In “no, duh” news, several new studies reported by the New York Times show that bisexual men actually exist.
One of the most common biphobic narratives is that the penis is what counts. A woman who has sex with men is really straight, even if she also fucks women; a man who has sex with men is really gay, even if he also fucks women. If a man fucks a man, even once, he is forever corrupted from the heights of heterosexual masculinity. It’s the new One Drop rule. (Comments that explain this using femmephobia and/or the view of male sexuality as inherently degrading get a cookie. Comments that explain this using some mechanism I haven’t thought of get infinite cookies.)
It is also interesting to note that the studies cited in the New York Times stopped with that “judging heterosexuality by showing lesbian porn”, since I personally think it is extremely weird to clinically define male heterosexuality as the condition of being a man turned on by two lesbians doin’ it.
ozymandias42
aliarasthedaydreamer
noahbrand
figleaf
Hershele Ostropoler
Cheradenine
marc2020
Shora
Holly Pervocracy
kaija24
Ami Angelwings
sirgabe
jlandrith
Oh thank god! I don’t know what dragons and unicorns are on about, that how non-existance stuff really isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Thank you Science, Thank you!
Isn’t it slightly obnoxious to imply, sarcastically, that scientific studies are useless for only demonstrate the self-evident, when those studies are the very same things we’ll use as an authority when opponents question the existence of bisexual men? That is to say, these researchers are trying to reinforce the apparently anecdotal existence of bisexual men with verifiable data, and shouldn’t be lightly dismissed for their attempts.
Justin: I believe what I, and the other snarky people, are saying is not that the researchers’ research isn’t valuable (it clearly is) but that it is ridiculous that it is necessary. No one does scientific surveys that prove heterosexuality exists, you know?
1) I also am hurt by the snark that Jezebel et al. have shown towards a scientific study. I love science. Part of my way of respecting that which I love is by not being snarky when it operates as intended.
Instead, I offer my honest praise: “Thank you for taking the time to do the work to make “bisexual men” a scientific fact! Because before, it was anecdotal.”
2) That said, wake me up when they find out WHY they exist.
My explanation for the androphilic one-drop rule rests on the idea that women are naturally and innately sexually desirable, and men are not. (Basically a variant of Figleaf’s first rule.) So if you’re attracted to women, whatever your gender and orientation, it’s because women are attractive. It’s less about you and more about the fact that women are objectively desirable. But if you’re attracted to men, there must be something specific about *you* that makes you attracted to men, because men aren’t in themselves attractive.
(I hope it’s clear that I’m voicing my perception of the cultural undertones, not my own attitudes. Men are beautiful.)
My issue with the study would be the way it’s conducted, and does it really even say much at all?
If a woman was aroused by gay male porn, would that information ever be used to prove that they were heterosexual? Doubtful. So first and foremost, I take issue with their methods.
To be a little pickier I’m not sure measuring sexual arousal in response to watching porn (any porn) tells you much of anything. Measuring tumescence in the genitals is simply measuring blood flow. I’d be willing to bet that a lot of folks would get a little tumescence from watching ANY porn. Because watching sex, is well, sex. In addition, fear, discomfort, nervousness can also trigger similar physiological responses.
Someone who gets half a woody from watching homosexual porn may not necessarily even want to bang the gender of the folks they are watching bang. Or maybe they would bang them, but wouldn’t have a romantic relationship with them. And what does that mean?
So what, do we just assume that bisexual women exist already, or are we not scared of them enough?
“My explanation for the androphilic one-drop rule rests on the idea that women are naturally and innately sexually desirable, and men are not. ”
Ginny, that makes sense in an androcentric kind of way. That’s explanatory enough for me.
” (Comments that explain this using femmephobia and/or the view of male sexuality as inherently degrading get a cookie.)”
And it also gets you a cookie!
Justin: I believe what I, and the other snarky people, are saying is not that the researchers’ research isn’t valuable (it clearly is) but that it is ridiculous that it is necessary. No one does scientific surveys that prove heterosexuality exists, you know?
Well, as I recall there had been earlier studies that suggested that the men in the study who claimed to be bisexual were not actually aroused by pictures of women. So there is some value in finding contrary data.
I don’t think it is a bad idea to do a scientific study to prove something that seems obvious, as many things that seem obvious are later proven wrong. Having said that, when a study confirms something that is already assumed to be true, it is probably a good idea for those doing the study not to act as if the data is completely unexpected and revolutionary.
I personally think it is extremely weird to clinically define male heterosexuality as the condition of being a man turned on by two lesbians doin’ it.
I have coined a term for that: heterohomophilia.
Heterohomophilia – a voyeuristic or vicarious interest in homosexual activity by members of the opposite sex.
Easely Enthrusted: I also am hurt by the snark that Jezebel et al. have shown towards a scientific study. I love science. Part of my way of respecting that which I love is by not being snarky when it operates as intended.
Snarky comments? where?…..
Kenshiroit: Well, by calling it ‘ “no, duh” news’ one kind of implies that there is no reason to do this research as it is self evident. That attitude is nicely sidestepping the value in actually confirming and validating what many (but far from all) consider to be true anyway.
And please tell me how this first paragraph from the Jezebel article is snark free:
– http://jezebel.com/5833435/scientists-discover-that-men-can-be-bisexual
Another explanation than femmephobia/male sexuality as degrading is this:
Any cookie(s) can be forwarded to Jezebel commenter by the name CassandraSays.
However, that explanation has triggered a bastardization of Manfred Mann’s rendition of Bob Dylan’s Mighty Quinn to infect and torture my brain:
Come all without, come all within
You’ll not see nothing like the mighty Cock.
Tamen: aaaaaaah ok now im following. When E.E mentin Jezebel I though it was another user on this site, that for some reason I couldn read the comments…
okokok im bit slow today…sorry.
Hey, I exist! (or pansexual if you prefer that term, I prefer to say I’m attracted to the people I’m attracted to. I don’t really care what term they label it.)
Next there’ll be research showing that I’m not interested in poly relationships and only intellectually (i.e., “I should try this at some point before I say I’m not interested even though I suspect I won’t be”) interested in multi-partner sessions.
Maybe some day science will figure out that casual sex has little value to me that a fake vagina couldn’t provide.
Then maybe some day later people will realize that this doesn’t mean people who like casual sex are bad, I just don’t happen to like it!
WOW!
Well, I guess that means I can call “Mostly Straight” now. Also, that whole madness discounts Transsexuality in all forms. Like I wouldn’t do Buck Angel, cos he’s a dude, but with a vag, but I’d Jerk off Bailey Jay ’til the break of dawn. (Cos she’s the Queen of the Shemales)
IMO social science is so soft it only sometimes crosses path with real science. This study is not one of those times.
debaser, I have to agree. Measuring tumescence – and not bothering to exclude other possible causes? Pffffft.
“Good news, bisexual men: Scientists have decided that you exist! You may now stop fighting your attraction to both women and men, because some dude in a lab coat says you’re allowed to want whoever you want.”
Yeah, Tamen. When they could have said something substantive such as “Look, all you people who insist on denying bisexual men’s reality because it may undermine your gender or political agenda, and gay organizations and advocates, we’re looking at you – just back the fuck off and shut up. Other people’s lives are not grist for your ideologies.”
But no.
“There is nothing abstract about the power that sciences and theories have to act materially and actually upon our bodies and our minds, even if the disclosure that produces it is abstract. It is one if the forms of domination, it’s very expression.” -Monique Wittig
I think this is biggest problem; hence the frustration.
I would have described myself as 1/132 gay, and I’ve got the sample space to prove it, but I guess now I’m all gay. I never knew.
Michel Foucault warned us all that psychology and sexology and sexual orientation science have become the grand inquistors of the age. And science has an “authority” for what passes as truth. We only need remember that “homosexuality” in general was still considered a disease in 1971, by science. And babies were once that to only be produced by sperm alone and not sperm and eggs, by science of the 1600′s. So let’s all be healthy and skeptical about science. The first Bailey study seriously fucked my life. I am glad I exist again but I received really bad shit for my existence.
So I know a straight woman and bisexual woman both fag hags who have had a lot of sex on a regular basis with out “gay” men. And being I have hung around a lot of “straight” guys in high school who blew each other off and did all sorts of other experimenting. And know straight guys who tell me their adult mansex experiences, and homoerotic desires. So what is it really all about? I have always been turned on by women and men. So I couldn’t identify as straight or gay. I had sex and had LTRs and couldn’t honestly identify as straight or gay. Hense really “Gay” and “Straight” seems more a cultural identity than an assessment of sexual orientation because gay can be pretty damn straight, straight is often really queer. So isn’t it weird that people who identify as bisexual are then called liars and cowards for actually being honest about themselves and their sexuality?
There’s also the “your current partner determines your “real” sexuality” – a bisexual woman dating a woman will be referred to as a lesbian even if she explicitly identifies as bi, because hey, she’s not fucking a dude right now! A bi man currently having sex with a woman is “really” straight after all, just confused all those times he tripped and fell on a cock! A bi woman in a relationship with a man? Similarly confused about her homosexual activities! A bi man dating a man? Gay, but had sex with women to conform to societal norms!
Another narrative about bi people that I hate is that, in order to be legitimately bisexual, you have to feel the same about both genders, which ignores my experience and that of most bi people I have met. With women, although I find them sexually attractive, I would not fuck them unless I also was extremely interested in their brainz, whereas I pretty much have only slept with guys who were nice enough, but not that interesting – just physically attractive to me, fit my minimum requirement of personality compatibility, and were willing. It’s a trend, although there are individual exceptions, and I get really annoyed when people say that means that I’m actually heterosexual, because I’m pickier about my women. F that noise!
It’s also one of my personal pet peeves that people call Xena (sssshhhh, I’m heading back to school and rewatching the ENTIRE SERIES because OMG HOTNESS) the “lesbian warrior princess” because, though she and Gabrielle are clearly lovers and in love, they also both fall in love and have sexy tiemz with men when they feel like it.
Well, I’m glad this is out there. Now we can have much more fun snarking at the people who say bisexuals don’t exist.
Also, Simon, “shemale” is offensive.
lot of people belive bisexuals are just horny individuals who take whaterver they can. I admit i never understood this kind of mentality. If a person feel his buddys attractive, while at same time is also attracted toward females. It his and his own business, why am I supposed to judge this person sexuality?
“Shemale” is offensive? Transwoman is probably better, but sounds kinda dull. That’s the problem with alla this here PC language, it needs Jazzin’ up! At least IMO. Hell, maybe it’s just me, and I’m a bad Liberal.
The Point that I was trying to make was, Bailey Jay Grainger is awesomely hot, and I would so worship her girlcock until the very break of day. Given the chance, of course. The underlying point being, that I fully believe that sexuality is defined not by what your undercrackers are covering, but by your own definition. I just don’t keep up with what is considered a Badword these days.
““Shemale” is offensive? Transwoman is probably better, …”
Well no, because that particular form has been used by radfems to deny that trans women are women.
Who does “shemale” offend? I have heard it used only in connection with intersex people; do they call it offensive?
‘Who does “shemale” offend? I have heard it used only in connection with intersex people; do they call it offensive?’
me Jim, it offends me, and just about every other trans woman ive ever spoken to. im not sure who coined it but it is used as a term of othering, a statement that a person is not really fully female. it was used as the title to a book written by a prominent rad fem about trans women being a patriarchal invention for invading womens spaces (i believe the beginning of the title was the transsexual empire). it has since been latched onto by the porn industry as a way of selling an image of not women, of selling the idea to straight men with fantasies surrounding cocks, that they arent really gay (cos bisexuality doesnt exist apparently) cos she has tits and looks totally like any other pornstar. its really offensive to almost every trans woman.
that said i believe that bailey jay does identify as shemale, and although i suspect that that is not entirely without coercion, i have to respect her right to identify however she wants. which lead me neatly to..
simon, it doesnt matter whether you think the ways people identify are trendy, you arent the person who gets to make decicions about other peoples identities, especially not when what you considermost important about about how they identify is whether it sounds jazzy enough for you. theres precicely one person who’s identity you get to decide on and it’s your own.
“me Jim, it offends me, and just about every other trans woman ive ever spoken to. im not sure who coined it but it is used as a term of othering, a statement that a person is not really fully female.”
Frankly I have only seen it used in porn to refer to people with penises and fully developed breasts and other female attributes.
” it was used as the title to a book written by a prominent rad fem about trans women being a patriarchal invention for invading womens spaces (i believe the beginning of the title was the transsexual empire). it has since been latched onto by the porn industry …”
I wasn’t aware of the chronolgy on this. Thanks. I am sceptical of attributing any capacity for coming up with anything on their own to radfems, so that made me wonder.
The term just sounds really cheap and sleazy to me; it has a really porny sound to it, so maybe that’s why I was assuming that’s where it came from. Ha – what does that say about the radfems?
I have heard intersex people use the term intersex about themselves, and that sounds simpel and obvious enough to me. Why invent some lurid term like this unless you want to sell porn? Anyway, thanks for the background, Jade.
@Jade: “You don’t get to decide…”
Which sounds, in my messed-up mind’s ear, rather hostile. I do use “Blunt object” words, but I never actually set out to offend.
@Jim “I have heard intersex…”
Yes! That’s what I mean! Intersex is a good word. YOINK!
With regards to your comment on lesbian porn, the article says the test subjects watched both male and female “same-sex intimacy”. I am pretty sure the scientists did this not because they wanted to equate being a heterosexual male with being aroused by two girls getting it on, but because they wanted to measure their responses to sexual scenes of only one gender at a time. I get your concern, but as the scientific method goes, this does make sense. I suppose they could have used videos of men and women masturbating instead. In any case I don’t think they meant to provide a clinical measure of sexuality with the ‘intimate’ scenes they chose, I think they just wanted to make sure the scenes had only one gender in them at a time.
I do think part of the snark about that article was in relation to the previous 2005 study that got a lot of people seriously up in arms. I believe the title of the NYT article about that one was “Gay, Straight, Or Lying? Bisexuality Revisted”, which was also the name of the study.
This quote by the lead researcher was especially suspect: “I’m not denying that bisexual behavior exists,” said Dr. Bailey, “but I am saying that in men there’s no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation.”
I can’t presume to know the opinion of everyone who reads or contributes to this blog, but I have a feeling that a lot of you would agree that the idea that physical arousal = the only indicator of male sexual orientation is a fallacy. A lot of people felt that the study was poorly handled and ignored important variables. Of course, many members of the bisexual community were also annoyed by the fact that those who believed bisexuality didn’t exist now had a handy study to point to. So perhaps now that they have come out with a new study some of us are handling it with ill grace, but it is a bit knee-jerk to say, “Well, duh. I could have told you that ages ago. I’m living proof that bisexuality does, indeed, exist!”
Pingback: Sharing the love « The Lady Garden
You know I have known lot of bi men, including myself, and there are those who just want to play around, but the most fluid men, men who have sex and romantic relationships with both men and women seem to be very intuitive feeling oriented people, they are open to all that they are. But many guys on the down low bisexual are often a lot more conflicted with social pressures. I know bisexuality in men is just as fluid as it is with women but the need to deny male bisexuals existence is another way to “keep the gay away”. I wish more of the gay community would support us, because if bisexuality in men became more accepted a lot of homophobia would disappear and LGBT would be a lot stronger.
“I wish more of the gay community would support us, because if bisexuality in men became more accepted a lot of homophobia would disappear and LGBT would be a lot stronger.’
So, so true. When gay men deny that any man can really be bi, I think it’s just anger at what they think is a betrayal. It’s counter-productive bitterness. This bitterness and anger is also behind the way so many gay organizations and individual gay men back women’s groups so unthinkingly, as away of avenging themselves on straight men. It can be self-destructive too, as when gay men back a women’s groups that advocates against equal parenting. Gay men are fathers too.
Pingback: Tänkvärt från Tumblr « Mildly awkward
I have been out since high school and have gone through much of what gay men have gone through as far as homophobia, the need to leave one’s home town, parental disapproval (I was kicked out). I came out as bisexual has already had sexual encounters with women but was also attracted to men too. Over the years I ended up dating more girls than guys. I never felt connected to the gay community unless I dated a guy. And when the 2005 study came out I was subjected to 6 years of interrogation from gay and some straight peers. I was accused of being gay and in he closet, and a gay director even called straight and fucking around, after knowing my sexual history. In grad school it was real interrogation by teachers and students. On the job my boss said I was “a liar and coward and don’t deserve respect.” I received harassing emails from both gay men and a straight woman via okcupid. I have been told numerous times I didn’t exist. And finally this year I went into therapy for clinical depression over the accumulated stress and pain. Really why be out of the closet at all if you are going to be treated this way. Eventually, recently I found other bi people for support and my bisexual girlfriend, and the poly community. Things have gotten better but still affected by it all, I am healing though.