Video: Google Remembers Freddie Mercury

Freddie Mercury would have been 65 years old today.  To celebrate, Google UK has put together a doodle in tribute of the bisexual rock icon.  He died on November 24, 1991, from complications from the AIDS virus.



On a personal note:  When playing the Google video for the first time, my three year old ran to my laptop and screamed, "Is that Freddie?".  She has never heard that particular Queen track before.  Yes, we play that much Queen in our home.  In fact, she has known all of the words to 'Bohemian Rhapsody' since she was 18 months old.

Secondly, am I the only one that can't hear 'Don't Stop Me Now' without thinking of 'Shawn of the Dead'?

Study: Bi Men Exist. Savage Offers Mea Culpa, Sort Of

Dr. Michael Bailey

Duh.

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:

"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?

An Oscar Night To Remember

Five years ago, on March 5, 2006, the 78th Academy Awards were held in the Kodak Theater, in Los Angeles, California. The favorite for Best Picture was nominated for 8 Oscars that evening. It was an independent film that the world had grown to call a "gay cowboy movie". The strange thing about it was, it didn't have one gay character in it.


The story is about two men, Ennis del Mar, played by Heath Ledger, and Jack Twist, played by Jake Gyllenhaal. They're hired to herd sheep during the summer of 1963 on Brokeback Mountain, in Wyoming. Over the summer, they fall in love. It's a love that lasts for twenty years.


During the span of those two decades, the men get married: Ennis to his long time fiancée, and Jack to a rodeo barrel racer he meets and falls in love with. Things change over the years for both men. Both couples have children. Jack and his wife teeter back and forth on the edge of divorce. Jack has an affair here and there with another woman. Throughout the years, two things remain constant: Jack and Ennis' affection for each other, and their regular "fishing trips" to Brokeback Mountain.


I won't give away any more of the plot or the story, just in case you haven't seen the movie.

The reception for the movie amongst the gay community was phenomenal.  Unfortunately, everyone seemed to forget that Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway played Ennis' and Jake's wives in the film.  Everyone called it a "gay romance", a "gay love story", (god, I hate this term) "that gay cowboy movie".


Regrettably, not one review of the film called it what it was, a bisexual love story.  Worse yet, at the time the movie came out, I can only find one article defending the movie as a bisexual picture (thank you Wikipedia).  It was an opinion piece by Amy Andre on December 16, 2005.  It was published on the National Sexuality Resource Center's site, nsrc.sfsu.edu, under the title "Opinion: Bisexual Cowboys In Love".  The opening paragraph made the most direct and passionate defenses of the movie to date:

"Brokeback Mountain is not a movie about gay people, and there are no gay people in it. There. I said it. Despite what you may have read in the many reviews that have come out about this new cowboy feature film, Brokeback Mountain is a bisexual picture. Why can't film reviewers say the word “bisexual” when they see lead characters with sexual and romantic relationships with both men and women?  I am unaware of a single review of Brokeback calling the leads what they are–a sad statement on the invisibility of bisexual experience and the level of biphobia in both the mainstream and gay media."

Other mainstream writers, although not using the term "bisexual", also acknowledged that this was not a "gay"movie.  In late 2009, Entertainment Weekly published an issued titled, "THE 100 Greatest MOVIES, TV SHOWS, ALBUMS, BOOKS, CHARACTERS, SCENES, EPISODES, SONGS, DRESSES, MUSIC VIDEOS, AND TRENDS THAT ENTERTAINED US OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS".  Sadly, I can't find where 'Brokeback' ranked in the top 100 list, but in describing the film, the magazine said:

 "Everyone called it "The Gay Cowboy Movie." Until they saw it. In the end, Ang Lee's 2005 love story wasn't gay or straight, just human."

Well said.


On Oscar night, 'Brokeback' won three of the eight Academy awards it was nominated for.  Ang Lee won Best Director.  The film also won for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Original Score.  Ledger, Gyllenhaal, and Michelle Williams were all nominated for their acting roles, but lost.  The movie itself, surprising lost to the underdog 'Crash'.


If you haven't seen this movie, do what you can to see it.  It is one of the most real and heart wrenching love stories you'll ever see.  I am embarrassed to say that I didn't see it myself until within the last few months, and now I kick myself for not seeing it sooner.  This is a story of true love.  This movie had nothing to do with sex or with lust.  It's a story of a lifelong bond between two bisexual men that I, for one, will never forget.

My Reaction To Last Week's "Very Special Bi-Phobic" Episode Of 'Glee'

First of all, I apologize for posting this a little late.  I know that Glee came on Tuesday night, and it's now the following Monday.  I haven't been feeling well all week, and unfortunately, the Tumblr page has suffered.  That being said, moving on.....

When I read the rumor on After Elton that a "bisexual encounter" was going to be featured on an upcoming episode with a male character on 'Glee', I couldn't have been happier.  To think of the possibilities!  "Just imagine what the show could do for the bisexual community", I thought.  

After all, think about how much it has done for gay teens in the last year or so.  'Glee' has brought issues like anti-gay bullying to the forefront.  Gay teens have someone to look up to.  They have a role model.  His name is Kurt Hummel.  He's going through the same issues they are in school.  He feels alone.  He feels misunderstood, and, to make it worse, there's a guy on the football team that won't stop harassing him.

And now, with the second season, Kurt has a role model in Blaine Anderson.  He's doesn't show any signs of insecurity.  He's charismatic, cute, and charming as all hell.  And, as another role model to gay youth on television, is very secure in his sexual orientation.

So, I'm reading this article, and I'm thinking, "Who's it going to be?  Is it going to be Finn?  He's really lightened up in the last few episodes about his homophobia.  Maybe it's Sam.  You know, the rumor was going around at the beginning of the season that he was going to play a gay character.  When he first showed up on the show, the other characters thought he was gay.....so?  Or...best scenario.  You know Karofsky?  The football player that was bullying Kurt earlier this season?  What if he is bisexual?  Wouldn't that be great if he ended up coming out?" (OK...It's a little obvious that I follow the show closely.)

So, about a week later, another article came out on After Elton, stating that the "bisexual encounter" in question would be happening to none other than...Blaine.  FUCK!  I immediately knew that there was no way at all for this to end positively for the bisexual community.  It was much worse than I could have ever thought.

OK. Let's explain the scenario:  Rachel is having a party.  Everyone gets drunk, except Finn and Kurt.  They play "Spin the Bottle".  Rachel spins.  Bottle lands on Blaine.  They kiss.  Kiss becomes extended kiss.  Hint of some type of "spark".

The next day, Rachel works up the courage to call Blaine up and ask him out.  Blaine receives the call while having coffee with Kurt at a coffee shop.  The following conversation ensues:

Whoa..Whoa..WHOA!!  EXCUSE ME?!?!  "It felt good because you were drunk"?  "Bisexual is a term that gay guys in high school use when they wanna hold hands with girls and feel like a normal person for a change"?  My disgust was beyond words.


I must say, that although somewhat weak, it was nice to see some defense from the "accused" bisexual.  Unfortunately, this was the only discussion on the matter from Blaine until the end of the episode.  Kurt and Rachel make, for the lack of a better term, a bet, as to whether Blaine is gay or bi.


At the end of the episode, Rachel sneaks up on Blaine, and kisses him.  His reaction is along the lines of "Yep...I'm Gay."


So, by the end of the episode, the show that has supposedly been monumental in being influential and supportive to the young LGBT community, has taught us what?  It's taught us that 1. Bisexuals are "confused".  2. Bisexuality is a passing phase, and finally,  3. Bisexuality is encouraged, or brought on by alcohol.  And, to make things a hundred times worse, the name of the episode is "Blame It On The Alcohol".


The gay blogs had a fucking field day with this on Wednesday morning.  Of the three that I personally read that had a post regarding the episode, a total of 3 comments between them mentioned bi-phobia.  More than a third of the comments were upset at the way Kurt snapped at his dad after his dad found Blaine in Kurt's bed.  About another third were upset with how gays were portrayed as being "two drinks away from making out with a girl".  "But," as one commenter said, "that's how gay teenagers are these days."  The bi-phobia's so thick you can almost taste it.


My first same sex crush was George Michael.  I saw a music video of his when I was about 9 years old and instantly got butterflies.  At the time, I also had a crush on a red haired girl in my class.  That's confusing.  By the time I was 11, I was regularly attracted to people of both sexes.


In high school, I had my parents and my church convincing my I was straight.  During the day, I had guys at school calling me "faggot", because I didn't fit in to their mold.  As I got older, my gay and lesbian friends kept telling me, "Just come out of the closet already.  You're gay, man."


My point is, life is confusing enough.  We already have too many outside influences trying to shove us in one direction or another.  The last thing we need as bisexuals (especially male bisexuals), is a television show spewing bi-phobic propaganda.  It does nothing but keep bis in the closet, and gives people the assumption that their bi-phobic theories are correct.


From what I've read, starting with next week's episode, Brittany and Santana are supposed to enter into a long term bisexual relationship.  Based upon 'Glee's' previous assumptions that you either have to be "confused" or "drunk" to be bi, it's going to make for an interesting season.  Then again, I guess Brittany could be the confused one, if they can find a way to make Santana an alcoholic.  Wait, didn't I hear somewhere that "all bi girls are sluts"?


That's it.  That's the angle they'll take.

Bisexual Men Are...

• Bisexual men are rare and lovely jewels

Not nearly so rare as you might think, it's just safer for them to remain closeted in a world  where they're vilified from all sides, misunderstood, have disease blamed on them unjustly, and are then assumed to be rare.

But like all humans:  Many of them are lovely jewels.

via kittyfarts