Bisexual? Nope, just gay...

[Mr. T]

Study casts doubt on bisexuality in men

Study casts doubt on bisexuality in men
`You're either gay, straight or lying' as some put it
Research looked at genital arousal patterns in men


BENEDICT CAREY
NEW YORK TIMES

Some people are attracted to women; some are attracted to men. And some, if Sigmund Freud, Dr. Alfred Kinsey and millions of self-described bisexuals are to be believed, are drawn to both sexes.

But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women.

The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men.

The study is the largest of several small reports suggesting that the estimated 1.7 per cent of men who identify themselves as bisexual show physical attraction patterns that differ substantially from their professed desires.

"Research on sexual orientation has been based almost entirely on self-reports, and this is one of the few good studies using physiological measures," said Dr. Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah, who was not involved in the study.

Several other researchers who have seen the study, scheduled to be published in the journal Psychological Science, said it would need to be repeated with larger numbers of bisexual men before clear conclusions could be drawn.

In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University in Chicago and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men. Thirty-three of them identified themselves as bisexual, 30 as straight and 38 as homosexual.

The researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range.

But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women.

Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

Since at least the middle of the 19th century, behavioural scientists have noted bisexual attraction in men and women and debated its place in the development of sexual identity.

Some experts, like Freud, concluded that humans are naturally bisexual.

In his landmark sex surveys of the 1940s, Kinsey found many married, publicly heterosexual men who reported having had sex with other men.

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual," Kinsey wrote. "The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats."

My initial reaction was that it was too small a sample group to draw such a conclusion from and there methods were questionable. I'd need more evidence before I'm convinced.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I doubt anyone is ever perfectly bisexual, I'd imagine nearly everyone has a lopsided appeal for one or the other.

I suppose it does make sense in a way. The brain chemistry must be wired up in a certain way to effect that attraction, and it's possible that chemistry is mutually exclusive.

That said, I do find it quite surprising. I always rather believed the opposite, that everyone is in some small way bisexual.

[Imperial Overlord]

The article goes on to say that there are possibly other factors to consider and that they are going to be expanding their study. It also notes that women did demonstrate genital arousal (which was what they were measuring) to both sexes, making true bisexuality questionable only in men.

[Tiger Ace]

They can blow me, that sample is way too small, just take a sample of GALE here, there are true bisexuals.

[Imperial Overlord]

They can blow me, that sample is way too small, just take a sample of GALE here, there are true bisexuals.

They were very careful not to draw conclusions other than, "the males we tested only showed genital arousal to one sex." One of the reasons they didn't was because their sample size was too small.

[Lord Zentei]

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

Usually, when someone says this I point to the fundies who claim that "no one is really gay, they are just misled by Satan", a statement that is just as bigoted IMO. That usually doesn't go down very well.

[Lord Woodlouse]

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

Usually, when someone says this I point to the fundies who claim that "no one is really gay, they are just misled by Satan", a statement that is just as bigoted IMO. That usually doesn't go down very well.

Not quite the same thing, really. For one thing I can hardly see what ulterior motive they might have in saying such a thing.

[Rye]

They should just get bisexuals to masturbate and write down what they thought about. Or hell, examine their brains when watching bisexual porn in comparison to gay and straight porn. If they're getting aroused at multiple genders in their whackin' material, that would conclusively prove that some people do have sexual arousal with both genders involved, wouldn't it?

[Lord Zentei]

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

Usually, when someone says this I point to the fundies who claim that "no one is really gay, they are just misled by Satan", a statement that is just as bigoted IMO. That usually doesn't go down very well.

Not quite the same thing, really. For one thing I can hardly see what ulterior motive they might have in saying such a thing.

Lack of acceptance/understanding of other people's lifestyles is common to the two claims. Stating "you are not bisexual, you are just gay - like me - and confused about it" versus "you are not really gay, you are just straight - like me - and messed up in the head".

Note the firste: that's not to say that there are no examples of allegedly bisexual men who are "actually" gay, it's just that this response seems kind of reflexive in some cases with bisexualim being not accepted as a "legitimate" among certain gays.

Note the seconde: not that I'm saying that these gay vs bi stabs are nearly as vitriolic as the fundie vs gay ones by any measure at all, but this kind of stuff always strikes me as being a low blow. Rainbow banners, my ass.

[NecronLord]

I wouldn't describe myself as very bisexual, but I know I can be turned on by men, just not nearly as easily as by women. Which is, in itself, enough reason for me to call "insufficient sample or ineffective testing" on this.

[Darth Raptor]

True bisexuals are as rare as truly gay and truly straight folk. Sexuality is too broad a spectrum to keep lumping into this overly-simplistic three category classification system (four, if you count asexuals).

[Imperial Overlord]

Lets be clear here: they were testing a small sample of men and women and measuring one physical sign of arousal. They got genital arousal in female bisexuals to both sexes and genital arousal in male bisexuals to only one sex. They published the study but were very careful not to draw a conclusion beyond "we got interesting results." Don't jump on the scientists too hard.

[Lord Zentei]

Lets be clear here: they were testing a small sample of men and women and measuring one physical sign of arousal. They got genital arousal in female bisexuals to both sexes and genital arousal in male bisexuals to only one sex. They published the study but were very careful not to draw a conclusion beyond "we got interesting results." Don't jump on the scientists too hard.

Yeah, I guess I've just heard this "no such thing as bi" spiel a bit too often.

True bisexuals are as rare as truly gay and truly straight folk. Sexuality is too broad a spectrum to keep lumping into this overly-simplistic three category classification system (four, if you count asexuals).

Perhaps, but "true bisexuals" wasn't what I was arguing about, I meant that if you can accept broad concepts such as "gay" and "straight" then not accepting a broad concept such as "bi" is a bit off. Naturally, there are degrees for each preference for each individual.

[The Dark]

The sample size was sufficiently large to be able to assume a normal distribution among all three samples (barely), but not large enough to have any real confidence. I'd say that statistically it's not implausible, but also nowhere near certain.

[Crossroads Inc.]

A friend of mine discussed this a long time ago. We reached the idea that people can be Bisexual, in that someone can enjoy having sex with males or females, but may be 'Straight' or 'Gay' when it comes to who they love.

Basically a guy could look at another guy and say "I'd have sex with him" but also think "I don't think I could ever marry him"

[Singular Quartet]

A friend of mine discussed this a long time ago. We reached the idea that people can be Bisexual, in that someone can enjoy having sex with males or females, but may be 'Straight' or 'Gay' when it comes to who they love.

Basically a guy could look at another guy and say "I'd have sex with him" but also think "I don't think I could ever marry him"

That makes complete and utter sense, and I can understand it perfectly.

[Molyneux]

My reaction to the article rhymes with "Pull mitt"...

Personally, I find that I'm normally attracted more to one gender than the other - but which one it is varies. A few days I'll be hot for guys, the next I'll have a craving for girls...most of the time I enjoy the thought of either, though.

This study wouldn't take into account people who are only physically attracted to one gender at a time, but switch based on mood or other factors...

[WyrdNyrd]

Doesn't someone on this very forum have this in his/her sig: "The correct answer to any question is: To some degree."?

In the racism thread I've just kvetched that "we are all racist, it's just the degree that varies" and "racism is a continuum". It's the same with sexuality. We're all a bit bi-, and we're all a bit -phobic, and sexuality is a continuum.

The one/zero Boolean logic of "everything is either in Set A or in Set not-A" is a simplification of reality that our over-developed simian minds find useful, but it's almost never the whole truth.

[Pcm979]

They were very careful not to draw conclusions other than, "the males we tested only showed genital arousal to one sex." One of the reasons they didn't was because their sample size was too small.

Ah, out-of-context quotes.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Considering the fact that 'gender' is only a slight difference in hormone levels and the placement/size of certain tissues/organs, and considering the fact that the exact line where one gender changes to the other has never been established (if I'm not mistaken), trying to make absolute claims that are dependent on an attraction to such a fuzzy concept is, at best, risky (And a really long run-on sentence, oopsie).

I have a certain view of what I consider sexually attractive. Some males fit this picture, some females fit this picture. I do not include gender on what I find sexually attractive. Granted, more females fit the image of what I find attractive than males, but that can be ascribed to cultural norms. For instance, gothy males often have 'effeminate' traits that I find rather attractive.

I'm of the Rye-school that everyone is bisexual to a degree. Some have tastes 99.9999999% of a certain gender don't match, and thus, they appear to be straight. Mine is, at the moment, about 80/20. Should the prevaling culture change in the future so that more guys become rather thin, with long, straight hair, and don't act like total pigs, the ratio may become much more even for me, and I guess I could be considered a 'true' bisexual, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

~Damienkitty

[Frank Hipper]

Bwahahaha!

Apparently, The New York times should do a little checking up before they go to print!

Eugenics and transgendered generalisations and disgraced professors, oh my!

Everyone is probably familiar with this New York Times article about a study on bisexuality. It was one of the top five emailed stories on the NYT website and probably got picked up around the country. I ignored it at first because a casual glance at the study and its methodology led me to conclude it was shoddy and suspect. At best, it seemed like the typical mainstream press distortion of research: one little study makes one little observation and it gets trumpted around the country as a "fact," in this case the idea that men aren't bisexual, they're just either gay, straight, or lying.

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? Obviously, Bailey's history makes this study HIGHLY suspect: he has stepped down as a chair at Northwestern over allegations of misconduct; Bailey is seen with hostility by the GLBT community at Northwestern, making it difficult for him to find subjects to study; he is linked to a group the Southern Poverty Law Center says is filled with people linked to hate groups and is pro-eugenics; and he makes pro-eugenic statements and patently silly claims about transexuals.

At the very least, shouldn't the New York Times have known about this before trumpeting his study on the front page of the Science section? Obviously they didn't or they would have at least referenced it. More responsibly, it should have highly colored their coverage, leading to a far different article about a controversial researcher's attempts to come back from ignominy with yet another attention-getting study that is shoddily put together.

Please email the New York Times (letters@nytimes.com) and any other publication that gave this study unquestioning coverage. Tell them about Bailey's disgraced past, the claims of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the people who feel abused by his past research. Ask them why none of this vitally important information was in the original story. Tell them that the very least the NYT can do is a followup story that gives a full picture of Bailey, places his research in its proper context, speaks to people at Northwestern, talks with critical researchers about the validity of his study, looks into whether the team in Toronto that also worked on the study is also linked to hate groups and anything else you can think of.

This is a classic example of where bloggers can have an impact if we move quickly and present FACTS that dramatically change what people will remember about this story. Let us know about any responses you get.

Linkaroo...

[darthdavid]

*snip*

With slight modification to the massive list of specifics then that's where I stand.

[Imperial Overlord]

Bwahahaha!

Apparently, The New York times should do a little checking up before they go to print!

Damn. You would think they would be more careful after Jason Blair. Well, so much for that story, unless a reputable group comes up with similar data.