 |
| Dr. Michael Bailey |
In a 2005 paper, Northwestern University professor Dr. Michael Bailey, essentially stated that bisexual men were, in fact, gay, but fooling themselves. The research at the time entailed measuring the "level of sexual arousal" a participant was at while watching both gay and straight porn. At the time of the 2005 study, the subjects only "responded" to the gay porn.
The study thereby concluded that male bisexuality did not exist. Bailey reported:
"In men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."
The New York Times went so far as to say that men are "Straight, Gay or Lying". As you could imagine, the bi community was furious, but they had no scientific ammunition to counter Bailey's argument.
Fast forward six years. A landmark study published Tuesday, confirms that bisexual men do indeed exist. One of the study's authors is the very same Dr. Michael Bailey from the '05 paper. And, it unequivocally nullifies the findings of research done in 2005. Why the about face?
In a word: science. Or more precisely, the scientific method.
For the '05 study, men were sought out via ads in gay-themed, and alternative lifestyle magazines. There was no real selection process. They accepted all comers (no pun intended). If a guy wanted to participate and said he was bisexual, regardless of their sexual history, he was accepted.
This time around, the application process was a little more stringent. Not only did they advertise specifically on websites that catered to bisexual clientele, but the men that took part in the study were also required to have a history with both men and women. Men had to have had two sexual experiences with members of each sex, and a relationship lasting at least three months with a member of each sex. (So, that time that you made out with that chick at the frat party in college didn't count.) I wouldn't have even been considered "bisexual enough" to be part of this study.
So to make the study scientifically sound, the tests were conducted in the same fashion as they were in 2005. Electrodes were placed around the subject's penises. They were shown pornographic videos with only men, then only women. As the videos were being shown, the electrodes measured the "level of sexual arousal" the subject was feeling at the time. Turns out, the results were exactly the opposite of what they found in 2005. The results of the study showed that while bisexual men responded to both the male and female videos, gay and straight men did not. Quoting the study:
The study even received the attention of notorious biphobe Dan Savage, who wrote about it last week before the paper was published.(I didn't catch the article until today, since I try to intentionally avoid anything related to him.) While it was refreshing to finally see a blog post from Savage titled "Case Closed: Bisexuals Exist", it is disappointing to not see an apology for years of disparaging comments aimed at the bisexual community. While in a round about way, he did admit that he was wrong about bisexuals. Though, he said:
They are disconcerted, most notably for two reasons: that women were not included in the study, and that the "least common denominators (porn and erections) were used as indicators to measure sexual attraction.
What many fail to understand is that Tuesday's study is a revisit of the 2005 research. As such, the scientific method dictates that test subjects must come from a similar demographic, but the conditions of the research must be identical as they were in 2005. Otherwise, if research conditions had changed in any way, and the outcome was different than what it was in '05, skeptics could reasonably say that the research was flawed.
Also, when you think about it, measuring erectile response is the most practical way to gauge sexual attraction in males. They say that when you see someone that you're attracted to, your pupils dilate, but I'm sure this is much more reliable. Any other way would be subjective. They can't show someone a picture of a man and say, "Do you find this person attractive", and take the subject's word for it. That isn't scientific. Sometimes science isn't pretty, or prude for that matter.
A study like this is much better suited toward males than females. Physically, it is much easier to measure sexual stimulation/arousal in men than woman. I imagine it's also much less intrusive and awkward. Sex is much different for men than women. To put it bluntly, if a guy gets turned on, he gets hard. End of story. There are many more processes involved when it comes to female sexuality. And yes, I intentionally used the word process. That's what it is. It's a science in itself. A man can go from flaccid, to hard, to finished in thirty seconds. We're apes. We make the perfect test subjects.
The bi community should stop whining and take this for what it is, a victory. For once we have scientific proof of something we have known our entire lives. We're real. We exist. We are no longer the mythical unicorns of legend. If Dan Savage says so, it has to be true, right?
Fast forward six years. A landmark study published Tuesday, confirms that bisexual men do indeed exist. One of the study's authors is the very same Dr. Michael Bailey from the '05 paper. And, it unequivocally nullifies the findings of research done in 2005. Why the about face?
In a word: science. Or more precisely, the scientific method.
For the '05 study, men were sought out via ads in gay-themed, and alternative lifestyle magazines. There was no real selection process. They accepted all comers (no pun intended). If a guy wanted to participate and said he was bisexual, regardless of their sexual history, he was accepted.
This time around, the application process was a little more stringent. Not only did they advertise specifically on websites that catered to bisexual clientele, but the men that took part in the study were also required to have a history with both men and women. Men had to have had two sexual experiences with members of each sex, and a relationship lasting at least three months with a member of each sex. (So, that time that you made out with that chick at the frat party in college didn't count.) I wouldn't have even been considered "bisexual enough" to be part of this study.
So to make the study scientifically sound, the tests were conducted in the same fashion as they were in 2005. Electrodes were placed around the subject's penises. They were shown pornographic videos with only men, then only women. As the videos were being shown, the electrodes measured the "level of sexual arousal" the subject was feeling at the time. Turns out, the results were exactly the opposite of what they found in 2005. The results of the study showed that while bisexual men responded to both the male and female videos, gay and straight men did not. Quoting the study:
"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."
The study even received the attention of notorious biphobe Dan Savage, who wrote about it last week before the paper was published.(I didn't catch the article until today, since I try to intentionally avoid anything related to him.) While it was refreshing to finally see a blog post from Savage titled "Case Closed: Bisexuals Exist", it is disappointing to not see an apology for years of disparaging comments aimed at the bisexual community. While in a round about way, he did admit that he was wrong about bisexuals. Though, he said:
"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"Lovely, isn't he? Justifying his bigotry? Ladies and gentlemen, may I present, everything that's wrong with the gay community. Yes, Dan Savage is a despicable human being in my opinion. But, he is a little less despicable today than what he was the day before. As arrogant as he is, he can at least be humble; or be as humble as Dan Savage is capable of being. He said this regarding the study. I would like to think applies to Savage as well:
"But here's the lovely thing about science: what science gets wrong, more science sets right."You would think that bisexual advocacy organizations across the country would be ecstatic that this study was revisited, let alone the results. They're not. In fact, most groups, particularly the Bisexual Resource Center, Bi Social Network and the Bisexual Organizing Project are skeptical of the science that actually validates their existence.
They are disconcerted, most notably for two reasons: that women were not included in the study, and that the "least common denominators (porn and erections) were used as indicators to measure sexual attraction.
What many fail to understand is that Tuesday's study is a revisit of the 2005 research. As such, the scientific method dictates that test subjects must come from a similar demographic, but the conditions of the research must be identical as they were in 2005. Otherwise, if research conditions had changed in any way, and the outcome was different than what it was in '05, skeptics could reasonably say that the research was flawed.
Also, when you think about it, measuring erectile response is the most practical way to gauge sexual attraction in males. They say that when you see someone that you're attracted to, your pupils dilate, but I'm sure this is much more reliable. Any other way would be subjective. They can't show someone a picture of a man and say, "Do you find this person attractive", and take the subject's word for it. That isn't scientific. Sometimes science isn't pretty, or prude for that matter.
A study like this is much better suited toward males than females. Physically, it is much easier to measure sexual stimulation/arousal in men than woman. I imagine it's also much less intrusive and awkward. Sex is much different for men than women. To put it bluntly, if a guy gets turned on, he gets hard. End of story. There are many more processes involved when it comes to female sexuality. And yes, I intentionally used the word process. That's what it is. It's a science in itself. A man can go from flaccid, to hard, to finished in thirty seconds. We're apes. We make the perfect test subjects.
The bi community should stop whining and take this for what it is, a victory. For once we have scientific proof of something we have known our entire lives. We're real. We exist. We are no longer the mythical unicorns of legend. If Dan Savage says so, it has to be true, right?
