Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Sexuality


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-13-2005, 11:35 AM   #41 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cervantes
It seems that this thread has turned into a bi-bashing thread. None of the bisexuals I know is fully 50-50, that doesn't mean that they aren't bisexual or that bisexuality is a lie.
Really? I don't see any Bi-bashing, but an intellectual examination of an asepct of human sexuality, nor did the study imply that there was no bisexuality in males.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 12:09 PM   #42 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Cervantes's Avatar
 
Location: Above you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Really? I don't see any Bi-bashing, but an intellectual examination of an asepct of human sexuality, nor did the study imply that there was no bisexuality in males.
[QUOTE]These men do not know what they want (their animal brain does) and perhaps they are exploring and comming to grips with what they are.[QUOTE]

That was rather harsh, did you mean all bisexuals by this or did you mean the homosexuals that first identifies themselves as bi? If you meant all bisexuals you pretty much disqualifies their sexuality.

It is true that many both hetrosexuals and homosexuals at some point identifies themselves as bi as a means to explore but that doesn't mean that all bisexuals are homo or hetro.

Realise that this is very sensitive ground for some people, I tend to take the bisexuals side since I've been friends with several for quiet some time and I've seen what they have to put up with from both hetro and homosexuals.

Maybe bashing was a bit over the top but the study has so many obvious flaws that no serious deduction can be made, yet I see that some already have and that was what I was reacting against.
__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."
Cervantes is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 12:45 PM   #43 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
[QUOTE=Cervantes]
Quote:
Maybe bashing was a bit over the top but the study has so many obvious flaws that no serious deduction can be made, yet I see that some already have and that was what I was reacting against.
Ya it was a bit, but I do understand the emotional aspect.

I suppose my take on the research is that it is not flawed, but just incomplete. Most studies can only look at one aspect of a question, and what they looked at was visual stimulation. What this shows is there is more to look at in at least male bisexuality beyond what people say they are.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 12:58 PM   #44 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
immediate erectile response does not signify what they "really" want, i would counter. other studies have confirmed that men with high levels of homophobia often show erectile response to gay pr0n. now, assuming there are some self-haters out there...i'm not going to suggest that each of them "really" want to be with men. it may be fear based, it may be unresolved(non-identified) bisexual orientation...whatever. but i don't think that we can reduce these questions to a measuring of what angle a person's dick is at a given moment in time.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 01:10 PM   #45 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
immediate erectile response does not signify what they "really" want, i would counter. other studies have confirmed that men with high levels of homophobia often show erectile response to gay pr0n. now, assuming there are some self-haters out there...i'm not going to suggest that each of them "really" want to be with men. it may be fear based, it may be unresolved(non-identified) bisexual orientation...whatever. but i don't think that we can reduce these questions to a measuring of what angle a person's dick is at a given moment in time.
If someone has a high level of homophobia and gets a woody watching gay porn, I think that narrows down the problem a bit.

Your penis has a mind of its own so to speak. Claiming that the most obvious sign of male sexual arousal means nothing seems a bit far fetched.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 01:58 PM   #46 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
i'm not saying it means nothing. what i am saying is that it's not the final arbiter of sexual orientation.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 02:35 PM   #47 (permalink)
Apocalypse Nerd
 
Astrocloud's Avatar
 
Actually the study is flawed in that there is a sampling error. The study only picks readers of some public paper -and then only volunteers. To really make an unconditional and overwhelming study, however, -would be to pick bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual males completely by random. Since many people (especially homo and bisexual males) keep their identity a secret -it would be very hard if not impossible to make a proper study.
Astrocloud is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 03:23 PM   #48 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrocloud
Actually the study is flawed in that there is a sampling error. The study only picks readers of some public paper -and then only volunteers. To really make an unconditional and overwhelming study, however, -would be to pick bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual males completely by random. Since many people (especially homo and bisexual males) keep their identity a secret -it would be very hard if not impossible to make a proper study.
Sample bias is always difficult if not impossible to eliminate in a study like this. It is possible to argue that only the more ‘gay’ bisexual males would be looking in the magazines/paper where they posted they were looking for test subjects. Another issue is who would show up. Its possible that those with confusion to their own sexuality would be the ones more willing to ‘test’ it out of their own desire to understand themselves better. That being said the biggest issue is the sample size. They have around 30 of each 'type' and that is barely adequate to be a statistically significant sample. Its enough but it could be better.

Despite possible design flaws, one shouldn't dismiss the data as false just because one disagrees emotionally with the results. It gives an avenue for further exploration into the subject.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 06:38 PM   #49 (permalink)
Banned
 
**MOD NOTE:**

1. The title was formed using the tone of the article. The article is about the study, and the verbiage used in the title of this thread is in evidence in the article. Astrocloud was using the words used in the article- not his own opinion, his thoughts on the subject, or personal agenda.

2. I believe the usage of the term "lying" to mean "to themselves", and not outwardly using a mistruth to deceive. There are those who disagree with that line of thinking- and even if it means "to themselves", there are those who believe that, in itself, to be inflammatory. Either are up to you, they are your opinions. Grow up and stop bickering about it, please. Move on, or face it in serious conversation. Saying "are you calling me a liar" and "if you can't talk about it without being defensive..." are little digs. We all know better than that, we should act like it.

3. STOP TAKING EVERYTHING PERSONALLY. SERIOUSLY. I don't care if you're gay, lesbian, bi, straight, or mormon. Just because this is a conversation that strikes home (no matter your orientation) doesn't mean you can get bent out of shape and bicker back and forth. There are plenty of other "personal" topics where people don't freak out and take out their frustrations on each other. So stop.

Thank you, and enjoy the rest of the thread.

- analog.

PS: I'm changing the title of the thread to avoid any further concern with the intentions of the poster, for those who are just reading titles and moving on. My main point in changing the title is to show that it meant nothing other than a summation of the article which is posted. In my opinion, the tone/wording of the article's real title is way worse than what Astrocloud put up, I think he did it a service by changing it... but that's what happens when you get what you ask for, it's not always better than what you had. For the sake of historical reference, the old title was this:

Quote:
New Studies suggest that Bi-men are lying
Any further questions/comments, PM me.

Last edited by analog; 07-13-2005 at 06:56 PM..
analog is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:35 AM   #50 (permalink)
People in masks cannot be trusted
 
Xazy's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
You would think, you would hope that the New York Times would do a
little research of its own before splashing the work of Dr. J.
Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the
study's lead author. But no. It took threader Kathleen to alert me
to what the NYT should have known before presenting this study
uncritically.

1. Dr. J. Michael Bailey had to step down from the chairmanship of
the psychology dept. at Northwestern just last year because of
ethics charges related to earlier research.

2. Bailey has been linked to a racist, neo-eugenics movement called
the Human Biodiversity Institute by the Southern Poverty Law Center

3. Bailey's previous attention-getter was a book on transgenders
that extrapolated from about nine transgenders he claimed to
befriend into a study. Many of the people profiled claimed
convincingly they had no idea they were part of a research study. (A
violation of ethics.) One claimed Bailey slept with them. (Also a
violation.) Though ostensibly science, it contained no footnotes.
This book led to the investigation of Bailey that resulted in his
stepping down as chair, though he remains a professor at
Northwestern. The Chronicle of Higher Education profiled Bailey and
the controversy, all but labeling him as a closet case.

4. Bailey claims to be gay-friendly but is so at odds with the GLBT
community at Northwestern that campus groups urge people NOT to
cooperate with his studies. Gee, think that might make any research
he does there harder to accept as valid? (Bailey has reportedly
found it difficult to recruit people for his research.) The Chicago
Free Press paints a rather sad picture of Bailey trying to convince
people he isn't anti-gay or biased by calling for a public meeting
virtually no one attended, just weeks before the New York Times
would treat his latest research as front-page of the Science section
newsworthy.

5. Some of Bailey's more silly and offensive comments that should
raise red flags for anyone wondering about his bias: most
transexuals are "especially motivated" to shoplift and "especially
suited to prostitution." Bailey says that if it became possible to
genetically identify a fetus as "gay" and a parent chose to abort
because they wanted a straight child, this would be "morally
neutral." Yep, gay eugenics. Aborting gay fetuses wouldn't do anyone
harm, he says. He's not anti-gay, just "pro-parental liberty."

I am furious that I had to find out all this stuff on my own by
having a threader point me in the right direction. I'm not saying no
one should ever report on anything Bailey ever does in the future,
but is it too much to ask for context and a little background?


Please note this is just some quick information I had found online on Bailey.

Last edited by Xazy; 07-15-2005 at 11:37 AM..
Xazy is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:42 AM   #51 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
Xazy, is that your own words or copied from a website? Very interesting either way, but if it's somebody else's, I'd like to see the link. (You can also put copied text in {quote}{/quote} tags for easier parsing.)
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:11 PM   #52 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Cervantes's Avatar
 
Location: Above you
The text Xazy posted:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005...rominence.html


Some other links about "Dr." J. Michael Bailey.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...FGE%202005.htm
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...RE-BAILEY.html
http://www.queerday.com/2005/jul/07/...el_bailey.html
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/eli-coleman.html
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i41/41a00801.htm


This one is specificly interesting:
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/profes...egulation.html
Quote:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT JOHN MICHAEL BAILEY

DOES NOT NOW HOLD NOR HAS EVER HELD LICENSURE UNDER THE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
LICENSING ACT.
Searchspiders are your friends, don't be afraid to consult them.
__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."
Cervantes is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:44 PM   #53 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
well, hot damn. i know this doesn't entirely and immediately discredit the results of the study, but it does give pause for thought. to be honest? i'm glad this new stuff got posted. thank you, xazy.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:26 PM   #54 (permalink)
32 flavors and then some
 
Gilda's Avatar
 
Location: Out on a wire.
I'm glad you pointed that out, Xazy. I knew that name and type of argument rang a bell.

Bailey's book on MTF Transsexuals, The Man Who Would Be Queen (an inflammatory title to begin with) had a similarly structured argument to the article linked above.

It essentially cliamed that there are two distinct categories of MTF transsexuals, "homosexual transexuals" (a laugher of a description), and "autogynephillic transsexuals". The science was flawed, and the labels themselves both inaccurate and offensive, but what strikes me about it as it relates to this article is that he claimed that those in the second group, "autogynephyllic" transsexuals, frequently made false cliams about their sexual orientation or history, claiming to have characteristics assigned to both groups.

In other words they were either homosexual, autogynephillic, or lying.
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert
Gilda is offline  
Old 07-16-2005, 06:01 AM   #55 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
While I never heard of this guy prior to this, what I see looks more like a witch hunt against him for saying things that the gay community disagrees with. From what I can gather, his major crime was not having proper documentation for human research (and in a University that IS a major crime). The claims against him that I could find were mostly character assasination, not a refuting of his science.

In the bi-sexual study cited here, and to someone who has done his own share of published research, his methods and conclusions look sound. I would like to read the full paper, but at least on the surface it seems ok.

Also note he is NOT the only researcher involved and it was in agreement with the 1979 study.

So while its fun to demonize someone, it is being turned into a political argument, not a scientific one.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-16-2005, 06:34 AM   #56 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
From what I can gather, his major crime was not having proper documentation for human research (and in a University that IS a major crime).

I'm confused here. He doesn't have proper research documentation, and may have committed severe ethical breaches in performing research. This is not a major cause for concern?

As gilda notes, the language he uses isn't just "not PC" but is patently derogatory. It's kind of like seeing a study on persons of African descent titled with the N word. It indicates that *whatever* else is inside, the study most likely contains viewpoints that are outdated and harmful.

As i said before....this doesn't entirely discount the study But it gives pause for consideration, and places a burden on study proponents to get this research out from under the shadow of bailey's unethical practices.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 07-16-2005, 08:41 AM   #57 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
I'm confused here. He doesn't have proper research documentation, and may have committed severe ethical breaches in performing research. This is not a major cause for concern?

That was in the transsexual study (not the current study) and it is a cause for concern but it is more due to the ethics involved than the research itself. Also while he seems to have been at fault there, I do have some sympathy for him in that recently 'they' came down VERY hard on human research projects and many good researchers got into trouble. At the University of Il while I was in the middle of my masters research the agency who regulates this stuff (I forget which one) did a review of the University research projects, found faults in how consent was given and shut down ALL human research. It didn't matter if it was a survey or an invasive procedure, they shut it down. All projects had to be re-reviewed and I know one good student who got in very hot water over his research. Mind you it wasn't that anything really wrong was done, but procedure is everything. Thank god I wasn't doing human research at the time


Quote:
As gilda notes, the language he uses isn't just "not PC" but is patently derogatory. It's kind of like seeing a study on persons of African descent titled with the N word. It indicates that *whatever* else is inside, the study most likely contains viewpoints that are outdated and harmful.
I don't think not being PC is a crime, or proves you are a bad researcher.

Quote:
As i said before....this doesn't entirely discount the study But it gives pause for consideration, and places a burden on study proponents to get this research out from under the shadow of bailey's unethical practices.
Again, the 'unethical' nature was from another study which lead to a controversial book. My feeling is ANYTHING which doesn't paint the gay/lesbian/trans/bi community in shiny lights will be controversial, blasted by the gay press, and politicized. This study seems to be well done, if its crap I hope that comes out too.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-16-2005, 09:30 AM   #58 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by ustwo
I don't think not being PC is a crime, or proves you are a bad researcher.
At the risk of being snide, i'm going to quote back the original line here. Nothing in your response justifies the dismissal of what i'm saying. You may disagree with the application here, but that response is a non sequiter to my original posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
As gilda notes, the language he uses isn't just "not PC" but is patently derogatory. It's kind of like seeing a study on persons of African descent titled with the N word. It indicates that *whatever* else is inside, the study most likely contains viewpoints that are outdated and harmful.
My feeling is that anything that paints GBLTQ communities in a light that furthers stereotypes and misinformation is going to be contraversial and blasted by the communities that it harms and their allies.

regardless of the particular truth value of the latest research, Bailey has conducted research in unethical and damaging ways. his reports reflect personal bias and subjective language not fit for scientific use. again...whatever the truth value of the claims here, it's a beauty called "repeatable results." Until these claims are verified by researchers who use ethical means of collecting data, and use objective language to interpret their results, i will feel no obligation to take this report as more than speculative.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 07-16-2005, 10:04 AM   #59 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
At the risk of being snide, i'm going to quote back the original line here. Nothing in your response justifies the dismissal of what i'm saying. You may disagree with the application here, but that response is a non sequiter to my original posting.



My feeling is that anything that paints GBLTQ communities in a light that furthers stereotypes and misinformation is going to be contraversial and blasted by the communities that it harms and their allies.
As a straight male uninvolved in gay politics beyond what a friend of mine tells me, I did not see the terms as derogatory, and fail to see the insult. If he were using terms like 'faggot', I could see the point, but oddly homosexual transsexual and autogynephillic transsexuals fails to raise my shackles and seems like an over sensitivity issue. If other terms were the derogatory ones and I missed them then I apologize.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-17-2005, 01:22 AM   #60 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
i'm talking about using the term queen. it can have serious potential for causing anger. with in queer communities and trusted allies, there are situations in which it can be used affectionatly. but in scientific research conducted by an "outsider" it has no role. it simply doesn't fit.

you don't expect to hear a social scientest say fag or n****r or queen as a means of categorizing subjects. they aren't the nomenclature of serious research. they are both insults and re-appropriated terms, used only by opponents or in group members in very different ways.

the categories of analysis, beyond the use of queen are rather odd as well. gilda explains this much better than i can, but basically he is introducing a frame of analysis that doesn't fit lived experience of the community he claims to be studying. this is the core issue i had with the study that started this thread. whatever data he may come up with to claim male bi orientation doesn't exist, i happen to know that while it may be more rare than it is self-reported, it cannot be non-existant. And i'm pretty sure it's not *just* me, either. and when a person creating a framework of analysis around queer issues comes up with something wrong in that fashion, my immediate guess is that they did not actually bother to spend enough time to really study what happens in queer communities. there is so much misunderstanding, and a tradition and history of bad analysis....it's not surprising to see such work. it still is dissapointing.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 07-17-2005, 06:18 AM   #61 (permalink)
32 flavors and then some
 
Gilda's Avatar
 
Location: Out on a wire.
martinguerre covered the offensive title better than I could, so I'll address the other.

The problem isn't just with the terms themselves, but with applying them inaccurately to those whose life experiences don't match the descriptors, and then claiming dishonesty on the part of those who don't fit the neat categories. Without going into so much detail as to hijack the thread, Bailey describes two distinct, specific etiologies, one for younger transsexuals oriented to men, which he labels "homosexual", and one for older transsexuals oriented to women, whom he labels "autogynephillic".

The first problem here is that the first label is grossly inaccurate and implies that these people are not women, but homosexual men. My sister finds it highly offensive; she is, in her words, a straight woman, is not a gay man, was never a gay man, and was never a gay boy. To call her "homosexual" in any context is to deny her personal experience of having had a female mind and personality her whole life. MTF's oriented to other women, usually those who are older, are homosexual.

More offensive is that the terms are used to illustrate Bailey's theory that MTF transsexuals are actually men who change their sex as a result of a sexual compulsion, in the case of younger transsexuals to have sex with men, and for older transsexuals as a result of a sexual fetish, and not as a result of having a female gender identity, which is the reported life experience of the vast majority of MTF's, and which is the prevalent mainstream theory of transsexuality used by most professionals.

Also offensive is that it denies the life experience of those who don't fit neatly into either category, particularly older MTF's who report feminine behavior as children or no history of sexual arousal to women's clothes / fantasies of being women (autogynephelia), and this is where it ties into the study reported above. His conclusions fit some of the evidence, but not all of it, and so he tries to shoehorn the evidence that doesn't fit into his theory, by forcing inappropriate labels where they don't fit. That's bad science.
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert
Gilda is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 07:21 PM   #62 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Bowling Green, KY
To add more fire to the flame: only 40% of all the people who at one point say they're gay stay that way their whole life.

Things that suck about being bi:

1. no one believes you; you are 'confused'
2. there is no bi community like there is for homos
3. go to a glbt group with your opposite-sex so, and they'll give you nasty looks
4. no sex in the champagne room
EULA is offline  
Old 08-06-2005, 12:49 PM   #63 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Cervantes's Avatar
 
Location: Above you
Another article about the same study that isn't as tabloidish and inflamatory:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssen...g/12310715.htm

Quote:
Testing for bisexuals: A study that found none

BY FAYE FLAM

Knight Ridder Newspapers

(KRT) - It's been a year since former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey came out of the closet, and I'm still wondering how he could be gay without either of his wives knowing. Wouldn't he at least have to be bisexual to have pulled that off?

And then came the even more baffling news from writer Terry McMillan that her soon-to-be-ex-husband is gay. The man inspired her 1996 best-seller, "How Stella Got Her Groove Back." Wasn't the groove partly about sex? Is this man gay or bisexual?

Research on bisexuality is sparse, but a few intrepid scientists have tried to get data by wiring up a group of gay, bisexual and straight men to a machine that monitored their arousal when exposed to erotic images of men and women. The researchers found that, while some of their subjects called themselves bisexual, their male anatomy showed a notable preference for one sex or the other. That led to headlines proclaiming that bisexual men don't exist.

But such a proclamation would seem to depend on how you define bisexual. Does a person have to be absolutely equally attracted to both sexes? If you like both but prefer one, do you qualify? Scientists don't know. What they do know from tracking the spread of HIV is that a number of men who have sex with men also have sex with women. A report from the Centers for Disease Control notes that 13 percent of white men who reported sex with other men also had sex with women. Among black men it was 34 percent, and among Hispanic men, 26 percent. Men can and do go both ways.

"This is something we don't quite understand," says Gerulf Rieger, a psychology graduate student at Northwestern University and lead author of the study. Rieger, who told me he's gay, said he, too, is a bit baffled by the way other gay men manage to marry women.

In his study, he didn't see evidence for "bisexual arousal" among the 101 paid volunteers, recruited using alternative weeklies and gay publications. Of those, 38 identified themselves as gay, 33 as bisexual and 30 as straight. The researchers showed the men short films: one with two women having sex, one with two men having sex. They used lesbian sex because previous research showed it is more exciting to heterosexual men than male-female pornography.

Before the viewing, Rieger and his colleagues hooked their test subjects to an arousal-meter of sorts. "It's quite simple - we put a rubber band around the penis," says Rieger. "It's filled with mercury and that's wired to hardware that goes into a computer."

Nearly a third of the volunteers were rejected from the study because they had no reaction. "It makes them very nervous," says Rieger. You don't have to be male to imagine how this apparatus might cause performance anxiety.

For the two-thirds who could handle it, the overwhelming response was always to one sex or the other, even for the bisexuals. And yet, the penis meter did register a small amount of expansion when the straight men watched the other men, and when gays watch the women.

But what really surprised Rieger was that some of those who identified as bisexual liked the women much more than the men. In that sense they reacted like the straight men. Why would a heterosexual man pose as bisexual?

"Maybe they're very open," Rieger says. "I'm not a straight guy, so I don't know."

An article on the subject in the New York Times appeared under the headline "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited." Rieger said the headline came from an expression often used in the gay community and was not meant to imply that bisexuals are liars, though that is what it implied. "Some might be truly confused - that's far from being a liar," he says.

But it may be the scientists who are confused. Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah, said there's no agreed-upon definition of bisexual either in science or in society. Some people define their orientation by whom they're attracted to, others say it's whom you fall in love with that matters. "We have this delusion that we're all talking about the same thing when we talk about arousal and desire and orientation," she said.

If you're lucky, you can focus all those feelings and sensations on one person, and he/she will feel the same way about you. It's a good groove if you can get into it, but it doesn't always last.
__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."
Cervantes is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 05:26 PM   #64 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
*nods

that's actually a really good read, and a pretty fair look at the subject.

the problem of elusive definitions is always an issue, since everything we're talking about gets defined in relationship to other things. Bi idenity is always tied in to gay idenity and hetero idenity, but (in my experience) isn't just a combination of the two.

it's not like there's some "pure type" object out there that we can define...the way i view it is that it's a trend line, a best fit over some fairly jagged data.

Edit: i should also say the STD data is really important. It's not just about proving that bi-sexual activity (a different question from idenity) occurs, but that personal responsbility, no matter who you sleep with is of the utmost importance.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Last edited by martinguerre; 08-09-2005 at 05:33 PM..
martinguerre is offline  
 

Tags
bisexuality, gay, lying, revisited, straight

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:03 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360