, the study is either flawed or not based on its own methodology, not based on past criticisms of one of its authors.

Other criticisms have focused on supposed methodological “flaws” that don’t affect the study’s central conclusion. For example, some critics have noted that about 30% of the men had no physiological reaction to any of the porn they were shown. But so what? That may prove the porn was bad, or that some men just don’t respond to sexually explicit images, but there’s no reason to believe their lack of response biased the study away from finding bisexuals.

A final criticism has involved playing with the definition of “bisexual” in order to come up with more such people. If “bisexual” means anybody who has any degree of arousal, however small, to both sexes, then surely there are a large number of bisexuals.

Others have insisted that sexual orientation is more complicated than mere sexual attraction, and includes emotional attraction as well. Fair enough, but surely bisexual must involve some sexual element. If “bisexual” means anybody who calls himself “bisexual,” regardless of whether he’s actually sexually attracted to both sexes, then words lose all meaning.

If, however, “bisexual” means a person who has roughly equal erotic attraction to both sexes, then there are very few male bisexuals. Most people mean the latter when they use the word “bisexual,” and it is this definition under which the study found there are no male bisexuals.

Clearly there are straight men who occasionally have gay sex when circumstances limit their preferred sexual outlet, as in prison. Clearly there are gay men, some of whom are married to women, who have straight sex because they’re ashamed of their homosexual orientation or afraid of the consequences of being found out. These are not bisexuals.

Clearly, for queer theorists and their allied political groups, there is an ideological motivation behind the idea of bisexuality. They will defend it, damn the truth. And for some men, having sex with men who claim to be attracted to women is a fetish.

Clearly there are men who call themselves bisexual, whether for political reasons or fetishistic reasons or because they simply aren’t yet able to accept that they’re gay.

Our goal should be to free this last group from the identity prison of bisexuality, not to build higher walls around them in the service of political correctness. We may not like that the world is divided into sheep and goats, but that’s preferable to pretending we live in a world of mythical unicorns.

[Gemini523]

A lot of food for thought in that piece. Why do people feel the need to categorize everything around them? I really don't think that bisexuals can be measured using the study mentioned. If I am aroused by one type of porn over another, that does not mean I am not also exciting by the reverse in real life. On a personal level, I am happily married, and could never imagine myself ever quitting heterosex with my mate, and I am comfortable with who I am. We fantasize with each other, she encourages the bi- side of me to come out, and at the same time, she never fears to lose me to "the other team." She was the one who first labelled me bi, I did not really know there was an inbetween. The more I learn though, and the more comfortable I have gotten with what I am, the more sure I am that am bi; never to lose the hetero side, and born with an accompanying desire to experience another man. Which by the way, this site has had a lot to do with.

[arana]

This article disturbs me because I hate so called "studies" on people for these types of labeling purposes. One way or the other it will put more stereotypes on a group of people that already have a hard enough time dealing with a confusing situation.
I also don't understand the 50/50 rule. If you prefer one type more but are sexually aroused by the other also, you don't count because you aren't attracted to both sexes equally? When does the label for that type person come out? I'm going to have to get some more labeling tape.
The statement that men who are straight but occassionally have gay sex because they are restricted by circumstances such as prisons was very insulting. There are quite a few men at this site that don't want to cuddle with another male like they would a woman, but they still like to play with another man's penis now and then. I don't think they all got that way because they were in prison or stuck out on a submarine somewhere. Even if you did something once because of circumstances, you don't keep doing it unless you like it.
When are we going to see the studies on straight people and the differences there? I think there are a lot more interesting things to find within that realm than this. :2cents:

[billy_campbell]

To paraphrase John Lennon: "Imagine a world with no labels”, better yet imagine a world where there were no studies.

Oh well, the article states: “Unsurprisingly, the straight men were aroused by the images of women. Also unsurprisingly, the gay men were aroused by the images of men. And what aroused the men who called themselves bisexual? Three-fourths of them were aroused only by the images of men; one-fourth of them were aroused only by the images of women; and none of them were aroused by the images of both men and women.”

Both images of men and women arouse me or to put it more bluntly I like both pussy and dick, so what does that make me?

[smokey]

If we weren't so attached to duality, this/that black/white gay/straight etc. I think that you would find that there are actually fewer gay people (self described) and possibly fewer straights as well....but since people who chose not to chose "threaten" both straights and gays, the pressure to be one or the other is immense. I know it was on me. Somehow it didn't work on me though, I embraced my bisexuality in my late teens/early twenties, but others don't have it so easy.

[2ferinindy]

The study leaves more questions than it answers for me. For instance did the pictures in the study just show men and women considered attractive, or sexually explicit shots? The results could change depending on what type of pics were used. Also, as the study stated "unsurprisingly" in how it's results turned out. It is a fact (proven by another study) :rolleyes: that studies frequently follow their predicted outcome. I have real doubts about the validity of this particular study and the author of the article is clearly biased.

All I have to do to see my husband's orientation is go check the history on his computer. I'll find pics of big boobies, and pics of men with big cocks. If that isn't bi, what is?

[Nisse]

Quote: When are we going to see the studies on straight people and the differences there? I think there are a lot more interesting things to find within that realm than this.

I´d like to find out if there are any other nylonosexuals like me in the world, and if the myth about the non-nylonosexual is true. But a real bi-nylonosexual must be 100% 50/50 aroused when he sees a woman IN nylons, but also when NOT in nylons. So if a man who sees a naked woman in nylons and doesn´t get aroused, then he is definetly not a nylonosexual. And to be sure of the results, the lying nylonosexual should be covered in nylonsocks and then jerked off by hands dressed in various nylonsocks, but if he still doesn´t get aroused, then there are no nylonsocks in the world, but only the idea of nylonsocks.
No I´m just joking, sorry.
But still I think there is some truth in that, that there are people who identify as bisexual because they don´t want to go all the way as homosexuals, and also some who use bisexuality as a stepping stone.

Nisse.

[Driver 8]

This "study" doesn't deserve the name - the "researcher" has a long history of problems with GLBT people (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/bisexuality-study-nyt-gives-prominence.html), and even if he didn't, it's plain junk science.

[arana]

This "study" doesn't deserve the name - the "researcher" has a long history of problems with GLBT people (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/bisexuality-study-nyt-gives-prominence.html), and even if he didn't, it's plain junk science.

The link states that Michael Bailey was in question for past works and had to step down as chairman of the psychology dept. He was linked to a racist, neo-eugenics movement called the Human Biodiversity Institute. But that was for the original paper the article was written about. I cannot get over this man saying he was not anti gay but thought it was a parents right to abort a fetus if they had a way of showing it would be gay and they wanted a straight child. Anyway I digress....This article, if I am reading it correctly (and that's a big IF), is Dale Carpenters views of it and his own opinions of bisexuals.


Clearly there are men who call themselves bisexual, whether for political reasons or fetishistic reasons or because they simply aren’t yet able to accept that they’re gay.
Our goal should be to free this last group from the identity prison of bisexuality, not to build higher walls around them in the service of political correctness. We may not like that the world is divided into sheep and goats, but that’s preferable to pretending we live in a world of mythical unicorns.

This opinion is true for those who honestly are afraid of being considered gay but there still are many who enjoy both sexes and shouldn't be discarded as being undecisive or in hiding. Unfortunately many researchers taint their findings to benefit their own agenda's or malicious causes. It's a shame so many listen to these so called facts.

[Jerseyduo]

It seems to me its also lumping two major categories together: sexual/gender orientation, and sexual preference.

Orientation would be a compelling force on one's life. One would be driven to a certain perspective/desire, and the fulfilling affects physical, emotional, and spiritual. If one is oriented a certain way, that person's own self would drive him or her toward a certain action.

Preference indicates a choice, that it is something the person "chooses" to do or not to do. Preference of gender interaction could even be as superficial as the choice to interact with a tiny butt, or a bbw.

To ignore this difference and lump people's responses based on porn is ridiculous. I'm more likely to get turned on by any two people kissing passionately than by any two combined just banging away.

[Driver 8]

This article, if I am reading it correctly (and that's a big IF), is Dale Carpenters views of it and his own opinions of bisexuals.


Thing is, Carpenter seems to me to be wholeheartedly agreeing with the study itself:


And what aroused the men who called themselves bisexual? Three-fourths of them were aroused only by the images of men; one-fourth of them were aroused only by the images of women; and none of them were aroused by the images of both men and women. That is, their arousal patterns were indistinguishable from either the gay or straight men. In the memorable headline of the New York Times, the “bisexual” men in the study were either “Straight, Gay, or Lying.”

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force was predictably “stunned.” The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, never missing a chance to promote a dull conformity of language, called the Times headline itself “derogatory.”

The findings are consistent with past studies of bisexual arousal and sexual behavior.
The criticisms of the study have been underwhelming.

And, ultimately, I think it's the legitimacy given Bailey's study that's the problem, more than one bigoted editorial columnist in one city. Ever since the Times ran the original story, Bailey's work has been pointed to as official proof that bisexuals don't exist. Seems to me that the biggest harm is done by presenting Bailey's "results" as facts and letting a shoddy piece of non-science trump the real research that's been done - because it confirms people's prejudices, not because it's objective fact.

BTW, the National Gay/Lesbian Task Force also rebutted the alleged science in the study (http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/NYTBisexualityFactSheet.pdf).

[Cid87]

Why don't they use more effective tests? Instead of visual stimuli (which is overrated), why not test the real thing. If they want accurate results they need real tests, I don't mean full frontal sex but anything that can create sexual excitement. A gay man should not be excited by kissing a woman, a straight man should not be excited by kissing a man, lesbians hould not... etc.

[darkeyes]

Wot a bloody tosser. Arrogant, self serving and prejudice oozing from every orifice. Its not often i get worked up to this degree about crap but in this instance think a few words are in order!

I believe, though without any evidence other than my own stupid opinion that no one is either gay or straight but we are all sexual human beings, and that in any given set of circumstances shall stray with whoever we feel we need at any moment in time, male or female. I may be talking through my arse but its just gut feeling not something which I can say for certain. Its merely how I see and feel about sexuality per se. We are creatures of our genes, of our social conditioning, our upbringing, of religion or otherwise, of a myriad of complex factors, and yes our reaction to all of those. Sexuality is just a small part of that. Our prejudices and our wants derive from these many different sources. I do not and will not decry someone for his or her sexuality because whatever they profess it to be just is. Even though we know that in so many cases it just isnt. I am a sexual creature but call myself bisexual because its an easy label to identify with people I love and care about, who get a raw deal from people who should know better. God knows we have been decried and denounced by the so called gay and straight communities because of it. Not all of course because within those communities there are so many who respect what I am and others like me and have no problem with it. However studies so called and incredibly nutty articles which profess that we must be one thing or other do no service to anyone in any community, even if they exist in the form the writer seems to believe.

Am unable to say about men, but when it comes to images of men and women turning me on or otherwise, I am quite happy to say that I think the image of a woman is far more of a turn on than that of a man. Especially when having to gaze upon pictures of male organs. Not very attractive. But that is to me. No one else. I would never be so arrogant as to claim we should all feel that way or do. However, give me a real one close to hand as it were and we are talking about a whole new ball game (one way of putting it). Whether that is pheremones or not I cant say, but there is no doubt one in the hand is certainly worth two in the book! And in the flesh looks so much more attractive. And when it comes to images of pussy, very often I am afraid that turns me off. But here again, close by, well what can I say. Yummie? Yea, thats the word. So it seems to me the article is a right load of cobblers which any self respecting journalist or researcher would do well with keeping quiet about. I am not in favour of censorship but really, sometimes some things should never see the light of day because they do more harm than good and reinforce prejudices people have died to try and erradicate.

In the end, I love people, even though it seems so many do not love themselves. I am a human being with sexual needs which I will fulfill as I see fit, and really need no label to describe that. Sad that we must use them. I suppose though thats how they tie us down when the reaction comes, as one day it surely will, and once again non-heterosexuality is forced back into the closet because of a hypocritical society's need to have us all conform to the so called norm. I am not convinced that this article is not written with that in mind and as a further wee push to ensure that day comes.

[allbimyself]

Not to mention the very basic flaw in using visual stimuli -- that which stimulates one person does not necessarily stimulate another of the same gender and sexual orientation.

As a bi man I can tell you that on any given day they might have identified me as gay or straight depending on my mood but also on what images they chose to show me. Hell, show me the right images and they might think i'm totally frigid. OTOH, let me pick the images to show me and you'd definitely know I'm bi.

[unBilievable]

I think that's a bit silly.

For me, at least, pictures or a video clip alone only take me so far, and it depends on my mood.

Sometimes I'll look at pictures of men or women and it'll get me excited. I'm normally already feeling a little meow before that, and it's enough to start working the little naughty buttons in me and get my mind going.

The other half of the time I'll think the person is beautiful, and sexually attractive, and enjoy looking at the picture, but it won't get me hard.

It's often like that in real life when I'm just walking around and see someone who strikes me as really cute. I kind of get captivated by them, and love to take them in, and I know how much fun it would be to be naughty with them, but that alone doesn't cause me to physically get hard. I think it's because getting aroused for me has do to with more than just that. Their general body plays a big part, yeah, but also what they're like, how they hold themselves, their eyes, how they talk, smile, the vibe I get from them. What the level of intimacy feels like. It's a mixture of things like that that gets me excited. And of course when you're actually flirting and teasing, and getting down to things, then I'm definately getting meow :p

You don't really get to drink all that in when watching explicit things, and even the physical things you can see, I don't really feel the intimacy myself. I'm more just watching someone elses.

Just looking on only takes me so far, and it can fluctuate so much with how I'm feeling, so I really think that's a bad way to fully test someones sexuality. Especially if you're calling it definative.

Still, even if I'm not aroused at that level, I'm still interested, and like what I'm seeing. There's just a few things missing for me to really feel like it's my experience, and to trigger what turns me on.

If I were to take a test like that, chances are I'd be one of the ones who didn't show any change with either. Being in a lab with a device to measure my reactions isn't my idea of comfortable, and being a bit shy, I wouldn't really be able to let myself go.

I do think though that I'm a bit more sexually attracted to men, and it's easier for just a picture or movie of them to get me excited. So maybe the material over men in a certain segment would be enough to excite me, and the one with women wouldn't hit quite the same peak. Then again, it could turn out the complete other way. But the results of the study would just means that: what I saw for one was enough to get me excited, and the other video just wasn't enough to take me there. And that's all that you can really take that for, not as a real judge to sexual interests. What mood I was in, who was in the video, and what they were doing would tilt me in different ways.

Pictures and videos are still a far step away from true contact, and the real experience, with the feelings, the tastes, the intimacy, and all of that. Taking that out of a study on sexuality seems to take so much of the meat of it away.

Another note about the study, about 1/3 of the men tested showed no reactions. According to the definative manner in which this study takes the arousal, they'd have to conclude that these individuals were not sexually aroused at all by men or women. The people pulled all identified as being attracted to either women or men, and of course, both. Was that third lying, and do 1/3 of all men really don't find anything attractive?

Or maybe they were just not shown the right thing to push their buttons the right way?

I think looking at that the way of the study is to go after the first conclusion.

I'm sorry if this is a bit long. This is my first post on here, so I had a bit on my mind I wanted to share :p

On one last note though, sexuality is a bit different for everyone, and wherever someone falls is fine with me. I don't really get why so many people get so worked up about any side of the spectrum, for if someone is straight, gay, or bi. There seems to be people who attack from all the sides. It's pretty sad to me.

[jasforjas]

I recall when this first came out – and being all a bit - :eek:
But I stopped and thought about this some more, lets say he is correct there are no bisexuals.

So what am I going to do about that – let me tell you – I am going to ph my b/f tell him I love him, put some gay porn on the video for my wife and I to watch then go to bed with her and make love to her. :tong:

Because that’s how my life is no study however well done and what ever it might conclude makes any difference to the facts of my life, for me its important not to let the words other people use separate me from the wondeful reality of my life

:flag3:

[Driver 8]

I think that's a bit silly.
Another note about the study, about 1/3 of the men tested showed no reactions.


Personally - if my highly scientific equipment didn't work with a third of my subjects, I'd conclude it was broken and postpone my study until it was fixed!


Because that’s how my life is no study however well done and what ever it might conclude makes any difference to the facts of my life, for me its important not to let the words other people use separate me from the wondeful reality of my life

I could not agree more.

[bigregory]

Damm i guess im not bi.
Now i need to flip a coin to see if im hetro or gay.
Or better yet, put on some porn.Whatever gets me going first will be the way i need to live my life.
What a crock of shit.
I do like the name bisexual,because i am one.
I fly my own flag :flag3:

[PeterH]

It's an interesting viewpoint, but I don't feel it is true.
I believe I have one scientific arguments, also my personal experience, and some ideas about why people are bi.
scientific: I do seem to remember, though a study in which one of the studies that was done that compared brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals. In one of those studies, bisexuals were also included. It turned out that gay men had a part of the brain that was slightly bigger than heterosexual men, where bi men were inbetween. I don't remember the name of the study, or the person who did it. It might have been a professor Schwaab, who did one of the two original studies on this subject.

personal: I am definitely not gay, never haven been (NB: I think being bi is different from being gay) - I have been in love with women too much and too deeply.
I've had some very close friendships with men through the years. The closest of these turned out to be with men whom I know to be gay or bi.
I actually started finding out that I was bi when I had a relationship with a girl and found that the feelings I felt for here were not at all different from those in the close friendships I felt before.

explanation: So, I cannot possibly believe that bisexuals don't exist.
So how come that some people are gay, some straight, and some inbetween?
My theory is that sexuality comes a big complex of biologically determined factors. whether these are genetic or not, i have no idea. I would assume that for most people these factors point mostly to a gay identity, others to a hetero identity. For some however, (I suppose most who read this), these factors are mixed.

Conclusion: If there is anything that sexual studies have shown, it is that sexuality is not black and white, but rather a gray area with most people near the black or white, but some inbetween. Most people have the body of a men or the body of a woman, a few are intersexed. Most peole feel themselves to be a man, or a woman, some feel mixed, etc, etc. In the light of all these new findings, it would actually look rather strange if there were not at least some people who feel attracted to both men and women.
So, in conclusion, I think that it is silly to believe in the monosexual dichotomy. It is what I did over the past 20 years (I feel attracted to women, so I must be straight and cannot possibly be gay) and IT DIDN'T WORK! I like men, but I'm not gay, I like women, but I'm not straight, I'm simply not monosexual, I'm bi (and feeling comfortable with it at last, hurray!).

[rupertbare]

Well, I have a bit of a science background and a "sample" of 101 split into three groups gives even less weight than the average Cosmetics ad on TV to prove that their latest "anti-wrinkle" cream works.

It sounds highly suspicious research.

A study done worldwide (in the 1990's but over a 20 year period), and involving UN agencies, using 100,000's of people from all ethnic backgrounds found that female homosexuality was about 1% and male homosexuality about 3%. Bi-sexual women accounted for 2% and the same was true for men.

Not sure what point I'm trying to make, but on questions of human sexuality it is important to have as large a sample as possible.

So I guess I'm a "two percenter".

Rupe, UK. :)