new study shows bisexual people......exist

[Princess Luna]

In an unusual scientific about-face, researchers at Northwestern University have found evidence that at least some men who identify themselves as bisexual are, in fact, sexually aroused by both women and men. The finding is not likely to surprise bisexuals, who have long asserted that attraction often is not limited to one sex. But for many years the question of bisexuality has bedeviled scientists. A widely publicized study published in 2005, also by researchers at Northwestern, reported that “with respect to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists.” That conclusion outraged bisexual men and women, who said it appeared to support a stereotype of bisexual men as closeted homosexuals.
In the new study, published online in the journal Biological Psychology, the researchers relied on more stringent criteria for selecting participants. To improve their chances of finding men aroused by women as well as men, the researchers recruited subjects from online venues specifically catering to bisexuals.
They also required participants to have had sexual experiences with at least two people of each sex and a romantic relationship of at least three months with at least one person of each sex.
Men in the 2005 study, on the other hand, were recruited through advertisements in gay-oriented and alternative publications and were identified as heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual based on responses to a standard questionnaire.
In both studies, men watched videos of male and female same-sex intimacy while genital sensors monitored their erectile responses. While the first study reported that the bisexuals generally resembled homosexuals in their responses, the new one finds that bisexual men responded to both the male and female videos, while gay and straight men in the study did not.
Both studies also found that bisexuals reported subjective arousal to both sexes, notwithstanding their genital responses. “Someone who is bisexual might say, ‘Well, duh!’” said Allen Rosenthal, the lead author of the new Northwestern study and a doctoral student in psychology at the university. “But this will be validating to a lot of bisexual men who had heard about the earlier work and felt that scientists weren’t getting them.”
The Northwestern study is the second one published this year to report a distinctive pattern of sexual arousal among bisexual men.
In March, a study in Archives of Sexual Behavior reported the results of a different approach to the question. As in the Northwestern study, the researchers showed participants erotic videos of two men and two women and monitored genital as well as subjective arousal. But they also included scenes of a man having sex with both a woman and another man, on the theory that these might appeal to bisexual men.
The researchers — Jerome Cerny, a retired psychology professor at Indiana State University, and Erick Janssen, a senior scientist at the Kinsey Institute — found that bisexual men were more likely than heterosexuals or gay men to experience both genital and subjective arousal while watching these videos.
Dr. Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor at the University of Utah and an expert on sexual orientation, said that the two new studies, taken together, represented a significant step toward demonstrating that bisexual men do have specific arousal patterns.
“I’ve interviewed a lot of individuals about how invalidating it is when their own family members think they’re confused or going through a stage or in denial,” she said. “These converging lines of evidence, using different methods and stimuli, give us the scientific confidence to say this is something real.”
The new studies are relatively small in size, making it hard to draw generalities, especially since bisexual men may have varying levels of sexual, romantic and emotional attraction to partners of either sex. And of course the studies reveal nothing about patterns of arousal among bisexual women. The Northwestern study included 100 men, closely split among bisexuals, heterosexuals and homosexuals. The study in Archives of Sexual Behavior included 59 participants, among them 13 bisexuals.
The new Northwestern study was financed in part by the American Institute of Bisexuality, a group that promotes research and education regarding bisexuality. Still, advocates expressed mixed feelings about the research.
Jim Larsen, 53, a chairman of the Bisexual Organizing Project, a Minnesota-based advocacy group, said the findings could help bisexuals still struggling to accept themselves.
“It’s great that they’ve come out with affirmation that bisexuality exists,” he said. “Having said that, they’re proving what we in the community already know. It’s insulting. I think it’s unfortunate that anyone doubts an individual who says, ‘This is what I am and who I am.’ ”
Ellyn Ruthstrom, president of the Bisexual Resource Center in Boston, echoed Mr. Larsen’s discomfort.
“This unfortunately reduces sexuality and relationships to just sexual stimulation,” Ms. Ruthstrom said. “Researchers want to fit bi attraction into a little box — you have to be exactly the same, attracted to men and women, and you’re bisexual. That’s nonsense. What I love is that people express their bisexuality in so many different ways.”
Despite her cautious praise of the new research, Dr. Diamond also noted that the kind of sexual arousal tested in the studies is only one element of sexual orientation and identity. And simply interpreting results about sexual arousal is complicated, because monitoring genital response to erotic images in a laboratory setting cannot replicate an actual human interaction, she added.
“Sexual arousal is a very complicated thing,” she said. “The real phenomenon in day-to-day life is extraordinarily messy and multifactorial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/health/23bisexual.html?_r=1

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Larger studies are needed - Kinsey in his reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports) had thousands of subjects interviewed by him and his associates, but interviews are hardly comprehensive.

[Olentzero]

Bisexuals exist. Next up, proof that water is wet.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Score another one for Sigmund Freud, who argued that all people are bisexual almost a hundred years ago...

[Sasha]

Proof that bisexual males exist I assume, female bisexuality has been a established scientific fact for ages.

[deLarge]

Wouldn't the fact that I have sex with both sexes, by definition, make me a bisexual?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Larger studies are needed - Kinsey in his reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports) had thousands of subjects interviewed by him and his associates, but interviews are hardly comprehensive.

By the way, this doesn't mean I don't believe bisexuality exists. As a self-identified bisexual myself however, I would appreciate more data on such an under-studied sexuality.

[Decolonize The Left]

Wouldn't the fact that I have sex with both sexes, by definition, make me a bisexual?

It would seem so. But latent prejudice and a long history of dominant heterosexuality would demand that a different person conceive of you as 'confused' and most likely 'a closet gay who just doesn't know it yet.'

That's why there even need to be 'studies' to 'prove' something which you already know well and fine exists. It has to be proven in order to push the normative standards into a broader range of acceptance.

- August

[RedAnarchist]

Proof that bisexual males exist I assume, female bisexuality has been a established scientific fact for ages.

And that's only because homosexual activity between women is fetishised by some heterosexual men and the porn industry.

[Sasha]

And that's only because homosexual activity between women is fetishised by some heterosexual men and the porn industry.

Euh no, its because its proven in the same research as that the OPs study fixed, it was found that if you measure sexual arousal most women, wether they identify as straight, lesbian or bi respond equally to both male and female erotica. While most straight males indeed reacted only to female erotica and those who didn't only reacted to male erotica (and thus where closeted) and al gay guys reacted only to female erotica, bi identifying guys all turned out to be gay.
Since the old study was only done under students the new study factored in that at that age lots of gay guys identify as bi for a while while coming out.
By expanding the study and tightening the criteria they factored out this group and found that indeed a small group of real bisexuals exists.

Dan savage explains it better:


Sex / Savage Love / Science



Case Closed: Bisexual Men Exist!





Posted


by Dan Savage

on Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I get in big trouble when I say things like this:

Some men who have had sexual experiences with both men and women identify as bisexual. However, there is a long history of skepticism about whether these men also have substantial sexual attraction toward both sexes (Krafft-Ebing, 1886; Freund, 1974). In part, this uncertainty exists because it is common for self-identified homosexual men to have first identified as bisexual, despite later professing they were never genuinely attracted to women (Rosario et al., 2006). Similarly, some bisexual men appear to have exclusively homosexual attractions, but identify as bisexual for reasons of perceived social acceptability (Stokes et al., 1997).


I'm one of those "self-identified homosexual men" who once identified as bisexual—in my teens, very briefly—and consequently I feel a certain degree of skepticism (usually unexpressed) when I meet a bi-identified teenage boy. (Which makes me Gaydolph Hitler, according to some bisexual activists lurking in the comments thread on my piece in this year's Queer Issue.) And when gay guys ***** about men who demonstrate "exclusively homosexual attractions" but who nevertheless identify as bi (because it makes them feel superior and/or more masculine)—even if the gay guys doing the *****ing are careful not to cite these halfclosetedcases as evidence that there's no such thing as legit bisexual men—bisexual activists screams bloody murder. Because the failure to accept without question the professed sexual identities of all bi guys everywhere—even if this bi guy is still a kid, even if that bi guy doesn't seem to be interested in women at all—is bigoted and biphobic.
Sex researchers have contributed to the skepticism about the existence of male bisexuality. More than one study found that while guys who self-identified as bi might claim to be aroused by erotic images of both gay and straight sex, their dicks told different stories. Bi guys in labs told researchers that they were equally aroused while they watched gay and straight porn but it was gay porn—and only gay porn—that made their dicks hard. (And, yes, they wired up their dicks and measured 'em during these experiments.) Pointing to these men's exclusively gay "genital arousal patterns," researchers theorized that male bisexuality, unlike female bisexuality, was rare and/or nonexistent.
But here's the lovely thing about science: what science gets wrong, more science sets right. It turns out that previous studies of bi guys didn't adequately control for the young-and-temporarily-bi-identified or the gay-and-kidding-themselves-about-being-bi. Back to the brand new study that I quoted from earlier in this post:

Another important difference between our study and past studies is that ours recruited bisexual men from a source likely to be frequented by men with bisexual erotic interests. Despite our relatively stringent inclusion criteria, about half (53.2%) of the bisexual men who approached us were eligible for inclusion.

.More than half the bi-identified guys recruited for this study were turned away because—I'm reading between the lines here—researchers didn't believe these guys when they claimed to be bi:

On average, the bisexual men in our sample had distinctly bisexual patterns of both genital and subjective arousal.... It appears that some men may identify as bisexual because they are sexually aroused by both sexes, even if they experience considerably more arousal to one sex than the other. Alternatively, men with bisexual arousal patterns may experience temporal fluctuations in their attractions and arousal to men and to women. Thus, a bisexual man may be more aroused by male stimuli at one time point but by female stimuli at another time point. Further, his arousal to his less arousing sex may vary in magnitude depending on fluctuations in his attractions to that sex at any given time.
The current study establishes that some bisexual men have bisexual arousal patterns. Accepting the centrality of sexual arousal patterns in understanding male sexual orientation (Bailey, 2009), this suggests that indeed, some men have a bisexual orientation.


How's this for irony: once researchers controlled for the young-and-temporarily-bi-identified and the gay-and-kidding-themselves-about-being-bi—once researchers refused to accept without question the professed sexual identities of the bi-identified men they recruited, once researchers acted like biphobes and bigots—they were able to demonstrate that "bisexual arousal patterns" actually exist:
You can download a PDF of this study by clicking here. Print free to print out a copy and wave it in the faces of any gays or straights who claims that bi guys don't exist and any bi guys who insist that it's a crime against humanity to point out that some bi-identified guys are lying.

Another interesting note: the author of one of those studies that cast doubt on the existence of bisexual men—Northwestern University's Michael Bailey—co-authored this study. Bailey is essentially debunking Bailey here. And that, my friends, is the difference between science and faith. In the words of Tim Minchin: "Science adjusts its beliefs based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Controlling for variables such as incorrect self-identification is not "act[ing] like biphobes and bigots". Some bisexuality advocates may go too far in their criticism of scientific studies, but to say that scientists doing their job properly are "acting bigoted" is a mischaracterisation of scientific methodology.

[¿Que?]

It doesn't surprise me that these scientists were wrong. But the real question is can you really create a sexual taxonomy by measuring genital stimulation to erotica, or even further, do we really want to? Wouldn't that just lead to some normative sexual standards, no longer imposed by patriarchal religion, but by patriarchal science.

[Hiero]

By the way, this doesn't mean I don't believe bisexuality exists. As a self-identified bisexual myself however, I would appreciate more data on such an under-studied sexuality.

Why?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why?

The larger and more comprehensive a dataset that scientists have to draw on, the better they can understand human sexuality.

Isn't that obvious?

[Salyut]

I actually exist?

Hurray! :wub:

[GX.]

Euh no, its because its proven in the same research as that the OPs study fixed, it was found that if you measure sexual arousal most women, wether they identify as straight, lesbian or bi respond equally to both male and female erotica. The method they used to measure female physical response is much less used than penile plethysmography and it's on a lot shakier ground scientifically. But even assuming that the measurements are accurate, they seem to assume that physical response is linked to psychosexual arousal/desire. But there's a lot more to sexual orientation than that. That's the problem with "objectively" measuring it, there are a lot of messy human variables involved in sexuality that make things less quantifiable. The best way to know someone's orientation, it seems, is to ask them; but of course people also lie. Bailey is the guy who coined the ridiculous phrase "Gay, straight, or lying" but now it seems he's "discovered" (after getting funding from a bisexual group) that lying is something people do independent of their orientation. Who would've thought lol


It appears that some men may identify as bisexual because they are sexually aroused by both sexes, even if they experience considerably more arousal to one sex than the other. Alternatively, men with bisexual arousal patterns may experience temporal fluctuations in their attractions and arousal to men and to women. Thus, a bisexual man may be more aroused by male stimuli at one time point but by female stimuli at another time point. Further, his arousal to his less arousing sex may vary in magnitude depending on fluctuations in his attractions to that sex at any given time. Well gosh, this is only what bisexuals have been saying almost to the letter all along. It's kind of suspect that they didn't take this into account the first go round. Another thing they might want to consider is that a person's arousal probably varies quite a bit depending on the setting and context. Especially the context of porn, I wouldn't expect the kind of porn people get a physical response from to map all that clearly to their orientation. Bailey's previous study just showed that self-identified bi mean aren't stimulated by some sort of lesbian porn.

[GX.]

Controlling for variables such as incorrect self-identification is not "act[ing] like biphobes and bigots". Some bisexuality advocates may go too far in their criticism of scientific studies, but to say that scientists doing their job properly are "acting bigoted" is a mischaracterisation of scientific methodology.
Savage is just trying to associate the legitimately biphobic comments he has made in the past with healthy scientific skepticism (but let's not forget that Bailey has a pretty bad history as far as being bigoted and unscientific, see The Man Who Would Be Queen). That's what he does, he makes racist remarks and attacks every part of the LGBTQ that isn't L or G to shore up his sense of white male privilege. And then he dismisses any criticism by saying he's just being brutally honest. He has done some good things but guy is an asshole. But I digress...

[Astarte]

In both studies, men watched videos of male and female same-sex intimacy while genital sensors monitored their erectile responses.


And that's only because homosexual activity between women is fetishised by some heterosexual men and the porn industry.

Does a male responding to two females engaging in homosexual activity gauge their heterosexual attraction to women ... or their fetish for that kind of voyeurism?

The variables of the test are absurd, and the test is only constructed this way for the same reason female bisexuality has apparently been wholeheartedly accepted by mainstream science for a long time, while male bisexuality has not.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Not suprising result but is measuring boners really the best way of doing this? I know for a fact if I had a bunch of wires on my penis there is no way I could get an erection with any kind of porn (im bisexual btw)

[Hiero]

The larger and more comprehensive a dataset that scientists have to draw on, the better they can understand human sexuality.

Isn't that obvious?

Just curious. Better understanding of a subject through science may not result in better understanding of self. Science can complicate things, "Sexual arousal is a very complicated thing,” it may be in science but for alot of people it is not complex at all. It may be confusing, but not complicated.

I am just suspicious of this application of science, as it goes on to tell people what they already knew, like they needed confirmation. Also it confuses bodily reaction with social identities, as arousal can be different ones sexual identity. which she does note. "because monitoring genital response to erotic images in a laboratory setting cannot replicate an actual human interaction". Science here is used to validate people's existence, but it was only science that asked for the validation through science. People's should be able top validate their own existance.

It is one thing to study arousal another to try and use the findings to explain something as dynamic as social identity.

[citizen of industry]

I had to laugh at the very first line: In an unusual scientific about-face, researchers at Northwestern University have found evidence that at least some men who identify themselves as bisexual are, in fact, sexually aroused by both women and men.

In another unusual study, researchers discovered evidence that some men who identify themselves as beer-drinkers do, in fact, enjoy drinking beer.

[Il Medico]

I exist? How nice to know.

[Desperado]

Such peculiar announcements remind me of this brilliant article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/30/ben-goldacre-bad-science-neuroscience



Far stranger is the idea that a subjective experience must be shown to have a measurable physical correlate in the brain before we can agree that the subjective experience is real. If someone is complaining of persistent low sex drive, then they have persistent low sex drive, and even if you could find no physical correlate in the brain whatsoever, that wouldn't matter: they still have low sex drive.

Answers this insanity in a nutshell.

[Summerspeaker]

The reductionism and assumptions involved in this study make me a sad panda. The problems of course start with the categories of men and women as well the straight/gay/bisexual conception of sexuality. Then we get to including only folks who conform to cultural norms and have romantic relationships. How do the researchers define any of these things? Finally, sexuality becomes mechanized with a sensor on the penis and simplistic stimulus/response setup.

What about bepenised people aren't aroused by either men or women as categories but by specific individuals? What about those who aren't interested in the particular erotic videos involved or in erotic videos in general? What about folks whose penises don't jump up on command? What about those whose arousal doesn't center on an erection? And on and on.

I echo the comment by Ellyn Ruthstrom and Lisa Diamond:


“This unfortunately reduces sexuality and relationships to just sexual stimulation,” Ms. Ruthstrom said. “Researchers want to fit bi attraction into a little box — you have to be exactly the same, attracted to men and women, and you’re bisexual. That’s nonsense. What I love is that people express their bisexuality in so many different ways."

“Sexual arousal is a very complicated thing,” she said. “The real phenomenon in day-to-day life is extraordinarily messy and multifactorial."

If the scientists involved acknowledge the limitations of their research and refrain from spinning it into grand claims, I might support this sort of thing.

[Game Girl]

...Really....They...had to spend on such a study?

*bangs head against table*

Why must scientists insist on wasting money on stuff everyone and their DOG knows?! Shoulden't these scientists be using that money to find cures to diseases?!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just curious. Better understanding of a subject through science may not result in better understanding of self.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Sure, each and every finding of science may not be entirely applicable to one, but they do have at least some relevance.


Science can complicate things, "Sexual arousal is a very complicated thing,” it may be in science but for alot of people it is not complex at all. It may be confusing, but not complicated.

If something is uncomplicated, how can it be confusing?


I am just suspicious of this application of science, as it goes on to tell people what they already knew, like they needed confirmation.

It's a mistake to assume that what "everybody knows" is true by default.


Also it confuses bodily reaction with social identities, as arousal can be different ones sexual identity. which she does note. "because monitoring genital response to erotic images in a laboratory setting cannot replicate an actual human interaction". Science here is used to validate people's existence, but it was only science that asked for the validation through science. People's should be able top validate their own existance.

I've heard that physical symptoms of arousal can manifest in stressful, non-sexual situations - for example I have heard reports of soldiers acquiring erections during combat - but I hardly think laboratory conditions are comparable to a battlefield. But controlling for these sorts of things is exactly why sample sizes should be as large as possible, why the methodology should be scientifically rigorous, and why multiple avenues of confirming a reaction should be used, in other words, don't just measure physical reactions but brain activity as well. It might also be useful to determine the various hormone levels of subjects as well.


It is one thing to study arousal another to try and use the findings to explain something as dynamic as social identity.

I don't think such studies are conclusive either way, which is why I called for larger, better ones.


The reductionism and assumptions involved in this study make me a sad panda. The problems of course start with the categories of men and women as well the straight/gay/bisexual conception of sexuality.

What's the problem exactly? If people identify as male or female, hetero, bi or homosexual, surely that sort of thing has to be taken into account?

"Militant anti-labelism" is stupid. I'm happy to be labelled a bisexual, because as far as I can tell that's an entirely correct rubric. I am sexually attracted to both sexes. Maybe not equally attracted, but my attraction in either case is non-trivial.


Then we get to including only folks who conform to cultural norms and have romantic relationships.

How did you get that from "the researchers recruited subjects from online venues specifically catering to bisexuals"? If websites for bisexuals are anything like websites for any other self-identified group, then there's going to be considerable diversity.


How do the researchers define any of these things? Finally, sexuality becomes mechanized with a sensor on the penis and simplistic stimulus/response setup.

Using a single avenue of potential data is overly simplistic, but to complain about "mechanisation" (a strange complaint considering our status as naturally evolved biological mechanisms) is to completely downplay the importance of physical interaction in sexual matters.


What about bepenised people aren't aroused by either men or women as categories but by specific individuals? ... What about folks whose penises don't jump up on command? What about those whose arousal doesn't center on an erection? And on and on.

They're incredibly picky? But seriously, people like that are statistical outliers.


What about those who aren't interested in the particular erotic videos involved or in erotic videos in general?

Now that is an interesting question, because my (bisexual) porn collection is considerably, erm... unorthodox. This is an area where I reckon personal taste comes into play, and that kind of thing is difficult to control for. But I think we should try nonetheless.


...Really....They...had to spend on such a study?

*bangs head against table*

Why must scientists insist on wasting money on stuff everyone and their DOG knows?! Shoulden't these scientists be using that money to find cures to diseases?!

As I alluded to above, "what everyone knows" and "what is true" aren't necessarily the same thing.

[deLarge]

It's a bit of a strange study, since porn doesn't necessarily translate to real attraction. I can sit and watch gay porn all day, and it doesn't do anything for me. One kiss from a guy I like, though, and I don't have a problem keeping it up.

[Lobotomy]

I agree with a lot of the criticisms of this study that have been mentioned in this thread. I think as time goes on people in the scientific community and then the general public will be more willing to view human sexuality as a large spectrum instead of "straight, bi, gay".