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.
About ozyfrantz
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?