How can you claim to not be even a tad bi-curious?

[Chicup]

Looking at my post, part of it got cut off when I did a cut and paste.

One thing I do think is that male bisexuality is more common than some researchers think being more hidden.

Nor do I think all male bisexuals are caught between homo and heterosexuality, but signs point to part of the reason you see more female bisexuality is that there are more female bisexuals.

A persons sexuality isn't about populations though its about what works for the individual.

[JustAskJulie]

I don't really think that a guy being curious how another penis feels/tastes, or a woman being curious as to how another woman's vagina tastes/feels... qualifies as bi-curious. That type of curiosity in no way says the person is remotely attracted to the opposite sex. IMO, in order to be bisexual or even bi-curious there has to be some sexual & physical attraction to people of the opposite sex.

[rickmccool]

Originally Posted by Chicup

*sigh*
another study

Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women but not to men.

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.
....
The Advocate, the gay-oriented newsmagazine, found that, before identifying themselves as gay, 40 percent of gay men had described themselves as bisexual.

"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."


Science she be a harsh mistress....

LOL! The Bailey study is so flawed as to almost be a joke. I tried to copy and paste some of the problems but there is such a volume that I gave up. I'll try to summarize.

The Bi volunteers were recruited by an ad in a Gay male publication distributed in Gay clubs around the Chicago area. Self selection and the fact that men who hang out in Gay clubs are usually toward the Gay side of the spectrum are issues here.

The criteria used was porn videos. The subjects were shown a 10 minute non sexual film then 2 videos showing Female to Female sex then 2 videos showing Male to Male sex. To me this disqualifies the study as scientific research off the bat. What if it was bad porn? What if the actors were unattactive. What if the volunteers were conditioned to enjoy Male/Female porn. What if they were just not aroused by porn. That's pretty much what happened. 1/3 of all men couldn't respond at all. If response is orientation as you quote Bailey as saying, then the results of the study should have been "1/3 of all men are ASEXUAL!"

That left about 65 men, 22 of which identified as bisexual, a pretty small group to come to any kind of scientific conclusion.

Sexual orientation was determined by their ranking themselves on a Kinsey Sexual Attraction Scale, with zero being heterosexual and six homosexual. Bailey decided that everyone ranked greater than one and less than five was bisexual. ”Looking at the group that Bailey calls “bisexual,” it appears there were men spread across the scale, from a Kinsey 1.5 to 4.5. What were the results? In fact, the lower the number, the more they leaned toward being measurably aroused by the sexual films featuring two women, and the higher the number the more they leaned toward films featuring two men. One would think that to be the expected outcome. So why the headlines then?

The self-assessment of arousal showed the expected bisexual pattern, meaning what the men felt differed from what the penis meter detected. Perhaps instead of deciding that “bisexual” men weren’t self-aware enough to know how they feel, the researchers need to re-examine assumptions about expected sexual response to stimuli.

Interestingly enough, 1 of the straight men and 1 of the Gay men showed an almost equal response pattern and a few of the Gay men showed a Bisexual response pattern. The study actually showed that about 12% (3 of 25) of Gay men are actually bisexual and also that a small percentage of straight men are also bisexual. That is if you accept its validity.

Something else that is discussed in the study but not included as part of the results, is that to some degree most of the men in the study were aroused by all of the sexual content. According to Bailey, “This suggests that most men may possess a certain capacity for bisexual arousal, although the magnitude of this arousal is quite modest.” Maybe the headline should read, “All Men Are, to Some Degree, Bisexual, Study Finds.”

Whew...Rick

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by rickmccool

LOL! The Bailey study is so flawed as to almost be a joke. I tried to copy and paste some of the problems but there is such a volume that I gave up. I'll try to summarize.

The Bi volunteers were recruited by an ad in a Gay male publication distributed in Gay clubs around the Chicago area. Self selection and the fact that men who hang out in Gay clubs are usually toward the Gay side of the spectrum are issues here.

The criteria used was porn videos. The subjects were shown a 10 minute non sexual film then 2 videos showing Female to Female sex then 2 videos showing Male to Male sex. To me this disqualifies the study as scientific research off the bat. What if it was bad porn? What if the actors were unattactive. What if the volunteers were conditioned to enjoy Male/Female porn. What if they were just not aroused by porn. That's pretty much what happened. 1/3 of all men couldn't respond at all. If response is orientation as you quote Bailey as saying, then the results of the study should have been "1/3 of all men are ASEXUAL!"

That left about 65 men, 22 of which identified as bisexual, a pretty small group to come to any kind of scientific conclusion.

Sexual orientation was determined by their ranking themselves on a Kinsey Sexual Attraction Scale, with zero being heterosexual and six homosexual. Bailey decided that everyone ranked greater than one and less than five was bisexual. ”Looking at the group that Bailey calls “bisexual,” it appears there were men spread across the scale, from a Kinsey 1.5 to 4.5. What were the results? In fact, the lower the number, the more they leaned toward being measurably aroused by the sexual films featuring two women, and the higher the number the more they leaned toward films featuring two men. One would think that to be the expected outcome. So why the headlines then?

The self-assessment of arousal showed the expected bisexual pattern, meaning what the men felt differed from what the penis meter detected. Perhaps instead of deciding that “bisexual” men weren’t self-aware enough to know how they feel, the researchers need to re-examine assumptions about expected sexual response to stimuli.

Interestingly enough, 1 of the straight men and 1 of the Gay men showed an almost equal response pattern and a few of the Gay men showed a Bisexual response pattern. The study actually showed that about 12% (3 of 25) of Gay men are actually bisexual and also that a small percentage of straight men are also bisexual. That is if you accept its validity.

Something else that is discussed in the study but not included as part of the results, is that to some degree most of the men in the study were aroused by all of the sexual content. According to Bailey, “This suggests that most men may possess a certain capacity for bisexual arousal, although the magnitude of this arousal is quite modest.” Maybe the headline should read, “All Men Are, to Some Degree, Bisexual, Study Finds.”

Whew...Rick

Like all studies in sexuality you can try to pick it apart as you like. None of them have large controlled samples followed for years. Quite simply the money for such studies isn't there because its not something that really concerns the NIH.

Dr. Bailey never pulls any punches and is constantly criticized by any group who doesn't like his conclusions. It becomes quite comical as politics starts to trump science.

Dr. Bailey was one of the first to show that homosexuality isn't caused by upbringing by an over protective mother (yes that was the theory), and has been a respected sex researcher at northwestern for 20 years.

Also he was quite clear on the arousal study as to what the results mean, you can be cute and try to twist it but it was rather cut and dry.

Now unlike men the same study found women were almost all aroused by both FF and MF activities. To me thats much more interesting than the men, as I've always joked all women are bisexual (Mrs. Goodtimes forgive me ). If anything its just further proof that male and female minds are different.

While Dr. Bailey has been attacked by those who disagree with his research, even by other academics, oddly they don't attack him where it should matter and thats scientifically. Thats how the whole process works. Someone has a theory, someone does a study, someone else comes along tests the hypothesis.

I would think it should be pretty easy to replicate this study.

[rickmccool]

Like all studies in sexuality you can try to pick it apart as you like. None of them have large controlled samples followed for years. Quite simply the money for such studies isn't there because its not something that really concerns the NIH.

That doesn't alter the fact that the study group was much too small to be of any value

Dr. Bailey was one of the first to show that homosexuality isn't caused by upbringing by an over protective mother (yes that was the theory), and has been a respected sex researcher at northwestern for 20 years.

Relevance?

Also he was quite clear on the arousal study as to what the results mean, you can be cute and try to twist it but it was rather cut and dry.

Yes I was being cute, but the results showed just what I said. Scattershot and inconclusive.

Now unlike men the same study found women were almost all aroused by both FF and MF activities. To me thats much more interesting than the men, as I've always joked all women are bisexual (Mrs. Goodtimes forgive me ). If anything its just further proof that male and female minds are different

.

There were no women included in the study. Only men.

While Dr. Bailey has been attacked by those who disagree with his research, even by other academics, oddly they don't attack him where it should matter and thats scientifically. Thats how the whole process works. Someone has a theory, someone does a study, someone else comes along tests the hypothesis.

Some of the criticism is indeed personal but the bulk of it is scientific. Method of selection, number of subjects, criteria used, the flat assumption that for men response is orientation, the basic validity of the study since so many men failed to respond at all, etc., etc.. Even the penis meter is not considered a scientific instrument. Someone does a study, someone else comes along and tests the hypothesis. In my opinion this study fails the test.

I would think it should be pretty easy to replicate this study

.

I think I'll just leave this one alone.

[corynlaine]

Rick,


Thank you for the EXCELLENT summary. I was going to do it but I just haven't had the time.

Chicup, FUNNY - how when you thought that the SCIENCE backed your point of view

Science was harsh task master - But all of a suddent when the outragous flaws in the study are pointed out AND actually demonstrate that your assumtions are wrong

then all of a suden it's "well there is not much money for such studies"

This is called CONFIRMATION BIAS for the 1st part and CONGANTIVE DISSONANCE for the second (more commonly refered to as hypocracy. Thanks for proving the point YET again!

NOTE As always - this is not an effort to to convince you to try Bi-male or prove that there is something 'wrong" with you for not being interested.
I have no agenda here - while I list as bi-curious, my definition is much more along the lines of what Julie posted. I just can't stand the prejudice couched in moral high ground - it sounds just like the fundi xians who claim that we'll allburn in hell just because we're on this board.
___
Here is another perfect example of the attitude I am talking about.

Its the thought of two muscle men with hairy bodies (chests, legs, etc) being intimate with each other in any way sounds so eeewwwww.

But two long haired soft silky tanned curvy hairless women licking and kissing each other sounds like such a beautiful sight.

RIGHT - because all bi/bi-curious men are hairy muscle bound guys dressed in leather chaps while bi/bi curious girls NEVER look like this

http://smokeonthewater.typepad.com/s...odonnell_1.jpg

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by rickmccool

That doesn't alter the fact that the study group was much too small to be of any value

Actually N=30 is normally the minimum size.


Relevance?

Establishing his credentials as a sex researcher.


Yes I was being cute, but the results showed just what I said. Scattershot and inconclusive.


No, you decided that it made it inconclusive, the data was conclusive.

There were no women included in the study. Only men.


The exact same study was done with women too. The results were as I stated.

Study on Differences in Female, Male Sexuality

In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern.

“These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men’s and women’s brains and have important implications for understanding how sexual orientation development differs between men and women,” said J. Michael Bailey, professor and chair of psychology at Northwestern and senior researcher of the study “A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal.” The study is forthcoming in the journal Psychological Science.

Some of the criticism is indeed personal but the bulk of it is scientific. Method of selection, number of subjects, criteria used, the flat assumption that for men response is orientation, the basic validity of the study since so many men failed to respond at all, etc., etc.. Even the penis meter is not considered a scientific instrument. Someone does a study, someone else comes along and tests the hypothesis. In my opinion this study fails the test.

Oddly there is no counter research. As I said this should be a VERY easy study to do if there was so much wrong with it and it caused such a fuss. Calling the penis meter not a scientific instrument is kinda silly, anything can be a scientific instrument if its consistent.

So you don't like his study and think its useless. Thats fine, whats your basis on then besides anecdotal?

[funcpl4life]

Originally Posted by JustAskJulie

I don't really think that a guy being curious how another penis feels/tastes, or a woman being curious as to how another woman's vagina tastes/feels... qualifies as bi-curious. That type of curiosity in no way says the person is remotely attracted to the opposite sex. IMO, in order to be bisexual or even bi-curious there has to be some sexual & physical attraction to people of the opposite sex.

Interesting. I think we're into semantics at this point.

I consider myself bi because I've sucked a dick and liked it. I don't ever have social/personal/dating relationships with men at all. I don't seek out guys. When there are 4 or more of us on the bed (or bed analog), I'm willing to have sexual contact with males and females.

To me, bi is "I have sexual contact with males and females".
Bi-curious is "I think I would or would like to have sexual contact with males and females".


As well as being bisexual, I am truly ambidextrous. I do not accept that anyone's brain is *necessarily* wired like mine. I may be a population of 1.

I accept people where they say they are at and love them where they are at. (we all have that friend that isn't as far in the closet as he thinks he is)

Mr. FC4L

[JandY]

I never knew I was bi-curious until after me and my lass had our first swinging session and everytime I recalled it, my brain was concentrating as much on his dick and the fun she was having with it as anything else. I envied her more than him.

When I spoke with him, it turned out that his experience was exactly the same. He had been captivated by the sight of his lass enjoying giving me a BJ.

He said watching her give me a BJ was more horny than her giving him one and it was her that he envied, not me. Which was exactly how I felt.

[rickmccool]

Originally Posted by funcpl4life

As well as being bisexual, I am truly ambidextrous. I do not accept that anyone's brain is *necessarily* wired like mine. I may be a population of 1.

I accept people where they say they are at and love them where they are at. (we all have that friend that isn't as far in the closet as he thinks he is)

Mr. FC4L

That is very interesting . I am also ambidextrous and my male friend is also. So I guess we're a population of 3, at least.

[Edison Carter]

Ed here -- I recall a colleague who was a male bisexual swinger and we had the following conversation:

"Ed, isn't a mouth, really just a mouth, when you come right down to it."

"Not when it has a moustache."

And I stand by that.

[rickmccool]

If 30 is the minimum number then obviously 22 falls below that number. Whatever the minimum, common sense will tell you that 22 bisexual men recruited from Gay clubs in Chicago is too small a number to take this study seriously.

***

Whether or not Bailey is a respected sex researcher is open to question. Here are some comments I got on the internet.

Bailey is probably most well known for his book, 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. To me, this work makes “Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men” look like “The Origin of Species.” The book has no footnotes, no surveys, and no statistics, and was built on anecdotal observation of a small handful of people who are transgender. According to Lynn Conway (a transgender activist who has dedicated herself to debunking the book), “…the [book] simply pronounced as a scientific fact that postoperative transsexual women are either (i) effeminate gay men who underwent ‘sex changes’ in order to have sex with lots of men, or else they are (ii) sexual paraphilic males who ‘changed sex’ for bizarre autosexual reasons.”

Attacks against Bailey have been blistering. In a review at the web site for the National Association for Research and Therapy in Homosexuality, A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH states, “J. Michael Bailey has been accused of having sex with a research subject. His own sexuality has been questioned—he is a divorced father of two who frequents gay bars for the purpose of doing ‘research.’ He has been accused of failing to obtain the informed consent of research subjects. Formal charges have been filed with Northwestern University against him over this.” Northwestern did scrutinize him and his work, but has not released the results of the investigation. However, in October 2004, Bailey resigned as Chair of the Psychology Department. It would be hard to imagine the two are unrelated


***

The data is not conclusive and is a matter of interpretation. I would argue that the difference in the subjective responses, obtained by the use of a lever and which showed a distinct bisexual pattern, and the penis meter responses really indicated that the penis meter responses were invalid. The fact that so many men had to be eliminated from the study is a pretty strong clue in itself.

In my experience people usually don't lie. Some do obviously, but In a serious situation such as a courtroom or a study like this people tend to tell the truth. Did the straight man who showed a distinctly bisexual pattern lie? I doubt it. Did the two gay men who showed a heterosexual arousal pattern or the gay man who showed a bisexual arousal pattern lie? I doubt it.

Bailey interpreted it his way because that was what he was trying to prove.

***
Straight men in the swinging community probably love this study. There are no bisexual men, but all women are bisexual. Women are encouraged and even expected to be bisexual. The men like to watch but more importantly it allows them to have sex with women they wouldn't otherwise be able to.

***
I am not a sex researcher so my experiences are purely anecdotal but here are a few comments from academics and professionals.

"I have seen in my practice very, very, very many men who are bisexual," Weitzman tells WebMD. "Really, there are so many bisexual men out there. There are so many men who say — and demonstrate — that they love men and love women and are happy with it."

Rieger and Bailey are looking in the wrong place for men's sexual identities, says Sheeri Kritzer, a Bisexual Resource Center board member. Identity, she says, comes from above the ears, not below the belt.

"The whole point of sexual identity is it is a validation of who you are," Kritzer tells WebMD. "This study perpetuates the idea that men are studs, that they go with whatever turns them on. It goes on the old stereotype that men think with their [penises]."

Sexologist Paula Rodriguez Rust, PhD, is the editor of the 1999 book "Bisexuality in the United States." She says a person's sexual orientation is not determined merely by genital arousal.

"Sexual response is not everything we think of when we think of sexual orientation," Rodriguez Rust tells WebMD. "Bisexuality clearly exists."
***

The reliability of the penis meter is also questionable. I concede this to be a minor point but evidence obtained using the the plethysmograph – which measures blood flow to the penis is apparently not admissable as evidence in US courts (although the mind boggles as to what it would be needed for).

***

Bailey's study is shaky science at best, if at all. I would even say the field of Psychology itself is shaky science. Sounds like it could be a good game though. Do a study that doesn't take much effort, create a controversy and then write a book. Wonder if he will do that? Could help pay the rent.

I really think Bailey has wandered down the wrong hallway. He needs to do his measuring between the ears and not between the legs.

[Chicup]

Rick if you don't want to agree with the study that fine.

I find it fits my own readings on tangential material and think its mostly valid for many bisexual males and females.

[rickmccool]

Originally Posted by funcpl4life

As well as being bisexual, I am truly ambidextrous. I do not accept that anyone's brain is *necessarily* wired like mine. I may be a population of 1.


Mr. FC4L

Can you juggle? I'm out of practice now but I used to be a whiz.

[bitNtim]

In our 30 year experience we have found that about 20% of men who swing as couples will admit in private to being bisexual compared to about 65% of women. In house party situations we have rarely seen male on male contact that is overtly bisexual. If it happens it is behind closed doors. It would seem that most swinging involving male bisexuality is done in smaller more private settings. It could even be said to be a practice between individuals who would never call themselves swingers in the way many of us understand the definition. We would all agree that in a mmf situation and in relative privacy there is a wide variety of sexual variation possible of which a majority of us have preferred to partake of only a few.
I remember when we first started swinging we were eating at a hotel restaurant where later we would be attending a swing club dance and we over heard the staff say " OH it is some kind of swingers group or something.... If you ask me they are all a bunch of gays." It was our first impression of dealing with the reality of our lifestyle.