Stupid!

[talktooloose]

The New York Times today quoted a new study that showed that bisexuality, at least among men, does not exist.

The methodology involved showing a bunch of men pictures of naked men and women and seeing what made their dicks twitch.

This study proves conclusively that blind men don't have a sexual orientation.

Comments

[minisinoo.livejournal.com]

Actually, I read the study (both the report and the study itself), and the main conclusion is that a lot more study is needed. ;> Sexual orientation isn't consonant with affective orientation (which I think people have recognized for a lot time). But this study is interesting in that it does call some assumptions into question, but I think everyone realizes a lot more study needs to be done, including the ones doing the study.

The reason I hopped on this is because it's a classic example of media running with study conclusions and implying that the the conclusions (and the ones running the study) are saying more than they are. Don't leap to conclusions. Again, the MAIN point of the study is that male arousal at sexual images doesn't necessarily match their self-professed orientation, nor show much middle ground -- unlike similar studies done with women. And that's very interesting, suggesting it's an area to explore with further study. ;> Why is that the case? Is it a real difference, or an artifact of study parameters? Etc.

[redrunner.livejournal.com]

Haha, your last line is fantastic.

[spizzy.livejournal.com]

The article only says the study "casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men". It doesn't show that bisexuality "does not exist" in men. The actual study seems claims to be inconclusive.

I don't really see what's stupid about the study or the article. Of course measuring boners from watching porn won't tell everything about someone's sexuality, but it will tell you about visual stimulation.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Well said. Science reporting is tough for a medium that uses as its modus operandi sudden, short, headlined action!

I've been thinking about this topic since I posted, reflecting on one male friend who is fairly actively sexual with men but only consumers hetero porn. He's clearly bisexual but visually oriented in one direction.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're exactly right. Read minisinoo's comment above. I haven't seen the online version of the story, but the printed one made misleading use of the idea "Bisexuality shown not to exist by study" (my words, not a true quote). Actually, it was reflected in the writing as well which quoted some hoary gay dictum (which I've never heard myself) that you're either "str8, gay or lying." As pointed out, this is not what the study was showing so why did the Times--in its Science section no less--go for the sensationalistic and insulting slant on the story?

It would be like finding out that one race is more visually literate than book literate and then pronouncing that this proved they were STOOPID.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Um, "consumes." Thank you.

[spizzy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I found the online version, and the title was "straight, gay or lying? bisexuality revisited". I agree that the article made a few errors of judgement. Unfortunately that happens all too often with reporting. :(

I found it interesting anyways, because I've been thinking about the various aspects of sexuality lately. minisinoo's post had "affective orientation", which I'd never heard before. I looked it up and found it was something I'd thought about but didn't have a word for!

[minisinoo.livejournal.com]

Science reporting is tough for a medium that uses as its modus operandi sudden, short, headlined action!

Yup, that's it exactly. Actually, I didn't think the article really fairly represented the actual results, which I found very intriguing, but also very preliminary. The questions/points it raised for me:

1) Male reaction was quite different from female reaction to much the same type of test, which suggests (yet again) that male and female patterns of arousal function differently.

2) The old saw the women next love for sex and men need sex for love has already been shown to have some biological truth to it, and this study may tangentially support that as ...

3) It's clear that some people DO, in fact, make permanent ties to those who are not their primary sexual interest, which in turn underscores that human arousal is complex, and that -- even for men -- emotions DO figure into it. Sex and love are not the same thing, yet love affects sex (and perhaps the reverse).

Most of all, I think it points to the fact that theories and results don't always match. (g)

But really, the next logical step is to run the study again, with a larger sampling, and see if the results are repeated.

[minisinoo.livejournal.com]

Sorry, it's my psychobabble coming to the forefront. (g) Affective orientation versus sexual orientation is a divisions I've always liked to make, since it draws a clear distinction between what may arouse us versus what we choose to act on, and where our emotional investment lies. Neither is either wrong or right, but they may be different. In fact, lately I've come to wonder if we really SHOULD speak of affective "orientation" or instead, "primarily affective attachment," but that's a different question. :-)

[minisinoo.livejournal.com]

You're not the only one who can't type: "the old saw THAT women NEED love for ..."

[snowmit.livejournal.com]

Hee! "Straight Gay or Lying!"

Science proves that men who have sex with men and women are lying to someone!

Awesome.

[snowmit.livejournal.com]

I'll be honest, I didn't understand a word you just said.

[snowmit.livejournal.com]

It's true! Jonathan is the king of (snarky) swing.

[spizzy.livejournal.com]

I lied a little on my taxes. MAYBE IT'S TRUE.

[rcornelius.livejournal.com]

I definately believe that some people just plain old like sex. They don't really care with who, as long as they get some. Love is a different matter entirely. Of course, I am probably not supported by any science, just feelings...for what that is worth ;)

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

If I may hazard a parsing:

Affective orientation = what we do... which may or may not line up perfectly with what we feel (actual orientation).

If I'm understanding correctly, minisinoo, I'm find this both useful and murky.

all I know...

[codystrum.livejournal.com]

All I know is that the love of my life D., who had sex with both men and women could not love me enough and loved women more is now my best friend sho is getting married to the woman he has been living with for two years now. One of the reasons he is there is that I challenged him to realize that he does not feel emotion enough for men - for whatever reason- to live honestly in a gay lifestyle. Though he did enjoy gay sex immensely he couldn't love a man.

Whether that inability is due to the repression of his "gay side" or due to the fact that he really is more straight than gay is kind of mute, Basically the main point is that being gay means both a physical AND EMOTIONAL attachment to your same sex partner should be evident. (I'm excluding self hating, damaged people who cannot love even their own orientation). I also think that TRUE bisexuality is more than just about sex; it's about the EMOTIONAL ability to love either men or women in a close and intimate way.

If this study you are discussion only tested a physical response then in my opinion, it has nothing to do with what gay or bisexual men are about because it ignores the essense of the bi or gay loving soul.

So I for one think this study is bullshit for that reason :)

Sorry for the numerous typos I am sure are here.

Cody

Re: all I know...

[(Anonymous)]

Well I wasn't looking at it from an emotional perspective, just a physical one.

Of course being bi-sexual is more about wants physical sex with both genders when it comes to emotional love. In that case, the bi-sexual person can stand in line behind the gay or straight person, because that's just called being human.

My main point, regardless of science, was that people want what they want. Some want sex with guys but relationships with women. Vice-versa and evreything in between. Fine. As long as that is clearly communicated up front so that people understand the bounds of their relationahip, I am of the firm belief that we should let people as "_____-sexual" as they want. We've got much bigger challenges to focus on.

Re: all I know...

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Okay, so the reporter interpreting the study said, "bisexuality doesn't exist because the guys' dicks only twitched for one sex, not two". He put himself in the position of decreeing what bisexuality is and isn't whereas I believe that sexualities are defined in numerous ways by numerous people. My "gay" is not the same as your "gay".

I have the same trouble with you defining "TRUE bisexuality" as if you have a handle on the single truth that encompasses myriad people who self-identify as bi. Again, you are an arbitrary authority declaring that some folks calling themselves bi are, in fact, either self-deluding or deliberately duplicitous.

Re: all I know...

[(Anonymous)]

So those guys who are saying they are "bi" when in fact they are actually hiding the fact that they are in fact, gay cannot have their definition of bisexuality questioned by me? A person who has been around a long time and
knows such BS when he sees it?

That's so Torontonian to imply that it is not right for one person to define another person according to their own perceptions won through life experience...I'd forgotten that kind of restriction over all these years... :)

I prefer the West COast approach. Label someone and leave it to them to agree with ya or say "fuck ya" ! :)

Re: all I know...

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

LMAO!

You probably have a point.