The science of bisexuality

[PeterH]

In some previous threads, people have expressed the idea that science can help towards more social acceptance of bisexuality.
Although it may not convince everybody (there will always be hardliners), it can help. The voice of science is very powerful in both the courts and in government. People do change their minds sometimes, when they are better informed and believe the source of the information. So if we want things to change, answering some of the science questions could be very helpful.

subject of this thread
I would like this thread to be an opportunity for everybody to post on the scientific questions they'd like to like science to answer, as well as anything that is related to the answers to those questions, including results of research that has already been done, methodologies, ideas for polls etc.


some of my own ideas:

My ideas are related to the needs of bisexuals. Relate to the idea that perhaps a monogamous relationship is a bit like a pair of shoes that doesn't quite fit, an analogy suggested by bibiologist in her thread on our needs. This analogy seemed to ring true with several posters.
To explain: say that one of your feet is a size 6, and the other a size 7. You might decide to buy a pair of size 7, but that doesn't fit. Ok, you say, i'll change to size six, but that pair doesn't fit either. So neither a pair 6, nor a pair 7 helps you. This might be a good analogy for being a bisexual. You might try a monogamous relationship with a man, but this doesn't quite fit. then you try a woman, but this relationship doesn't quite seem to fit either.
An important consequence of this seems to be that we as bisexuals do not quite feel at ease in a monogamous relationship. For us it might be a form of half celibacy. This half celibacy can lead to bad effects on physical and mental health.Is this true?


Is it true that monogomy causes stress for people who are bisexuals?

To answer this question, it would be a good idea to look at the actual emotions that bi's experience if they are monogamous in straight, or a gay relationship, or are poly, or live celibate. One then could compare these with a survey done on reference groups (say monks, who are celibate, and gay and straight mono couples)


Is it true that the a monogamous lifestyle does not quite fit us?

To answer this question, i think it is perhaps an idea to look at the physical and emotional desires we have and compare them with the straight stereotype. My supposition would be that these are mixed for us bisexuals. Physically, one can think for example of the desire to penetrate, or be penetrated, desire for bodyparts, and others (suggestions?) From an emotional point of view, one can look at the typical gender roles that people like to play: Asking out, or being asked out, for example.
I am wondering if perhaps some of us are looking for a very particalur fit: A man or a woman, who in some ways behaves in a way that is more typical for a member of the opposite sex? These ideas could also easily be tested by doing a survey among bi straight and gay people to see where their attractions lie and which roles they like to play, and be played to.

These are just some ideas for questions.
I look forward to your contributions,

Peter

[meteast chick]

Well...this is going to sound like I'm contradicting myself...
I feel very at ease with my monogomous relationship, but yes, I feel somewhat stressed due to being bisexual. I feel that there's a part of me that's not quite whole.

It's a tricky situation to be in, but then again, sometimes I can be tricky too!!!

[BiBiologist]

Peter,
Some very good ideas and issues to think about. You've posed some questions that are hard for some of us to think about, let alone having any answers. I like your adjustment to the shoe analogy. I have certainly had to take a step back to say it doesn't fit all bisexuals. But I have also been thinking of the many posts of the mongamous folks who seem to think it has no merit at all, who have put forth that all bisexuals have the capacity to be happy in monogamous relationships. I really believe there are those whose particular bisexual characteristics make it dang near, if not totally impossible to happily maintain one lifelong monogamous heterosexual relationship without the pull on their opposite side becoming unbearable. Everyone, I guess, will just have to stumble along and figure out whether their needs, or wants, are overwhelming. Because of pressures from the outside world, a bisexual who falls off the monogamy wagon will be looked at the way the straight world currently looks at bisexuals. But I hope in this community we can at least entertain the idea that a married bi who feels half celibate without a secondary same-sex relationship may truly be hurting and not just looking to cheat. Some have said it's no different than a man married to a small-breasted woman wanting a big-breasted one. But I think that's more like a chocoholic being deprived of chocolate, whereas for some bi's being deprived of a same-sex relationship is more like being deprived of proper nutrition all their lives. Not starving, but after awhile it takes its toll on one's health. It may be hard to prove these nuances with scientific research, but progress in understanding ourselves and each other is always worth the effort.

I think for this community, there are some polls that would be helpful, which I posted in Drew's poll suggestion thread. I'll have to go look for that so I can remember what I said.
sam

[Newmexicanman]

To me being bisexual is not something I chose to do, I think I came with that "pair of shoes" and they fit very well.

I told my wife about my orientation and she claimed to be non-judgmental about it, but it spelled the end of our relationship in the end. (She is moving out in a week from now).

If I remarry it will be to a woman who more than accepts my sexuality. She will need to accept that I need a relationship with a man that has a sexual component.

I have a friend (female) who does accept me as a bisexual male, and who has recently come out to me as a bisexual female. She told me of her desire to have sex with a mutual female friend. Curiously enough, the other female friend makes come-ons to her quite often and she has never seemed to pick up on them. My friend said that she told her husband about her desires and that her husband as much as told her he wanted no more to do with her. And here I thought men generally got off on women doing it with other women.

My friend and I have had sex from time to time and she has expressed a desire to have a sexual encounter with another male/female couple. This is the very first time such a thing has happened to me. Men often want three or more way encounters, and my ex-wife really loved extra-marital sex, but I have never met a woman that said she wanted to see me giving another guy head or me getting it from another man. This must be the kind of shoe-fit you meant. She had sex with her husband just so that when she was with me there would be cum present, and when I went down on her she came alomost immediately and with incredible intensity.

You know, I think you ARE right... It is whether or not partners are a fit or not.

[BiBiologist]

Found my poll ideas:
How about, how do you feel about being bisexual?

1) I am completely happy, my bisexuality has never caused me any problems and I wouldn't change if I could.

2) I am happy most of the time and would not change.

3) I am unhappy with my bisexual orientation and it has caused me some problems, but I still wouldn't change.

4) I am unhappy with my bisexual orientation and wish I were heterosexual.

5) I am unhappy with my bisexual orientation and wish I were homosexual.


Here's another one:

I am a bisexual who is:
1) Married (heterosexual)
2) In a committed heterosexual relationship
3) In a committed homosexual relationship
4) Was married, now unattached
5) Never married, currently unattached
6) Married (homosexual)--for those civilized states and nations.

I think another layer could be added in this last one but it would probably be too cumbersome for this site. Somehow putting these polls together, or asking whether those in married/committed relationships (either same or opposite sex) are happy or unhappy. I'm not aware of any studies that have looked at this scientifically. If anyone has seen anything like this, let me know!

[Driver 8]

I'd be a little nervous about a survey asking bisexuals if they're happy or not. I can just see the headlines - "Most bisexuals unhappy."

I don't have the link handy (but will post from home if there's interest.) A few years back, some psychologists did a survey correlating depression to sexual orientation. They found that gays and lesbians were more depressed than heterosexuals ... but bisexuals were more depressed than gays and lesbians.

Now, you might look at that and say "Maybe bisexuals face prejudice from the mainstream, but don't have the same kind of community support from their peers that gays and lesbians do." Or you might say "Maybe there are more counselors who can deal with gay and lesbian issues than bisexual issues."

But no! The researchers said:

- That gay and lesbian depression statistics weren't so bad when you excluded the bisexuals. (Those damn bisexuals, dragging the gays and lesbians down!)

- That bisexuals would be less depressed WHEN WE ADMITTED WE WERE REALLY GAY AND LESBIAN.

This sort of thing leaves me very cynical about scientific research on bisexuality. Even if the data itself is good, the conclusions can be shaped by the researchers' bias ... and, of course, the reports in the mainstream media may be biased as well.

[PeterH]

Hi everybody,

what a quick response so soon. thank you for posting

Meteastchick, Newmexicanman: You both indicate that you feel there is something missing in a mono relationship. Could you explain what that is (if you feel comfortable enough to do so)?
In my case, for example, i seem to prefer to be asked out in a relationship. I've been wondering if that has to do with shyness, or with my bisexuality.
There are more things, but they do become rather personal at a certain stage.
What is it in the one sex that you miss when in a relationship with a member of the other?

Sam: I liked your polls and wonder if they should be combined. That might indicate whether people who live in countries with more social acceptance (gay marriage allowed) feel more comfortable with their identity. I would be very interested in the results. I think these poll results could be used as an argument in getting funding for research projects.

What are the major reasearch questions you would like to see asked? In the end, I would like to have a very clear research agenda. Something like:


This is what we want to achieve in society (acceptance of non-monogamy in bisexuals?)
This is what we want to have as scientific arguments (being monogamous is basically demanding people to be half celibate, at least for some bi's?)
These are the research questions that need to be answered (....).

Driver: That's a great research report! Yes personal biases do influence researcher's views. But can be remedied with more research. The only thing you need to prove is that bi's are different from gays and lesbians and from hetero's (e.g. biologically). Could you post a reference for that research? (Names of authors, journal, etc?). i'm definitely going to look for a paper on research I seem to remember on the biological basis of bisexuality (see below).

Additional input
I was wondering if anyone is aware of any scientist currently working on bisexuality? I know that there is a research group on homosexuality studies in the Netherlands. Perhaps I should look further into that.
If there are professionals already working on this field, they should at some stage be made aware of the discussions going on here.

Also I think we need proof of a biological basis for bisexuality. Maybe we even need that first and foremost. I seem to remember that some scientist did include bisexual people in a study on brain comparisons of gay and straight people. (do you remember this kind of study?) i remember that this type of research was carried out by an american, who was gay, and by a Dutchman. I know the name of the Dutchman (Schwaab). Anyone remember the American's name?

[Driver 8]

I was at a book signing by the author of Bi America last year, and he mentioned a longitudinal survey of bisexuals. It found that most people continued to identify as bisexual over a period of years, regardless of whether they were in relationships with same-sex or opposite-sex partners. He pointed out (and this is another good point) that studies like this exist, but they don't get much publicity, because they don't fit with the stereotype that bisexuality is a phase. (Whereas poorly done research that does fit the stereotypes can get uncritical coverage from the New York Times ...)

I'll drop him a note and ask for the cites.

[Newmexicanman]

I think - to answer your question PeterH - that what I have problems with in a mono relationship is the diversity of the two sexes.

With a man there is the ability to give him pleasure and get it at the same time by taking him orally or anally, and there is the distinctive smell and feel of a man. Obviously there is more. The kind of conversation, the diversity of interests, the way men can think with each other.

With a woman much of the same can be said sexually. There is the softness, that female wetness, how a woman looks and feels so differently to another man. The way women think is so mysterious in so many ways, and finding common ground can be erotic and pleasurable in and of itself.

So said, there are times when a penis is needed, and times a vagina is needed. And there are times a man is needed, and times a woman is needed.

They are so different to each other. So incredibly enticing. And....... I guess.... there is the forbidden fruit...

Do I need elucidate?

[Driver 8]

Could you post a reference for that research? (Names of authors, journal, etc?).

Here's a link to a PDF of the article. (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/180/5/423?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=bisexuals&searchid=1140574268123_8991&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance)

Sexual orientation and mental health: results from a community survey of young and middle-aged adults

Anthony F. Form, Alisa E. Korten, Bryan Rodgers, Patricia A. Jacomb and Helen Christensen

British Journal of Psychiatry (2002) 180: 423-427

Here are some quotes from the article:

Although homosexuals tend to have poorer mental health than heterosexuals, the extent of their mental health problems may have been exaggerated by previous studies that grouped them with bisexuals.

It is possible that bisexual identification becomes less common with age as uncertainties about sexual orientation become resolved.

(News reports covering the survey were quicker to say that bisexuals' problems are solved when they come out as gay or lesbian; not quite what the authors said, but, I think, a typical example of distortion in second-hand sources.)

[PeterH]

Since yesterday, I've come up with some scientific info, that I thought would be useful to put up here. I've also come up with a set of questions to find the perfect pair of shoes (or decide that we long for two pairs)

The researchers who compared the brain of gay and straight people were:
D.F. Swaab, Paula S. Allen
I haven't found out yet if one of them indeed included bisexuals in their study

Science info from the web
Only about 2% of the adult population is bisexual: This depends upon your definition of the term "bisexual". "Research carried out at the Harvard School of Public Health, USA in 1994 found that 20.8% of the men and 17.8% of the women studied admitted to same-sex sexual attraction/behavior at some time in their lives." Quoted in Ref. 2 No data is available that predicts the percentage of the population who consider themselves to be bisexual, but have not acted on those feelings.
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/bisexuality.htm

Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 1996+ (Green Library Stacks HQ1.J6) "a progressive, interdisciplinary journal devoted to the exchange of the latest knowledge and ideas about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals."
Source: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/kkerns/gays.html


Finding the perfect shoe
I have been thinking about the Klein grid which I never felt happy with it myself. Instead, I've been thinking about a list of questions that help us define the shoe that would fit us best
I have thought of some questions that might help people define their ideal shoe (or pair of shoes).
These questions concern the favourite traits that we're looking for in a partner. And i think the answer to these questions can make us understand a bit better what it is that makes us bisexual. Thinking about the answers to these questions was very useful for me, as well as rather disturbing. I would be very interested in feedback on how useful this is, or in additional questions that should be asked.
So here they are:

What is the body type of your ideal partner (s)?
slender frame - heavy frame - like both
muscular - not muscular - like both
has penis / vagina / like both

What describes your ideal partner best?
asks me out - likes to be asked out - no strong preference
likes my romantic presents - likes to give me romantic presents - no strong preference
kisses me - likes to be kissed by me - no strong preference
proposes to me - likes to be proposed - no strong preference
usually penetrates me during sex - I usually penetrate him / her - no strong preference

How would your ideal partner preferebly behave:
does technical jobs around the house - cooks and does dishes
brings most of the money in - spends more time taking care of children

I realize that these last two are very stereotypical, but that's a bit of the point here. And no, I won't add the option does both :)

Thinking about the above questions, are you looking for different traits in a male, than in a female partner?

(I'm almost thinking that 'finding the perfect shoe' might be a complete subject and needs a new thread)

[BiBiologist]

This is really impressive! It's good to have these sources for those who are interested in learning more. I agree with Driver 8 on the interpretations I've seen on sexual orientation research. It seems especially true when the researchers are heterosexual. Makes you wonder how dyslexics finally got "normal" people to believe they were really seeing words differently. The suicide study I found I think had some better conclusions, which included societal pressures as reasons behind depression. The article is from www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/suicide.html. If we can get these all together, it would be great to have a compendium of bisexual research done so far, and anything in the works. I recently met a "sexologist" at a local university who is also bisexual, and I will certainly pick her brain for what she knows about it. Also have some stuff I looked up a while back, and as soon as I sort that out I'll get it posted.

Also, about preferences, I've found my preferences are for rugged, masculine men (but with a sensitive side) and feminine (but strong) women. I'd prefer taller (man taller than me, woman slightly shorter or same height), trimmer, athletic bodies in both, but that's not as important to me as clicking intellectually and emotionally. A lot of people have said they can love both sexes equally, but I haven't found that for myself. I have had a theory that sexual attraction is sort of a component system. I am more physically/sexually attracted to men and emotionally attracted to women, who I fall in love with more easily. I have not seen this shift very much throughout my adult life. So, Driver 8, I also disagreed with that quote about bisexuals identifying as gay or lesbian as they get older. I've only in the last few years identified as bisexual as I understood more about it, and also noticed several people on the site at 50+ newly identifying as bisexual. There's another study--ask people about their orientation, then educate them on bisexuality and ask them again a year later. It would be interesting to see what the age demographic would show.

About polls, I'm thinking a new methodology might be needed. It would be great if we could email a poll to all members of the site, instead of people voting at will. There are thousands of members on the site, but usually only a couple hundred vote. What do you think?

[Driver 8]

Once again I hop into a complex discussion only to make a quick point and then hop out again.

I do find it interesting that the depression study found a higher percentage of younger people than older people identifying as bi; however, I don't think any conclusion can be drawn from that without looking at how people's orientation changes during their lives. As a small anecdotal example, I've been told by older gays and lesbians that they had some degree of attraction to members of the same sex, but that because their attraction to members of the same sex was stronger - or even just because it was there! - they'd concluded they were gay or lesbian.

So I'd hypothesize that you see a higher percentage of younger people identifying as bi because it's possible for them; older people with the same Kinsey rating might have felt they had to choose between being straight or being gay or lesbian. However, that's not the only interpretation of the data, and you'd just have to do more research to say.

[BiBiologist]

Yes, and you made me think that the problem is that the researchers are making the interpretation of why bi's are depressed, instead of asking them. You're right about the "are you happy" poll being interpreted as "all bi's are depressed." We could eliminate that by asking what experiences or thoughts bi's have that cause stress in their lives. It would make for a much more complex study, but let's shoot high if we want it to be meaningful--more meaningful than what is already out there.

[PeterH]

Driver: I think the difference in older / younger people identifying as bi would be because it's hard do decide that you are, and more accepted these days. I only found out at 27, and really decided at 35. and the most important reason for that is that I'm a shy bottom (yes, I've said it, took me a while). That means it takes a lot of time to find a girl where it even gets so far that you realize what it is that you're wanting sexually. I think the longitudinal study is excellent proof that bisexuality is not a transient think (it might be for some).

Sam: About the interpretation: there is a big general problem with how newspapers describe scientific conclusions. This study was about depression. What could be concluded from it is that bi's are more often depressed than gays/lesbians. In a paper, it's perfectly valid for the authors to speculate why they are more depressed. but that can never be a conclusion. However, if reporters read such a speculation, they easily assume that it's a conclusion. Big mistake! Unfortunately it happens all the time.
Also, I agree with you that we should try to aim high and try to have a good poll. It might even be a good idea to discuss a poll with some researchers. They might be interested in the results and could help with the formulation of the poll questions. I myself have no scientific experience whatsoever with setting up polls. Do you?

Note on reading science papers: If you read a paper, you can take the results section as facts. the conclusions as conclusions that the researchers believe in, but the discussion section will contain speculation. It is actually expected that it does. Scientists are supposed to give explanations for their findings. It would have been better if the scientists had talked to some bisexuals to discuss their interpretations, but it's not a grave scientiffic mistake. Unfortunately you do see much wishful thinking in discussion sections.

[Driver 8]

About polls, I'm thinking a new methodology might be needed. It would be great if we could email a poll to all members of the site, instead of people voting at will. There are thousands of members on the site, but usually only a couple hundred vote. What do you think?
I suspect we'd still see selection bias - not everyone would vote, for one thing, and we might not be able to generalize from those who did to those who didn't. Furthermore, I have some doubts that the members of this site are a random sampling.

Then again, I'm not sure how best to get a random sampling, given how unwilling many people are to discuss the subject; and even a non-random sample can open up some interesting areas.

[JohnnyV]

On a much cheesier note, here is a recent scientific study posted on gay.com:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?date=2006/02/22/1&from=homepage

The commentary posted by gay respondents is interesting.

About the article posted in this thread, I can imagine that fewer old people would identify as bisexuals, probably because they develop a force of habit and they eventually lose the stamina to resist society's pressure for them to conform to one or the other category.

A sad truth about life is that if you stop resisting categorization and conform to other people's labels, you will be happier. You have less conflict and don't have to explain yourself all the time. And you aren't interrogated as often.

I think that as you get older, usually, you get more practical. By the time you're thirty, you're worried about your career and you want to settle down in a community. It's hard to be settled down if your public identity is bisexual, since both gays and straights will view you with suspicion. So more often than not, people who are openly bisexual when they are in their early 20s begin to pick one sexuality or the other so that they can function without a lot of interference in their lives.

The reality that society forces you to choose is probably related to both difficult statistics -- namely, that fewer people identify as bisexuals by their forties, and that bisexuals are more likely to have mental problems than homosexuals. Many people included in "homosexuals" are in a sense bisexuals who have made a mature and pragmatic decision not to struggle against the inevitable, and they have committed themselves to one community. That community, and the reciprocated support their community gives them, probably offers a stabilizing influence that bisexuals can't get because they are not fully accepted by any one group.

In terms of people's physical proclivities, I still defer to the Kinsey studies of 1948 and 1953. They had a large sample and the studies were conducted in a kind of "innocent age," during which respondents had not been bombarded with the political messages tied to sexual orientation. They had a fear of being identified as homosexual, but because homosexuality wasn't widely discussed, they could answer the surveys without feeling like they entered into a mine field. Kinsey's study found that 46% of males experience some attraction to other men at some point in their lives.

But Kinsey also found that sexuality fluxed over time. At the age of 15, over 20% of males were primarily attracted to males, but by the age of 45, that percentage had dropped to roughly 3%. About 46% of males had some attraction to the same sex in their lifetimes.

The numbers themselves are not as important as what Kinsey's findings implied. There was a hard core of people who were probably gay by birth, roughly 3-5% of the male population (a little different for females.) Then there was a large number of people who went back and forth over time.

Kinsey's study does seem to indicate, along with the 2002 article posted here, that bisexuality decreases over time, to only about 6-7% by people's forties (by then 90% is strictly heterosexual and 3-4% is strictly gay.)

But the 2002 study is harder to interpret because the two generations they are comparing came of age in totally different times. People born in the early 1980s who came of age in the 1990s were more likely to be open about their sexual attractions to the same sex very early -- but they may be more likely by their thirties and forties to have to retract their coming-out stories as their gayness fades and they drift more toward heterosexuality (what I suspect.) The large numbers of bisexuals among younger people could simply be the effect of that generation growing up with greater openness about same-sex love; twenty years earlier, those "bisexuals" would have simply been "straight" their whole lives.

The older group, in their 40s, would have come of age in the 1970s. Things weren't as open (despite our myths from Boogie Nights and other films) so the people who did acknowledge their same-sex desires were probably those who had no other choice. The bisexuals were probably more likely to just identify as straight and ride out their temptations in search of easy integration with a community.

My guess, in conclusion, is that many people who identify as bisexual in their twenties will not identify that way in their forties, for multiple reasons I mentioned above. But probably most of them will end up straight, not gay. The statement that this is a process of "resolving" their internal conflicts is not totally fair. If we lived in a culture that didn't create conflicts in people by sending them conflicting messages, there wouldn't be anything to resolve.

J

[JohnnyV]

One last note:

It would end up being much too long if I tried to address it here, but my scholarship expertise is in ancient cultures, and I still believe that longitudinal studies over time (LONG stretches of time) are more valuable than studies conducted in a modern time with obvious agendas pressuring the conclusions.

Most of my studies into ancient cultures do seem to corroborate what BiBiologist and Peter H have hinted at. That is to say, most ancient cultures institutionalized different relationships in people's lives. Men had one kind of erotic relationship with other males, and a specific kind of erotic relationship with females. For some cultures, like the Romans, the taboo against being the bottom in anal sex led to stigmatizing some forms of homoeroticism, but it was still a largely erotic bond that males shared in mentoring situations, for example.

As an antiquity scholar, I have always argued that bisexuality is the most ancient and most pervasive sexual orientation of the three. If you want any more info on it, feel free to message me, but I fear rambling too much on these boards and boring everyone!!!

J :male: :male:

[rumple4skin]

I do not know if sexuality is biological or not. A large part of me does not care. I think it would be interesting to know but I do not think it would make much of a difference to me personally. I am not the scholar of antiquity that JohnnyV is but I have looked into it a little bit. I think that social pressure has alot to do with sexuality. JohnnyV I am going to take you up on your offer to message you. I agree that studies over a long period of time would reveal much more than a modern study that only gives us a snapshot that is affected by the current social view of things. The point for me is to find happiness within myself. I do not think that finding that sexuality is a gene or not will make much difference in that regard. I will still have to come to terms with it in whatever way I feel works best for me. I know this must sound very naive but I think if there were NO social pressure on sexuality more people would be bisexual.

[macca08]

ok here goes my first ever post.... the ancient Greeks through to the romans lead what we now call Bisexual live's, so these ancient people seemingly had no preferance for male or female.

Only in the more modern era does bisexualty seem to be a problem.

[PeterH]

Hi Driver, JohnnyV, Rumple4skin, Macca,

thanks for posting.

Driver: I agree with the risk of the poll being selective. However, i also think that since this site allows people to be anonymous here, perhaps the poll on this site would be less selective than anyn other poll. Even in science, you have to make do with what you can get. Apart from this, If we want to do some serious science with a poll, we could discuss this issue with an excperienced scientist. Perhaps there is someone here who knows how to set up a scientific poll. i'd say, once we have an idea of a poll to put on, we can start a thread about the idea, making people aware of that one is coming, and see if there is someone here who could help us.

Johnny: keep right on rambling, that's what the forum's for. I people don't want to read it, they can skip it. I for one think you made a valuable contribution. If it gets very long, you could perhaps submit a summary, or refer to a site?

Rumple4skin: I'm glad you feel so comfortable with your bisexuality that you feel no need for the science. I remember from when the Swaab and Allen research came out, that it was welcomed by a large part of the gay and lesbian community, because saying that's biological is saying that it's who you are. Funnily enough, the Allen research was more welcomed, because she's lesbian (if I'm thinking of the right person. Driver, can you confirm this?), while the research by Swaab (who is traight) caught some negative response, because people thought wanted to make homosexuality a disease. I think this has also helped towards more social acceptance.

Macca: thank you for plucking up the courage to contribute here. I look forward to more of your posts,

Peter

[PeterH]

Found some interesting stuff on the internet:

A gay gene? How about 54 of them? - Science - research on genetic aspects of sexual identity - Brief Article
Advocate, The, Nov 25, 2003 by Benjamin Ryan

Are gay and transgendered people born that way? A new study from the University of California, Los Angeles, supports the argument that sexual identity--and perhaps sexual orientation--may be "hardwired." In a study of mice, researchers identified 54 genes that functioned differently in male and female brains before the appearance of sex hormones.

The study's lead author, Eric Vilain, MD, said his finding "paves the way to find out which genetic factors cause gender identity issues." While the study has not identified a "gay gene," he said, it may aid in determining sexual identity's genetic origins, particularly in future studies. The study may also aid physicians in identifying the sex of infants born with ambiguous genitalia.

Source: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_Nov_25/ai_111850622#continue

There is supposed to be more info on this article on the source site, but I had difficulty finding it.
I'd say that if sexual identity is determined by so many genes, it wouldn't be strange if some are switched to 'gay' and others to 'straight'. And what would the result of that be?
BTW: I did a search on the term 'bisexual' on this site and it came up with 1915 hits!!! (not all science papers)

[BiBiologist]

Peter,
I couldn't get into the rest of the article, but it sounds like that is what I was thinking of as a "component system" for sexual orientation. I do believe sexuality and gender identification is controlled by numerous genes. Yes, I've written and made some interpretations myself in scientific papers (hopefully good ones!), and there is no such thing as a "definitive" study, with conclusions that write themselves, but the closer you get to asking the right questions, the closer you get to that Holy Grail. I don't have any experience setting up polls, but think maybe my university friend does.

Johnny, I think your theories on bisexuality in the different generations makes a lot of sense. I'm hoping if we asked the right questions a poll might give us some more insight on that too.
sam

[sensualforyou]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I got the jist of it.

Last year or or the year before, I posted a question to my spiritual polyamorous Yahoo group as to whether bi people are more likely to be polyamorous b/c it would just seem natural & make everything that much easier.

I'm not talking swinging or being polysexual, as it seems most bi people on this site look mainly for sex & IMO, love has nothing to do with sex.

I'm talking about love & long term relationships & I found it sooo hard to find bi people who actually believe in love & relationships, I started my own Bi People who Love Yahoo group...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BiPeoplewhoLove/

I do have several bi people who are releaved to find this group since they also don't believe in just sex, sex & more sex. That is NOT why they are bi.

Anyway, my point is, if people would only open their minds & work on their fears about having to be in a mono relationship b/c everyone tells them they have to, I think bi people would feel much more comfortable.

I'm not polyamorous b/c I'm bi, but it definitely helps when & if I find someone of each gender I want to have a relationship with.

All the best :)


Michelle

[JohnnyV]

Hi all,

A few people sent me private messages and asked me to post about some cases of antiquity on the public forum. Sorry if this gets too long! I just don't want to neglect anybody's points of curiosity. I'll adress the specific questions I got one by one, in a few subsequent messages. Maybe if I break them up they won't be as overwhelming. :bigrin:

J

[JohnnyV]

One person had a question about pre-Christian sexual practices in the Hebrew tradition. Combining extant literature with archaeological archives, we find some interesting trends about sexual identity --

--In Genesis 9, the famous curse of Ham occurs because one of Noah's sons sees his father's genitals, while the other two brothers cover their father's nakedness. Though a little out of context, the passage seems to follow the Bible's injunctions elsewhere about constraints on sexual conduct. But the injunction against sons seeing their fathers naked oddly mirrors the Mosaic/Akkadian rules against sons seeing their *mothers* naked. No rule seems to have been passed down preventing daughters from seeing their mothers naked. This is a small point, but it does indicate that very early in the Hebrew scriptures, an awareness exists of male-male eroticism and an incest taboo has already evolved in order to prevent that form of eroticism from corrupting familial relationships that are meant to be non-sexual, similar to the way that mother-son taboos evolved.

-- I would like to point out that the smoking-gun line in the Levitical line, used to argue against homosexuality, is "a man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman." In reading ancient scripts, it is crucial not to leave out any phrase or its implications. Inclusion of the phrase "as a woman," would imply that the ancient Hebrews used the law not to forbid any male-male intimacy, but to keep it from interfering with necessary relationships between men and women.

--Countless other passages in the Old Testament hint that sexual relationships between men existed but that men were also expected to maintain sexual relationships with women. The two relationships were expected, moreover, to be *simultaneous and different.* For instance, Jacob has four wives but it is with a man, who later reveals himself as an angel, that Jacob "wrestles all night" and later receives a promise that he will be extremely fertile. In many ancient cultures, including the Greeks and other Middle Eastern ones, wrestling was done naked and the gymnastic training process included ritualized sexual activity between men, sometimes including an exchange of semen between older men and younger men, so that the older men could be infused with youthful vigor, and so that the younger man could be inspired with the wisdom that comes with age. Probably the best record of this practice can be found directly in the Symposium and the Phaedrus by Plato, for those who want to read further. While Athens differed from Israel, in the Bronze Age, historians have realized that there was far more cultural exchange than previously thought, and we have good reason to suspect that much of what was recorded in Hebrew reflects social realities shared across many cultures. Therefore it makes cultural sense that Jacob's famous wrestling with the angel mimicked common homo-social rituals designed to fortify the fertility and manliness of both men involved.

[JohnnyV]

So much of antiquity reveals a pervasive male anxiety about fertility, that we should put male-male rituals in context. It was often believed that males could pass on their virile fertility to each other. The least common way was exchange of semen. More often the practical pedagogy of physical training or mentorship, infused with a healthy amount of sexual contact, enabled experienced males to inject their masculine sexual powers into younger men or peers. There are also cases of men sharing women, as a way of passing their procreative forces to each other. This may explain the widespread presence of priestesses who were also prostitutes at shrines devoted to fertility deities (in the Old Testament, there are coded references to this in [1] the story of Judah and Tamar, [2] the constant metaphor of "harlotry" to represent pagan religions, and [3] both Samson and David "giving their wives" temporarily to other men. In Samson's case, he never fathers a child; while in David's case, the woman in question, Michal, remains infertile.)

--Throughout the Old Testament, there are examples of males who have relationships bordering on the erotic, yet they are expected not to sacrifice their relationships with women for them. The friendship of Jonathan and David, which someone sent me a question about, is a good case. It's true that Jonathan and David get naked and kiss -- but that's not the important part of their semi-erotic relationshnip. David has several wives, but when David makes a vow to Jonathan in 1 Samuel, not to allow their bloodlines ever to be separated, he says that he loves Jonathan with a love that surpasses that of man and woman. This is not a declaration that he's gay, nor a claim that he's bisexual; it is a statement that he has different types of erotic love, one that he engages in with women, and another that he reserves for males. This vow results in David later adopting Jonathan's crippled son in 2 Samuel.

Because David is married to Jonathan's sister Michal, his impromptu marriage-like vow to Jonathan is not without familial legitimacy. Their bloodlines would be intertwined forever, through Michal's children -- BUT David later grows angry with Michal and refuses to father children by her, making it necessary for an adoption to uphold his vow to Jonathan -- thereby explaining the adoption of Jonathan's son. The relationship between the two men again emphasizes the fact that physical contact of an affectionate nature between two men was culturally acceptable, as a way to solidify political or collegial loyalty. It was okay for men to be physically close to one another and to enjoy it; in fact, much of antiquity encouraged such relationships as necessary for social survival. And expectations grew out of such erotic rituals; in this case, David had to honor his oath to a man he loved by providing for offspring, in the absence of the sister's fertility to further cement their bond.

[JohnnyV]

I haven't answered other people's questions, but I have to go to sleep now! Tomorrow I'll post some of my research about Rome to explain a few points that folks asked me about.

Sorry to hog the board!

Love,
J

[PeterH]

Hi Johnny,

keep on posting, you write some very interesting stuff!
I was quite convinced by some of your examples, but I was wondering about that example of Jacob wrestling.
Wouldn't it be diffcult to actually prove that 'wrestling' indeed meant this type of wrestling? Also, I seem to remember that it is believed that the first bit of the bible (incl this bit) was written during one of the exiles. Was is at that time that this type of fights took place in Greece?

[Diddybidaddy]

Johnny V:
I admire and appreciate your solid erudition and scholarship. However, are you aware at all, that should our (relatively) male homophobic world return to the mores of ancient antiquity, where the ancient Greek idealization of the beautiful male body or superior male mind would leave women? We are just a hair's breadth away already from that situation. Imagine if your average str8 guy realized that it was socially sanctioned and/or no longer taboo to fuck another man. Do you realize what that might imply for society? Women would effectively become handmaidens. Why have sex with a woman? You can have better sex and blowjobs with a fellow. All you need a woman for it to breed. And then you own her anyway. --- It would be a really scary and oppressive society. So before we have a (justifiable) return to the ancient Greek custom of adoration of all that's male, --- and hey, man, I LIKE cock, we as a society need to equal the balance of power. When there are more female figures of power or access to power for women -- and not just women but anyone who doesn't belong to the dominant discourse -- then women will be calling out for men to line up and be their sexual slaves in MMF three-ways where she calls the shots.... And some men might like that!

[BiBiologist]

Johnny and daddy,
All good points! I noticed Johnny, you have a lot of information there about male-male relations. Don't know if you dealt with this anywhere before, but how do you feel about the sacred feminine ideals put forth in "The DaVinci Code"? Also, as an ecologist, the human behavior you talk about in antiquity you speak of more in social terms, but these would likely have had biological drivers. Wouldn't homosexual activity have been acceptable to those who felt a need for it, but possibly became taboo because of the majority (being heterosexuals) were put off by it? There are plenty of instances in nature of homosexual activity among animals, and also those animals displaying homosexual traits (and other traits that are different from the species majority) being attacked within their species. It is an instinctive reaction that may result in purifying the gene pool of the species. This could be a biological basis for homophobia. Humans still run on basic instincts, but intelligence and social development becomes intertwined with those instincts. The antiquity and biblical examples you give seem to support both the following of basic instincts and the human intelligence and social development that may over-ride them. Science can be an intellectual influence that can define those instincts, but still requires our sense of social justice to temper our animalistic need to attack those who are different. Maybe scientific, social and religious perspective can all jibe very well. They seem to be working well together in this thread!

[JohnnyV]

PeterH: Yes, most scholars believe that at least three authors and one redactor formed the source materials from which Genesis was compiled, and that the compilation took place in Babylon, probably in the 500s BC, before the Jews were allowed to return to Israel.

Hellenistic culture did not permeate that region until the Macedonian empire conquered the Middle East, in the 300s BC. But there are many aspects of Babylonian courtier life that resembled the ways that the Greek city-states also organized male mentorship rituals. The practice of wrestling was widespread. And the Biblical passage involving Jacob is not particularly described as an Olympic sport. It says that Jacob was asleep on the side of a road, and awoken by a stranger, and they wrestled for hours and hours until the dawn. The "wrestling" would be difficult to construe as strictly sportmanship. It also ends with the other man grasping Jacob's thigh and "blessing" him.

I don't think the episode of Jacob can be likened too closely to the Athenian or Spartan gymnasium system, but the fragments of the story that exist do point to details implying a fertility ritual involving erotic male-male contact, especially because after the wrestling, Jacob receives the promise of incredible fertility (he had dozens of children by his four wives.)

More this evening. I have pulled out some passages from the articles I've published, some years ago, and will post them. They can clarify a lot of this.

Bidaddy -- I will talk more about Greek and Roman customs a little later today. I don't think they erase women at all, but rather, they carve out separate spheres for same-sex and opposite-sex love, adn they give each its respectful place. This goes along nicely with Peter H and BiBiologist, who both believe that there is something innately human about wanting sexual relationships with both genders. More later.

I have to run off to work!

Love,
J

[JohnnyV]

BioBiol,

Yes, thanks, I'm glad science and religion are working together so nicely, too. I'll talk a little more about this later tonight. My students await me!

Love,
J

[BiBiologist]

Just came across a website listing a bunch of recent books on the science of sexual orientation at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D031225377X/scottbidstrupshoA/102-9398105-2485766

Several of the books have to do with animal homosexual behavior, which I had to look up after I posted earlier today. One of the books documents incidences of homo- and bisexuality among 450 different species. I also was intrigued by the tribadism website Peter posted on another thread, especially as practiced by Bonobos. It has the same kinds of social aspects as Johnny mentions for ancient human cultures. I haven't been able to find documentation of animals attacking others of their own species because of homosexual behavior, but seems I've seen that somwhere. I will keep looking. This is relatively new research, and I'm not sure how much the scientific community has weighed in on it yet.

[BiBiologist]

The book is Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl (1999), and the website on tribadism Peter posted is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribadism.

[JohnnyV]

BioBiologist & others,

Thanks for the links. I hope I can get to them this weekend. About the female side of all this, I recalled some important information to fill the gap left by my previous posts. Then I have some other possible clues about the evolution of homophobia in cultural history.

About Dan Brown's DaVinci Code: His idea that ancient religions treasured feminine sexual power is apt and corroborated by a lot of anthropological studies, especially the types that have looked beyond the textual evidence remaining from antiquity, since so much textual evidence was exclusively controlled by the literate elite, or edited by monotheistic redactors with moral agendas. I am simply hesitant to turn the ancient practices of sexualized female priesthoods into an implication that a more feminist golden age predated the onset of sexism. As bidaddy has noted, a great deal of female exploitation was worked into the ancient religious rituals around sex, even if they seem more erotically flexible from our uptight, 21st-century, post-Puritan eyes.

Ancient Greeks and Romans had huge religious festivals in which women left male society en masse for days at a time, and rumors always abounded that they were having sex together while the men were gone. The Thesmophoria in Greece and the Bona Dea in Rome were such examples. The penalty for a man entering the festival was death. We'll never know if these festivals were really orgies or not, since women left behind no records, and they were all sworn to secrecy. Both festivals I just mentioned dealt with fertility. An obscure reference also appears in Judges 11 of the Hebrew Bible, describing four days when the women of Israel left their homes in remembrance of the sacrificed daughter of Jephthah.

I will post two separate messages containing excerpts from relevant articles I wrote on this topic over the years. But before I do, I remembered one example of female-female bonding that is very interesting. If you read the book of Ruth, in the Old Testament, pay close attention to the relationship between Ruth and her widowed mother-in-law Naomi. The text refers to certain rituals that seemed to exist, that created powerful homosocial bonds between widowed women -- such as gleaning fields together, traveling in female groups, and teaching each other the tricks of seduction and fertility.

Ruth and Naomi develop an affectionate bond that defies the legalized boundaries of familial oaths, both because Ruth is a foreigner, and because Naomi has "no more sons to offer her" in marriage. Naomi insists on sending Ruth away, but Ruth responds with these beautiful lines (my favorite Old Testament verses):

Entreat me not to leave you
or to return from following you,
for where you go I will go,
and where you lodge I will lodge.
Your people will be my people,
and your God my God,
where you die I will die,
and there I will be buried.
May the Lord do so to me and more also,
if death parts me from you. (Ruth 1:16-17)

I actually asked the priest who officiated my wedding to read these lines from Ruth for our ceremony in the late 1990s, because they were the strongest lines in the Old Testament to express the my concept of love within the obligations of marriage. The priest refused, because he thought it inappropriate to use lines that expressed the love between two women.

The fact that Ruth would be threatening to a priest's view of heterosexual marriage may give us some clues about the text's bisexual power! The book of Ruth, along with the other books named after women (Esther and Judith) were the only Biblical books missing from the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the late 1940s. My priest was not the only cleric who got worried about the gender politics of Ruth's love for Naomi, apparently.

J

[JohnnyV]

Dear BiBiologist and Others,

It is hard to say where homophobia came from, especially since bisexuality had existed so long and so broadly in earliest human societies. After extensive study in ancient sexuality, I've come up with the theory that it's mostly mechanical. That is to say, homophobia began as a fear of anal sex between men, and gradually it became generalized and served as a metaphor for ALL male-male sexuality, then eventually even female-female sexuality.

--The male-male taboo that seems to exist earliest and most consistently is against anal sex. Among the ancient Greeks, pottery and artwork seems to indicate that older men practiced inter-crural sex with boys, where they rubbed their penis between the younger mens' thighs but avoided sodomizing them.

Similarly, Roman law allowed husbands to sodomize non-Roman citizens, especially slaves, and Roman husbands were allowed to caress or (in some cases) fellate one another -- but it was a punishable offense for Roman citizens to allow other men to enter them anally. In Roman speeches, for instance, it is not necessarily inflammatory to reveal that men like Julius Caesar advanced their careers by snuggling with men in power; but it WAS a serious accusation to imply that a man "played the wife" or adopted a passive role in anal intercourse. Some have suggested that the preoccupation with anal sex grew out of hygenic concerns. I argue that actually the problem that anal sex posed was its potential to replace vaginal sex; it threatened to confuse or undermine the male's obligation to carry on fertile marriages. Hence the fact that both the Levitical code and St. Paul call it an abomination "for a man to lie with a man THE WAY HE LIES WITH A WOMAN." Male-male sexuality could not blossom so much that it interfered with fertility, over which vaginal sex had exclusive rights.

The people who argue that homosexuality was forbidden in the ancient world are 100% correct -- in all these cultures of antiquity, males could not allow their erotic connections to other men to distract themselves from their need for fertility in their marriages to women. With wives they fulfilled certain sexual needs: namely, the promise of future generations, the masculine satisfaction of providing for dependents, and the need for a safe and protective domestic sphere untouched by war and rivalry. With other males they fulfilled other sexual needs: namely, the drive for rehearsing physical combat, the guarantee of martial alliances and mutual assistance in times of need, shared virile fertility, and brotherhood with perks.

Much of ancient history (while not as extensive about women's sex) supports BiBiologist's claim that men and women fulfill two different needs for her. That was indeed the most longstanding practice in world cultures until "sodomy" in the broadest sense was coined and outlawed by the medieval Church. (A good book on this topic is THE INVENTION OF SODOMY, from 1998, I think.) But even the outlawing of sodomy only managed to focus anti-gay law on anal sex or other specific bodily practices. If you read "On Friendship" by Michel de Montaigne from around 1600, you can get a snapshot of Renaissance views on sexuality. Montaigne can decry the "Grecian vice" of men sodomizing boys, while celebrating a passionate love for his friend, Etienne, that he says exceeds his love of women (WITHOUT erasing his love of women).

Most of history, like our biological record (I think), testifies to the utter hopelessness of categorizing people's sexuality as gay or straight. It also testifies, unfortunately, to the unlikely success of "bisexuality" meaning you have monogamous relationships with a man sometimes, and a woman at others. The ubiquitous bisexuality of world history usually implies, on the contrary, that you have loving relationships with men and women simultaneously, both involving sexual contact, but each retaining very different roles in your life.

Then again, I believe in free will. What our genes tell us and what we do will always be very different things. I hope this helps a little BiBiologist. I will check out your links and then I'll sit back and see what other ideas come to the surface.

Love,
J

[Mimi]

PeterH, you have sparked quite an intellectual discussion, which I truly appreciate. I am a grad student in clinical psychology who is doing my dissertation, so perhaps I am one of those budding researchers.

One thing I've noticed as a problem in research on bisexuality is that it's not research on "bisexual people" per se but on "people who identify as bisexual." There is a big difference. Not all people who have attractions to men and women (or genderless attractions) actually publically identify as such. Then there is behavior. Some researchers only look at sexual behavior, such as "men who have sex with men and women." Like the men on the "down low" who have GFs but then privately have sex with men. People are labeling them as "bisexual" but that's just their behavior -- we don't know if they have underlying romantic/sexual attractions to both genders. So therein lies the difference between attraction, behavior, and self-identification.

Another point I wanted to make is that only recently has research started looking at internalized prejudice in the bisexual population. There has been work done on internalized homophobia/heterosexism among gay/lesbian communities and how that can lead to alcoholism, eating disorders, depression, risky sexual behavior, etc. But bisexual people not only face internalized heterosexism from straight people, they also face "internalized homosexism" from gay/lesbian people. The effects of this is only starting to be looked at scientifically.

I'll point you to 2 articles that look at internalized prejudice in bisexual people:

(1) Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., & Mickey, R. M. (2004). Brothers and sisters of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals as a demographic comparison group: An innovative research methodology to examine social change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 283-301.

This study compared straight siblings with gay/lesbian/bisexual-identified siblings and found that bisexual-identified respondents reported more psychological distress than lesbian- and gay-identified men, who reported more distress than heterosexuals. They found that bisexual-identified respondents who experienced negativity from both the lesbian/gay and heterosexual communities reported the most distress.

(2) The Jorm, Korten, Rodgers, Jacomb, and Christensen (2002) study which was mentioned earlier -- it does have some questionable interpretations, but I think that the actual factual results speak volumes: They found that bisexual people had more current adverse life events, greater childhood adversity, less positive support from family, more negative support from friends, and higher frequency of financial problems.

Needless to say, more bi-positive research is needed!!

:soapbox:

[PeterH]

Diddybidaddy, i'm still thinking about the concerns you raise. I would to go into them later. Perhaps somebody else would as well.

Johnny and Sam, thanks again for your posts.

Mimi, thank you for contributing to this thread and for your nice comments.


Needless to say, more bi-positive research is needed!!
:soapbox:
If you know where to get the money, I'll do the research!! :)

[Newmexicanman]

Positive research into bisexuality? As a man who identifies as bisexual, I believe some of the research that points to financial difficulties, problems with non-supportive friends, negative reactions from family etc, may be linked to people with identifiable problems in their sex drives, i.e. people with sex addictions of some sort that are basically into anything that moves. It is my belief that this group of people are more readily identified because of aberrant behaviors which bring them to the attention of some type of authority and, therefore, more open to becoming research "guinea pigs."

As for those who self-identify as bisexuals, whether male or female, factors which are likely to affect whether or not they "come out" are going to be the attitudes of family and friends, community attitudes and the size of the community, the religion, and even the occupational status of the bisexual person. Factors which are likely to affect an individual's ability to come to terms with their own sexuality, whether gay or bisexual, include their religious beliefs, family environment, and the individual's own insights and ability to reconcile these insights with their sexuality.

As to biology, we know about chromosomes, we know about estrogen and testosterone, and we know how shifts and variations in any of this will cause great variations in personality, temperament, and even attitudes in people. We also know that environmental factors play a role in how people may identify sexually. For instance, we know that children who grow up without positive male role models are more likely to identify as gay or lesbian, and we also know that sexual abuse in childhood has a correlation with how children are likely to identify sexually.

Basically, the factors that contribute to how we identify sexually are myriad. All research can hope to do is to pigeon hole a variety of identifiable factors and, hopefully, state that bisexuality is something normal in the human soecies and not some quirk of nature that will condemn all of us poor sad bisexuals to hell when the Reaper comes-a-calling!

[inthewoods]

This is a very interesting subject that I have been looking at, can science show why people are bisexual & gay or if it is a biological thing with some people. The more I look at research the more I believe that bisexual or gay is the way we are born.
The last bit of research I have been trying to find more about is "CHIMERISM". If developing fraternal twin embryos fuse together to become one embryo. This creates a child with two full sets of genes, these people are called "Chimera".
A chimera has two seperate DNA's, this is found in people that are intersex or what was called hermaphrodite. It is being found that some people are actually their own twin. We know that some people are both physically male and female because we have living intersexuals.
Is it possible for humans to have a male and female brain? Science has showed that chimerism is real, so far I have only found info that the people that are found chimera's have either 2 male DNA's or 2 female DNA's meaning that their mother was going to have twin girls or twin boys but something went wrong and the embryos fused together.
What if the would be twins were one male and one female and the two embryos fused together. You would have a person that would have male DNA and female DNA. So could this be why many of us are bisexual or gay? I believe that being GLBT is not something that we decide to be. If you take a look at how many things take place at the moment of conception you would see that several things must take place in proper order to have a male or female. Many things can and do go wrong.
I have been told that I am just trying to find an excuse for wanting sex with guys. It's not a matter of want but a true feeling that I have had all my life. I had no knowledge of what gay or bisexual was, never heard those words spoken as I grew up. But I had sexual desires for boys the same way I did for the girls when I was young and I know many of you did so to. I truely believe that we are what we are due to what took place as we started to developed from the very start.
Some researchers say that chimerism is extremely rare but I believe it may be more common than these people say because DNA testing is rare in it's self. The only real way to know if someone is a chimera is to test all organs, blood, hair, skin and the brain for DNA and this is rarely done so the numbers of chimera's is widely unknown. Plus to go and have this kind of DNA testing done would cost thousands of $$$$$.
If anyone has found a lot of research on "CHIMERISM" I sure would like to know about it. Thanks and have a wonderful day.

[PeterH]

Positive research into bisexuality? As a man who identifies as bisexual, I believe some of the research that points to financial difficulties, problems with non-supportive friends, negative reactions from family etc, may be linked to people with identifiable problems in their sex drives, i.e. people with sex addictions of some sort that are basically into anything that moves. It is my belief that this group of people are more readily identified because of aberrant behaviors which bring them to the attention of some type of authority and, therefore, more open to becoming research "guinea pigs."

Hi Newmex, you posted some very interesting viewpoints and cited some interesting research. Could you post some references of that here???? I'd be very interested.
BTW, it seems you're not that positive about the usefulness of research. I'm sorry to hear that. As for me, I think I would not fall into your category of 'likely test subjects', but I have had my share of depression, not too positive reaction from my mom and some financial hardship (none too bad). I'm def not into anything that moves, if only because I'd prefer people to make a move on me :).

I agree that there might be a host of social factors involved in sexual identity, including childhood situations. But what if it is for a large part genetic. Then it is likely that the altered genes are inherited from the parents, who then must have had altered genes themselves. Might this not be a cause for their odd behaviour or absence as parents??


Basically, the factors that contribute to how we identify sexually are myriad. All research can hope to do is to pigeon hole a variety of identifiable factors and, hopefully, state that bisexuality is something normal in the human soecies and not some quirk of nature that will condemn all of us poor sad bisexuals to hell when the Reaper comes-a-calling!

Newmex, i agree, that what we can expect from science is that bisexuality "is something normal..." (has biological causes)

Whether a quirk of nature turns us to hell... that's not up to any human to judge and it's advisable to remind the judges of that. 'Don't judge, so that you will not be judged yourself' is a quote they probably know.
I personally think there's nothing wrong with quirks of nature. If evolution theorists are right (which I believe they are), we as human are the result of a very long series of quirks!!!
And if God created us, well than he created the the quirks too, or at least the possibility for them to occur ...

In the woods: I found your quote of chimerism research very interesting (could you post a reference?) and agree it might explain bisexuality. i personally have another explanation, which i am working on and hope to bring out in the open some time soon. I have been thinking very much along biological lines, like you do, but would like to study alternative explanations as well first.

[inthewoods]

PetrH
There realy is not much info on chimerism. I typed in the word and found most info dealing with intersexuals. I have sent emails to some science research sites and was not able to get to much info. Most info on chimerism is dealing with animals and these dumb asses that are playing God with genetics.
Chimerism is what is used to explain why we see homosexual behavior in animals such as dogs and cows. Hopefuly in the future there will be more published info on chimerism.

[BiBiologist]

Newmexman and Mimi,
I agree, the more "out" people are usually (or have been) the ones who get studied! They also set the public opinion about GLBT people. All social groups seem to be judged by their most visible and extreme members. I myself have an excellent credit rating, excellent parents (still married after over 50yrs!) who are very loving, supportive, and close to my sister and me (my sister is a lesbian). I am generally stable and successful in life, and usually a nice person to be around :) . Point being, the cause of my bisexuality is not due to childhood or other life traumas. Being bisexual has caused trauma in my life that I know I would not otherwise have encountered. Not to say that others don't have a different story, but it leaves no doubt in my mind that non-heterosexual orientations can exist without being brought on by negative environmental influences. I believe you don't have to be traumatized to be bisexual, but if you are bisexual, you are likely to experience stress due to your orientation at some time in your life. I think those who have had stable upbringings and influences are more likely to be able to weather those stresses without going bonkers. But I'd rather we tried to find ways to reduce those stresses for future generations, and I think pointing this kind of stuff out (with science bolstering positive psycho-social and religious philosophies) will do that.

Johnny,
Thanks for the female texts! So, do you think people "invented" sexual acts other than reproductive intercourse and practiced them uninhibited until someone thought, "that doesn't seem clean", or other sort of old-wive's-tale reasons that kept getting perpetuated to form the taboo? I still think the acts were performed by our ancestors, i.e., the apes and pre-primates, and the taboos are reactionary rather than thought out.

inthewoods,
The chimerism is interesting, but I don't feel intuitively that it would occur frequently enough to account for all glbt people, or even all bi's. Possibly more of an explanation for transexuals. But you are right about things going on in the womb that could account for variations in orientation. That is one theory for left-handedness aside from pure genetics.
sam

[JohnnyV]

Johnny,
Thanks for the female texts! So, do you think people "invented" sexual acts other than reproductive intercourse and practiced them uninhibited until someone thought, "that doesn't seem clean", or other sort of old-wive's-tale reasons that kept getting perpetuated to form the taboo? I still think the acts were performed by our ancestors, i.e., the apes and pre-primates, and the taboos are reactionary rather than thought out.


Sam,

My biological/cultural thoughts on anal sex taboos below. I know less about biology, so forgive me if I'm being stupid.

Much of male-male eroticism, I believe, actually contributes to fertility and therefore the propogation of one's bloodline. That is to say, people can rehearse sexual arousal, or learn what makes their bodies more stimulated and ready for intercourse, or condition themselves to being good at sex, through much of the erotic horseplay that happens naturally among people of the same sex. This probably has natural biological roots and cultural institutions encouraged it.

The urges for bodily contact are, I think, quite generalized and not gender-specific. As organisms we like feeling other bodies close to us; the very desire for contact is the most important genetic factor that predisposes us to procreate and causes us to pass on our genetic code. So prior to cultural conditioning, I think almost every human has an innate desire to feel other bodies close by. This can direct them to males or females, and progresses, through conditioning, from horseplay to more specific sex acts.

But since the human being's erotic drive is so generalized, I think it takes a certain amount of ritualized conditioning to get people focused on the single act that makes procreation possible: vaginal sex. To the extent that wrestling, genital stimulation, oral sex, and other forms of foreplay all heighten a person's sexual responsiveness, they can all "condition" a person to perform well in the act of vaginal sex itself, when it comes time for it to happen.

Having many kinds of sexual outlets does not necessarily detract from one's love of vaginal sex, since all outlets can potentially make a body more sensitive to pleasure and therefore eminently skilled at attaining an erection, or becoming moister through vaginal arousal, and therefore performing vaginal sex well. Because of the unique sensations of (1) feeling your penis inside a moist genital cavity, and (2) feeling a penis penetrate your vagina, most forms of foreplay can't actually *replace* vaginal sex.

But there is one exception, I think -- anal sex. If a male comes to like penetrating an anus too much, then I'm guessing that he may lose interest in vaginal sex -- or at least, if this is not biologically true, ancient cultures probably feared that it was true. Also, the perception probably developed, perhaps partly on actual observation, that women or males who liked being anally penetrated too much began to favor the stimulation to their prostate and lost interest in vaginal sex. Since cultures worried so much about fertility, the threat that anal sex posed to reproduction was probably the earliest reason for anal sex falling under serious taboos.

The Romans and Greeks both allowed for anal sex, but only within constrained limits. The people who were given the strictest limits about when and how they could engage in anal sex -- and who were told that they could only be the top! -- were not coincidentally husbands of fertile age.

So to answer your question, I don't really think hygiene was as much a concern for the ancient world, as was the worry about men being able to perform vaginal sex. The underlying concern was always fertility, which was extremely important to the ancient world. There is probably a mix of truth and falsehood in the idea that too much anal sex detracts from an individual's interest in vaginal sex. For the ancients, this was undoubtedly the biggest concern.

Keep in mind these are my half-baked theories and I am more than likely wrong!

Love,
J

[ErosUrge]

I don't see how adding my ideas to this post will affect anything else here. But I will attempt a few speculative thoughts all the same. I cannot by any means add anything here in a scholarly manner so will do so from just my feelings and loose knit perceptions and experiences through the years. I can only say that I've no idea about the genetic or biological ties to bisexuality and whether they're actual or not, or scientific. As far back as I can remember, I recall the incredible fascination with sensations coming from my sexual area and it did not matter how they were produced. It also seemed to come from somewhere else beyond the physical. Can't quite describe it now nor could I then. I simply did not question. As I got older from late childhood into adolescence, the same kind of sensations were happening only multiplied because of puberty I am certain. I didn't care whether male or female; I just knew they were there. As years unfolded, society and its dictates did its best to confine and to categorize those experiences. When first reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein I recognized the capacity to love several and to be attracted to several sexually. It seemed the goal was to achieve some kind of bliss or ecstasy without concern for gender whatsoever. And yet at the same time, to recognize that gender and to completely celebrate the beauty of it again regardless of which. Whether this thing is of choice or genetic is something that isn't important to me. I just know it exists in myself. I think it very wonderful to analyze and disect and research and contribute as everyone has here. It's wonderful to be able to be with you all here and to have you share so much with all of us. Thanks.

[PeterH]

Yahoo science of bi discussion group

I have found an internet discussion group about the science of bisexuality!
It seems to be reasonably active, has 44 members. I still have to check it out since I'm still awaiting membership approval. But intend to report on that later.
It is part of Yahoo groups, and you need to register with Yahoo (free) to become a group member. The link the group is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bi-BLIO/

[maslowstudent]

Peter had asked me to post these. If they are redundant to some of the other links, I apologize in advance.

------------------------------------------------
"Male offspring of rats subjected to stress from days 14 to 21 of pregnancy show a persistence of female behavioral potentials and an inability to exhibit normal male copulatory patterns in adulthood. Thus the processes involved in masculinization and defiminization appear to have been compromised in the male fetuses of stresses mothers. ... On the basis of the above observations, we propose that day 18 of gestation represents a distinct and critical point in the process of sexual differentiation of the fetal rat brain." (Ward IL, Weisz J (1980) Maternal stress alters plasma testosterone in fetal males. Science 207: 328-9)



http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html
Abstract: "Male rats were exposed to prenatal (i.e. before they were born) or postnatal (after they were born) stress, or both. The prenatal stressed males showed low levels of male copulatory behavior and high rates of female lordotic responding. Postnatal stress had no effect. The modifications are attributed to stress-mediated alterations in the ratio of adrenal to gonadal androgens during critical stages of sexual differentiation. Specifically, it appears that stress causes an increase in the weak adrenal androgen, androstendione, from the maternal fetal adrenal cortices, or both, and a concurrent decrease in the potent gonadal androgen, testosterone." (Parental Stress Feminizes and Demasculizes the Behavior of Males, Science, January 7, 1972 pp.83-84)

http://www.lemoyne.edu/OTRP/otrpresources/otrp_glb.html
Primate neurological sexual differentiation can be affected by four different interventions: (a) direct manipulation of androgen levels during gestation; (b) pharmacological blocking or augmentation of the effects of androgens; (c) exposure of the pregnant female to stress (which can depress androgen levels); (d) immune-system responses to androgens.

http://www.mbi.ufl.edu/~bjc/pdf/bjc01.23.06.pdf
Further evidence demonstrates a role for prenatal sex hormones which may influence the development of a
putative network of sexual-orientation-related neural substrates.

[Mimi]

maslowstudent wrote: "Male offspring of rats subjected to stress from days 14 to 21 of pregnancy show a persistence of female behavioral potentials and an inability to exhibit normal male copulatory patterns in adulthood. Thus the processes involved in masculinization and defiminization appear to have been compromised in the male fetuses of stresses mothers"

I would be a little wary about these kinds of findings that show that stress is somehow related to same-sex copulatory behaviors in rat because people might start generalizing this to humans and saying that gay/bi people are made due to pregnant mothers who are stressed. When they're trying to show a relationship between some kind of deficiency and gay/bi behavior, then I become cautious. Such was the thinking earlier in the 20th century that men became gay because of the overinvolved mother and the absent father. It paints being gay/bi as a result of bad parenting or other social problem, which just doesn't help.

Whenever researchers try to determine what makes people gay/bi, then I have to wonder what their intention is. Why do they want to know? If they do ever find that "gay/bi" gene, what will they do with it then?

[csrakate]

... I cannot by any means add anything here in a scholarly manner so will do so from just my feelings and loose knit perceptions and experiences through the years. .... When first reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein I recognized the capacity to love several and to be attracted to several sexually. It seemed the goal was to achieve some kind of bliss or ecstasy without concern for gender whatsoever. And yet at the same time, to recognize that gender and to completely celebrate the beauty of it again regardless of which. Whether this thing is of choice or genetic is something that isn't important to me. I just know it exists in myself..

ErosUrge,
Sorry for the edit but I just had to highlight the comments you made. What an insightful post!! Scholarly...maybe not, but the words and feelings you shared speak volumes. I totally get your point and to me, the subject needs no further research. It is about feelings and sometimes I think that we THINK too much when it comes to them. I guess I feel that to "research" something states that we are trying to justify the existence of something. Can't the proof that it exists purely rest on the fact that so many have these feelings?

Not trying to start up anything...I guess I just don't get it and I never will. Science and research has never been my thing. I guess it may be a character flaw, but I have always been one to trust feelings and instinct over theory.

Hugs,
Kate

[Quasar61]

I don't post things often here, mainly because I see so many replies that reflect so accurately my own thoughts. But in this case.......
A personal observation about "gay-ness" or "bi-ness" is that I firmly believe that males seek out male-to-male sex more often than is currently acknowledged.
These are men that do not perceive themselves as anything but straight, but are just out to "get their rocks off" or " have had a few beers and need some quick sex" or any other (apparently lame) excuse.
I know this from the popularity of adult theatres that show straight porn and have an (almost) exclusive male audience and it is understood that inside the walls of these places it is accepted to jerk off the stranger next to you, or to have oral or anal sex. The establishments also know this and freely offer condoms and lubricant. Outside of these places the real world hold sway and the guy is just a regular "straight" guy.
If "bi-ness" reduces with age and most of those are moving to heterosexual relationships, why is it that these types of places remain so popular with "straight" men?
Just for the record, I am in a monogamous hetero relationship where my wife knows about my bisexuality. She chooses not to be part of my need to play with other guys (very safely of course...).
I find myself becoming increasingly agitated with the world, where it is plainly obvious that everyone should be able to have a satisfying relationship with everyone/anyone else. But I guess there are a few too many "shoulds" in the world today.......
Oh, for the Hellenic Ideal to be just a natural part of our modern world....
I'll get off my soapbox now...

[maslowstudent]

I'm the first to admit I'm in over my head in this discussion. I'm not proposing any particular validity to these studies; I just found them interesting and, hopefully, on topic.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2627&ncid=2627&e=48&u=/space/20060224/sc_space/momsgeneticscouldproducegaysons

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050510_pheremones.html

[JohnnyV]

Hi all,

Since Peter H resurrected my old Religion thread :eek: I thought it would be okay to resurrect his old science thread ;) .

My simple question after re-reading all the comments on science (and on religion, actually) is this: why do we need to categorize and explaint everything so damned much?

Is it possible that religion and science, though they but heads, both share a fatal hostility to individual free will?

Or is it possible to have free will as individuals if we are concerned about universal principles (religion) or natural patterns (science) that are always aggregates far removed from who we are on the individual level?

:wacko: It seems to me that in the last year I've tried and tried to find some statistic or cultural precedent to justify who I am and what I do, but all I find are indications that I am (1) "unusual" (2) "unexplainable" and (3) possibly "naughty" :devil: .

Science and religion both seem to make me feel abnormal, so I'm ready to leave both behind for a while and just live in my body. Anybody else with me on this idea? What are your thoughts?

Love,
J :bibounce:

PS. A great line from Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals: the truly great man has the courage to rise above morals and discover his own sense of good and evil, which comes from him and not from outside of him....

[PeterH]

Hi all,

this thread seems to be developing a discussion about whether or not we want science at all, and whether or not science is good for us, as a bisexual community.
I would say that science in itself is supposed to be neutral, but especially in research on sensitive subjects, is susceptible to interpretations based on values that people have, so I am aware of the risks that science pose to the social acceptance of bisexuality. The solution to that would be that bisexuals study the science, and take an active stance in the scientific debate. This is something I am working on now, and that Mimi is already doing.

To go into what Johnny wrote:
" It seems to me that in the last year I've tried and tried to find some statistic or cultural precedent to justify who I am and what I do, but all I find are indications that I am (1) "unusual" (2) "unexplainable" and (3) possibly "naughty" .
Science and religion both seem to make me feel abnormal, so I'm ready to leave both behind for a while and just live in my body. Anybody else with me on this idea? What are your thoughts?"

Johnny, I agree with you that science would call bisexuality unusual (but not that unusual, if a theory i have and intend to get published is correct)
Then you say both science and religion make you feel abnormal.
Feeling abnormal is a different thing. Again, if my theory of bisexuality is correct, it is something that would be a result of generally accepted laws of nature.
More to the point: if you say bisexuality is abnormal, you're making a value judgement. Such judgements are inherently unscientific. One can call unusual abnormal, but it doesn't have to be called abnormal. If someone has an exceptional ability, a high IQ, a talent at sports, etc, that is unusual. Do we call it abnormal? No, we admire the unsualness of the talent.
The same case can be made about bisexuality. Is it unusual? probably yes. Is it abnormal? Not in my view. Most of us have accepted that it is normal that some people are gay. It is just as normal that some of us are bi. Some people still prefer to call it abnormal, but that is their choice.


Back to the general topic
So, I would say that science is not inherently threatening to bisexuals, I think it may prove to be beneficial. i think that when more is known about bisexuality, people will stop making judgenments based on prejudices, but on a real insight into what bisexuality actually is.
Do we need science in order to accept ourselves? I'd say no. But as I said at the start of this thread, it could help to make society more accepting, especially if bisexuals help in telling the story and make sure that people who publish nonsense stories based on ideologies and ignorance get counter pressure from a well informed source.

:soapbox: This is not just about science, it is about publicity as well, about who gets that publicity. If we don't speak up, somebody else will. The research is already being done. But who does it, and who explains the results, and what is their agenda? We have a chance here to influence how people think about us, and I think we should take it. We can remain closeted, not be helpful in scientific studies, and let others tell us who we are and what we should feel, or we can speak up, help people like Mimi to do their research, tell what we feel, give feedback on the interpretation of the results, and thus influence public opinion, or we can sit back and watch as others decide for us if we are perverts or not.
Perhaps you do not agree with me. perhaps you think I'm wrong, and you might be right. This is just me saying it, these are my views. But I feel this is an important topic, and I ask you to give it your time and energy and lend your helping hand. It is something that can be of immense help to others.

:eek: I see i'm ranting again. I'll save the rest of what I have to say for another time. This is not the time and place for it.

[JohnnyV]

Hi all,

Back to the general topic
So, I would say that science is not inherently threatening to bisexuals, I think it may prove to be beneficial. i think that when more is known about bisexuality, people will stop making judgenments based on prejudices, but on a real insight into what bisexuality actually is.
Do we need science in order to accept ourselves? I'd say no. But as I said at the start of this thread, it could help to make society more accepting, especially if bisexuals help in telling the story and make sure that people who publish nonsense stories based on ideologies and ignorance get counter pressure from a well informed source.


I apologize if I have implied that I am completely anti-science, or if you took what I wrote as a slight against your reasons for beginning a thread on science.

I did not mean to say that science is inherently threatening to bisexuals. I was simply saying that there is an aspect of individual free will that isn't always compatible with the scientific method. And I think that science, especially "clinical" sciences, are much more prone to value judgments than you are saying here.

Sorry if I put you on the defensive. I only meant to share my personal thoughts. I respect science, as well as religion, and wouldn't tell either to go away, but I am also confessing that religious and scientific thinking have both tended to make me feel abnormal or unexplainable, and those things do make me feel abnormal whether the studies intend it or not.

Love,
J

[Mimi]

JohnnyV wrote: "I respect science, as well as religion, and wouldn't tell either to go away, but I am also confessing that religious and scientific thinking have both tended to make me feel abnormal or unexplainable, and those things do make me feel abnormal whether the studies intend it or not."

Science is certainly not perfect, and that has been shown historically by the medical, anthropological, social, and psychological communities. People used to measure head circumference of Caucasian and Black people and then concluded with their "objective" evidence that Caucasians are smarter than Blacks. So certainly, supposed science can be used to further bigotry and oppression.

On the other hand, science, IN THE RIGHT HANDS, can be used to further tolerance and appreciation of human nature. That all depends on WHO is doing the science, HOW they're getting their data, and WHY they're doing the science. If there is "science" out there that makes you feel "unusual," "explainable," and "naughty," then you might want to look further into the study's validity. Who did the study (was it a radical-right group?)? How did they get their participants (are the participants all drug addicts or mentally ill?) and is it a representative sample? What was their data collection process (was it face-to-face interviews, or a short 2-question survey in a porn magazine?)? Let's be smart and critically-thinking consumers of research!!

But let's remind ourselves of the research out there that has done good for the sexually diverse community. Here are 2 big ones (for those of you bookworms out there):

Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31. This was a ground-breaking study in the 1950s which showed that nonclinical (i.e., not mentally ill) gay men are just as well adjusted as nonclinical straight men. This study helped remove the American Psychological Association's classification of homosexuality as a mental illness.

Fox, R. C. (1996). Bisexuality in perspective: A review of theory and research. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority, pp. 3-50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. For those of you who don't know, Ron Fox is a leader in research on bisexuality. Through his literature review he found no evidence of pathology in nonclinical samples of bisexual people. So Fox's work has helped to destigmatize bisexuality.

And as for religion, well, I could go on another rant about that. :rolleyes: But I'll stop here.... for now.

Mimi

[PeterH]

I apologize if I have implied that I am completely anti-science, or if you took what I wrote as a slight against your reasons for beginning a thread on science.

I did not mean to say that science is inherently threatening to bisexuals. I was simply saying that there is an aspect of individual free will that isn't always compatible with the scientific method. And I think that science, especially "clinical" sciences, are much more prone to value judgments than you are saying here.

Sorry if I put you on the defensive. I only meant to share my personal thoughts. I respect science, as well as religion, and wouldn't tell either to go away, but I am also confessing that religious and scientific thinking have both tended to make me feel abnormal or unexplainable, and those things do make me feel abnormal whether the studies intend it or not.

Love,
J

Hi Johnny,

I did not feel offended by what you wrote in any sense, and was not implying that you are against science. You posted some research yourself (for which I thank you), so that would have been a strange assumption. I did feel that some people who posted here are not necessarily happy with research on bisexuality, and I tried to give my reasons for thinking it is important.
I can accept your statement that some sciences are prone to value judgements. Mimi gave some excellent examples of that. There are others as well. In fact, that is one of the main reasons why I feel bisexuals should be involved in the research.
I am sorry that research is making you feel abnormal. I'm sure that some studies present homosexuality and bisexuality as abnomal. I think they are not. I wish there was something I could say to lessen that feeling. I can only say that unusual does not imply abnormal, and can be seen in a positive light too. What is considered normal depends on norms, and these norms vary from person to person.
What is it exactly that makes you feel abnormal when you read those studies? If I read your posts here and get the impression that perhaps it is because you enjoy a form of sex that does not lead to procreation. Is that abnormal? No way. People have sex very often, and actually often take strong measures to prevent offspring. Now I know that there are people who consider the prevention of offspring something that is abnormal, but'd I'd say that is a pretty 'unusual' view in our society :bigrin:
Well I'm going a bit off topic here. Perhaps we should start a thread called 'is bisexuality normal?' :)


Science is certainly not perfect, and that has been shown historically by the medical, anthropological, social, and psychological communities. People used to measure head circumference of Caucasian and Black people and then concluded with their "objective" evidence that Caucasians are smarter than Blacks. So certainly, supposed science can be used to further bigotry and oppression.

On the other hand, science, IN THE RIGHT HANDS, can be used to further tolerance and appreciation of human nature. That all depends on WHO is doing the science, HOW they're getting their data, and WHY they're doing the science. If there is "science" out there that makes you feel "unusual," "explainable," and "naughty," then you might want to look further into the study's validity. Who did the study (was it a radical-right group?)? How did they get their participants (are the participants all drug addicts or mentally ill?) and is it a representative sample? What was their data collection process (was it face-to-face interviews, or a short 2-question survey in a porn magazine?)? Let's be smart and critically-thinking consumers of research!!

But let's remind ourselves of the research out there that has done good for the sexually diverse community. Here are 2 big ones (for those of you bookworms out there):

Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31. This was a ground-breaking study in the 1950s which showed that nonclinical (i.e., not mentally ill) gay men are just as well adjusted as nonclinical straight men. This study helped remove the American Psychological Association's classification of homosexuality as a mental illness.

Fox, R. C. (1996). Bisexuality in perspective: A review of theory and research. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority, pp. 3-50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. For those of you who don't know, Ron Fox is a leader in research on bisexuality. Through his literature review he found no evidence of pathology in nonclinical samples of bisexual people. So Fox's work has helped to destigmatize bisexuality.

And as for religion, well, I could go on another rant about that. :rolleyes: But I'll stop here.... for now.

Mimi

Mimi,

thank you for your great contribution, I couldn't agree less. I might add one thought though, to your remark that the benefit of the research "... depends on WHO is doing the science, HOW they're getting their data, and WHY they're doing the science."
I think the important issue here is also: how open people are to other views: have they asked people with a different opinion to give their view on the study. In any research that is prone to interpretation based on personal values, this is critical. And I might add that someone bisexual can be prone to this as well. I have become aware of some of my own "wishful thinking" when thinking about the science of bisexuality, just from people responding to this and other threads. Eventually, taking alternate interpretations into account will make your own research stronger. Sometimes it is very easy to set up a test in such a way to eliminate certain alternative interpretations. They might even be disproved by some simple rational thinking.
What i'm trying to say, Mimi, is that I appreciate you desire to do bi-positive research - I think it's great!!!
At the same time, I think your research would benefit from reading the bi-negative publications very carefully, and include them in your work somehow, so that you can prove them wrong, or at least present an alternative view. I would even encourage you to let your work be read by one of the bi-negative researchers, or think about it from a bi-neative perspective. This allows you to respond to any critical feedback in your thesis itself and makes your work much stronger.
About your rant about religion: I look forward to reading it somewhere :)
Perhaps you could post it in Johnny's thread?
Again, I wish you all the very best with your work,

Peter