Snails & Oysters: Debunking Four Myths About Bisexuality

So, last time on "Snails & Oysters" we had ourselves a tiny kerfuffle over my assertion that Dan Savage is biphobic. It was a spirited  debate that included such points as the nature of biphobia, the justifications some use for their biphobia, and some broad generalizations about bisexuals. On, and what sort of kindling would be best to use while burning me at the stake.

To be perfectly honest, I was more than a little shocked by some of the responses. My surprise didn't come from people disagreeing with me or even the, uh, enthusiasm with which people voiced their disagreement. I know there are lots of people who don't agree with me on a broad range of topics. That's what makes these debates so much fun!

However, what troubled me was the arguments suggesting biphobia is not only justifiable, but is in fact the proper point of view. While I'm happy to say those were by far the minority of comments, challenging biphobia is one of the reasons this column exists, so, to quote Joan Rivers, "Can we talk?"

Just for the record, I know I am but one bisexual of many and it would be absurd to say I speak for all of us. These are simply my views and should only be taken as such.

Let's start by looking at the definition of prejudice. Merriam-Webster defines it as

(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

I think that last part about "sufficient knowledge" is key to discussing prejudice and bisexuality. We bisexuals tend to hide our orientation for any number of reasons, so not a lot of people have all that much exposure to us. That's why I'm dedicating this article to some of the myths about bisexuality in the hopes of helping people get past their biphobia.

Myth #1) Bisexuality doesn't really exist

Obviously, this is the big one. It has several variations including the idea that true bisexuals are as rare as four-leaf clovers or that bisexuality is merely a transitional state.

If you believe that for a person to truly be bisexual they must be a Kinsey 3 — that is, they are equally attracted to both genders — then it is understandable for you to come to the mistaken conclusion that bisexuals are rare. But since bisexuality, in my view, includes Kinsey 1-5 (a zero being totally straight and a 6 being completely gay), there are far more of us than this belief would indicate.

I suppose in the grand scheme of things, everyone has to decide for themselves where the bisexuality range is — some might say it's more of a 2 through 4 thing. But I don't think it is reasonable to say that the Kinsey 3s in the world are the only "true bisexuals."

As I've said previously when discussing the labels people apply to their sexuality, you don't have to be equally attracted to both genders to get your membership into the bi club. In fact, some bisexuals are more attracted to members of the same sex and some are more attracted to the opposite sex.

The "scientific" basis for the myth us bi guys don't really exist is a study done at Northwestern University in Chicago and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto which, while not disputing the existence of female bisexuality, suggested us guys are just a bunch of fakers. You can look it up if you want to study it in depth, but let me break down the basics for you.

A group of 101 young adult men were recruited for the study. Thirty-three identified as bisexual, thirty as straight and thirty-eight as gay. These men then had a device to measure their arousal hooked up to their man-parts and shown a variety of porn.

The results showed that the three-quarters of the bisexual men demonstrated arousal patterns that matched those of gay men. The other quarter matched heterosexual men. Meanwhile, one third of each group demonstrated no arousal no matter what kind of porn was being viewed.

For starters, it's important to put into context what this study is even trying to say. Dr. J. Michael Bailey, one of the lead researchers, put it this way in the New York Times:

"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists, but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."

Bisexual arousal. Even Bailey concedes that this study does not dispute the existence of bisexual emotional feelings. The only thing the study was able to say about bisexual men is that it was not able to measure any arousal response to both gay and straight porn. Few if any respected psychologists equate arousal with orientation.

The more damning part of the study showed that 3/4 of the self-identified bisexual men showed arousal towards gay imagery. Were these men really gay? No one but them would know. They were asked what orientation they felt described them and they picked bisexual. They could very well be bisexual, including being Kinsey 5's or 4's who prefer same-gender relationships.

Or they could be Kinsey 3s. This methodology of this study is too problematic to say.

Is this just sour grapes of one bisexual dude who doesn't like what it had to say? No. The science of this study is deeply flawed. That's why GLAAD denounced it, saying, "The claims put forward in the article, combined with the derogatory headline, are raising questions not only about the Times reporting on this study, but also about the study itself."

Dr. Randall Sell of Columbia University told the Times, "We don't know nearly enough about sexual orientation and identity" to jump to these conclusions."

For one thing, the sampling of men was pulled largely from ads placed in gay magazines. It's fair to ask just how many bisexual men would be reading a gay magazine. Especially if they were Kinsey 2s.

The number of individuals studied was also a problem. Thirty-three men who identified as bisexual are supposed to offer a reliable sampling? Enough to argue that bisexuality does not exist or is extraordinarily rare?

That seems hard to swallow.

Additionally, the device used to measure responses has also been cited as being unreliable at best. It's called the plethysmograph and it's accuracy has been much disputed by the scientific community for years. For proof, I offer that fully 1/3 of the participants in this very study showed no measurable response to any pornography at all. Given the age of the participants, that seems unlikely.

Just imagine where the other pressure cuff goes...

Furthermore, Dr. Bailey himself has a rocky history with the GLBT community. He's made such charming statements as, when postulating that if science had made it possible to decide the orientation of a child in the womb, that "allowing parents to choose the sexual orientation of their children would be morally unproblematic."

I think it's fair to ask if Dr. Bailey might be biased in his thinking about the GLBT community and whether that might have influenced this study.

From where I sit, there are many reasons why someone's Mr. Happy might not respond to this kind of stimuli. Maybe the porn wasn't to these guys' taste. Maybe they were nervous. Maybe they were freaked out by having stuff hooked up to their junk.

The point is, there are many explanations as to why a bisexual guy's Mr. Happy might not wake up under these circumstances — which explains those subjects who did not respond at all.

And again, to let this one small, clearly flawed study be used to make such sweeping generalizations about male bisexuality as have been made is preposterous. Imagine how the gay community would respond if a similar study was used to conclude that most gay men were not being honest about their orientation.