Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Section order

I changed the order of the sections in the article. In particular I moved the terminology and prevalence sections up, and the History section down. IMO it makes more sense to have the definitions and terminology before the more in depth resources. J.Ring 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word "legitimate"

The description read:

some argue that bisexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation in its own right.".

The use of the word "legitimate" is in my opinion troublesome, as it appears to imply that considering bisexuality as legitimate is unique to those who consider it an orientation separate from homosexuality and heterosexuality. I'm bisexual myself, and happen to be one of those who think of it as a blend between the two, yet I obviously consider it no less legitimate than heterosexuality and homosexuality. I suppose one can deduce the intended meaning from the context, but I'd say one could be more clear about it. --Anon

Distinguishing bisexual people from people who identify first as heterosexual and then as homosexual

The first sentence did say "A bisexual person is one who can become romantically involved with persons of either sex." I've changed it into something which is much more unweildy and which I like less, but which I think is more accurate. The way the sentence was did not take into account people who are in a heterosexual relationship for a length of time (unhappily, one presumes) before leaving their partners and announcing that they are gay or lesbian. --KQ

Whether everyone is bisexual

The article says:

According to modern sexological ideas, the majority of people are to some degree bisexual. Most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. Only a minority (5-10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual.

What a load of tripe! I'll contain my comments on this page,though, until I can find some evidence to cite that this is junk science. --tbc

I suggest taking it out and moving it to here to the talk page until whoever wrote that can back up this rather bizzarely bold assertion with some references. --AV

I would suggest your "load of tripe" is the only "load of tripe" here. --Lestatdelc

The source of that information is probably the Kinsey Reports on Sexuality in the Human Male and Female. Kinsey et al got that figure by creating a 7-point scale. 0 was purely heterosexual, 3 was 50-50 bisexual, 6 was purely homosexual. The point the above author is trying to get across is correct according to Kinsey's research, though maybe you've misinterpreted. It's not saying that most people are 50-50 bisexual, it is saying that most people are predominatly heterosexual or homosexual with some degree of bisexuality. Kinsey et al claimed that most people aren't totally devoid of feelings for the sex other than the preferred one, its just that these feelings are a lot less strong than those for the preferred sex.

Like most things Kinsey said, this is pretty controversial; but I have never actually seen any *scientific* refutation of the idea of the scale (though since I've read hardly any sexology, there may well be scientific refutations somewhere out there.) All I've ever seen are conservative authors (e.g. Judith Reisman, Kinsey's archnemesis) who argue that the idea of sexuality being a continuum has no scientific basis. But they don't have any evidence that it has no scientific basis, I'd say it a priori makes sense, that many conservative authors (with their ideas of homosexuality being a choice and of homosexuality being "curable") themselves presume it, and that when Kinsey et al showed people the scale and asked them where they fitted they didn't all choose 0, 3 or 6, which is what you'd expect if the scale didn't reflect reality to some extent.

On the other hand, maybe his numbers as to the percentage of the population at each point on the scale are biased. Reisman argues that Kinsey's sample was biased towards prisoners and the college-educated, and that self-selection resulted in an excess of people with 'unconventional' sexual interests. Maybe she is right. I don't know if she is; and I don't know how the figures in this instance would be affected if she is right. -- SJK

I'm currently taking a class in Human Sexuality in univeristy, and much of the most recent data supports the Kinsey's assertaion that a majority of North American humans (male and female) are, in fact, bisexual to some degree. The reasoning behind this is because current researchers are (still) using a Kinsey-like scale of 0-7 (100% straght to 100% homo). On this scale only a 0 is counted as heterosexual, and only a 7 is counted as homosexual... anything numbering from 1-6 is counted as a bisexual.

This is why the number of bisexuals is so high, researches are not taking into account that a male who rates himself as a "1" may be only having sexual encounters with females, but agrees that, say, Orlando Bloom or someone similar is "attractive". Ditto for people ranking high on the scale.

Of course, keep in mind, researchers are still dealing with the "volunteer bias", so filling in this sort of questionaire requires some level of comfortability with sex and one's own sexuality. This may or may not have an effect on the numbers, but until researchers break down this scale into, say heterosexual, female-biased bisexual, bisexual, male-biased bisexual, homosexual (for men, vice versa for women), the number of bisexuals will remain quite high. It's not junk science... just generalized science. Arcuras June 28, 2004

Actually, yes, the researchers DO take that into account. For such as you describe indeed ARE bisexual. Please do not presume that sexual orientation necessarily dictates sexual behavior. 71.192.239.26 13:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual triad is a cultural construct and is a flawed concept. There is quite a bit of scientific material on the subject and it's fairly conclusive. It seems almost certain that, removed of socialization, essentially all people are capbable of attraction to both sexes. Consider the near universality of same-sex love and sex in pre-Abrhamic societies (and the lack of moral judgements - it was often considered normal to all people) and the continuing prevalance of bisexual sex (and love) among post-Abrhamic Europe in its royalty, aristocracy, philosophers, intellectuals, and artists.

Additionally, bisexuality has found to be extremely prevalent amongst the animal kingdom (in both male and females), including all manner of mammals from primates and cetaceans on down the evolutionary/taxonomic scale in mammals as well as all other classes (observed in over 500 species now). This behaviour is also diverse, both inter- and intra- species; but courtship, affection, and pair-bonding has generally been observed, and in some cases, same-sex parenting through adoption or 'threesomes' (this is relatively uncommon; though in most species the male plays little to no role in raising offspring, and it has long been known that females often cooperate in raising young).

It may be true that bisexuality has been (and still is )very prevalent, but this is not sufficient reason to conclude that heterosexuality/homosexuality does not exist. Also, as the article already states, it is perfectly possible to have some atraction to both genders, yet still self-define as homo/hetero-sexual as this may reflect a person's feelings fairly well. There is a difference between sexual behaviour, sexual identiy, and the labels used to describe the two. I would therefore claim that it is a bit naive to dismiss "heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual" as flawed since many people find it a fairly good description of their sexual identity. 137.205.246.16 20:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Prevalence of bisexuality in women

The following isn't NPOV. -- SJK

It is my opinion, after many years of research and personal experience, that bi-sexuality in women is more prevalent than most people realize, and FAR more prevalent than the previous paragraph indicates. I do not have any "concrete" research figures to draw any percentage figures from, but I think the following five paragraphs will perhaps lead to a more realistic examination of the everyday evidence regarding bi-sexuality; at least the bi-sexuality of women.

Female to female relationships. Girls will, from a very early age, sit together on a bench at school, or on the grass in a park, or on stairs, or on the curb and talk for hours. They sit or stand around with their arms linked, or with their arm around their friend's shoulder or waist. They walk along holding hands, laughing and talking as if they are the only two people in the world. They do these things because they want and need close personal contact and intimate conversations with their 'girlfriends.' They bond together, especially in the case of 'best friends,' often for the rest of their lives in a relationship so strong that few men can understand it. This is normal social behavior for females. This same close intimacy sometimes leads to sexual activities. It is simply an extension of the need (or desire) for close physical intimacy in the friendship.

This closeness, and the desire to share sexually oriented contact, is also experienced by quite a large number of women (who are beyond 'girlhood') when they are in a private situation with a woman friend. This is a normal attraction and a normal desire for women who need the intimate contact with another female that their basic sexual nature calls for. Women who experience these feelings towards other women, but who also have intimate relationships with a man (or men) are considered to be, according to the most accepted social definition, "bi-sexual." They are, however, simply women who are aware of their natural basic sexual orientation.

This feeling of need (or desire) for close physical contact by one woman for another is not wrong, or "dirty" or perverted. It is normal. It is not understood by most people in our society, and that is really too bad, because shared intimacy when it is mutually desired is a truly beautiful thing. Unfortunately, many women deny themselves this intimate sharing because they feel that others will think that they are "lesbians."

A woman who likes both men and women is not a lesbian, according to the present-day generally accepted definition. A woman who enjoys the intimacy of close physical contact with another woman, but also likes men, is a normal woman who is correctly classified as "bi-sexual" and she has no reason to be afraid or ashamed of her desire for sexual contact with another woman to whom she is attracted.

Conversely, women who never feel these sexual attractions toward other women are just as normal as are women with bi-sexual feelings. They are simply located on a different part of the sexuality curve upon which all humans are located. The X-Y chromosome definition was, for a while, considered to be an adequate factor upon which to classify human sexual orientation. We now know that this is only one step above the 'male-or-female' classification.

TWW

Thankyou for writing that. I feel there is alot about sexuality which is neither socially acceptable nor socially and even accidemically realised. People have such knee-jerk reactions to the whole sexuality thing that it is seldomly discussed in any meaningful way. I think males are capable of being like how you spoke, but tend to not develop so because of factors borne of sociology, which in turn are probably partially borne of unrelated psycho/neurological factors vaguely associated with the brain/mind of the male sex.

KJD: Here Here........ since finally allowing myself to be bisexual, I have talked and thought lots about it and mostly come up with much of the same info as above. Most women are truly bi - they maybe haven't, don't, or won't act upon it, because of what others might think or in fear of being thought of as a lesbian. Homophobia is so instilled in our society.... even me, with a gay ex-husband and many gay friends.... I just didn't want to talk about their gayness - now I do and will and you can't shut me up! (ha-ha----most say that wasn't possible in the first place!).

See The Hite Report on Male Sexuality. I can't recall the exact statistic, but many of the men interviewed spoke of sex play similar to that described above (usually along the lines of mutual masturbation). As with girls, I'm sure its prevalence depends on social factors, though I suspect such sex play tapers off very quickly for males as age increases. Music&Medicine 19:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The state of not being attracted to any gender

Wat is it calld if you dont like to be atracted to ether gender and dont like to hav sex or fall in love or get meryed with enybudy?

Dead? - Lestatdelc

Morrisseyxuality?

Now THAT is funny! (for those not getting the joke check out info on The Smiths front man Steven Morrissey - Lestatdelc

Asexuality? Marnanel 02:06, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Wat is it calld if you dont like to be atracted to ether gender and dont like to hav sex or fall in love or get meryed with enybudy?" Going by the way you type, you are a child, so don't worry about it.--Old Guard 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Asexuality. My friend is asexual. Eirra 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"The physical side of them is secondary to their thoughts, actions and beliefs"

The following comment was added to the main article by 128.125.30.42. I've simply moved it here:

I am a 20 year old bisexual. I have never had a serious boyfriend, but I have been dating my girlfriend since June 2002 and we are now engaged. Many people do not understand how I can be with a girl and still be attracted to men. I explained it to a (male) friend of mine like this. Knowing he had a girlfriend but never having met her, I asked him what color hair she had. He said blonde. I asked him if it would make any difference to him if her hair was brown, black or red. He looked shocked. "Of course not," he said. "I love her for who she is, not how she looks". "Exactly, "I said. He looked confused. "To me, it doesn't matter what gender a person is. Though I can't honestly say I don't notice a person's body, the physical side of them is secondary to their thoughts, actions and beliefs." And that's my two cents on the topic.

-- Hadal 03:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's how I've always explained it too. In general I actually avoid the term bisexual a lot of the time because people can have funny preconceptions of what it means. Hopefully this article will help change that. garik 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple relationships

The article says "Bisexuals may choose to have more than one relationship with more than one gender at the same time or may choose to be monogamous..."

This is badly worded, and implies that Polyamory is peculiar to Bisexuality, since the entry on Hetereosexulity doesn't mention it.

I've reworded it, although in a fit of absent-mindedness I forgot to include an Edit Summary. Although I agree that polyamory isn't unique to bisexuality, there's a widespread perception that it is, as well as a confusion of bisexual behavior with bisexual orientation; and in my opinion this distinction should be made clear from the beginning. G.Syme 17:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although some bisexuals are polyamorous. Filchyboy 11:29, 5 Jan 2005 (PST)

Relationship with a gender...

This sentence strikes me as odd:

Bisexuals may choose to have relationships with more than one gender at a time; to be monogamous with a single gender; or to merely prefer one gender to another.

I'm quite new here, and I realize this may be a contentious topic, so I'll try to be careful (boldly ;). I hope this hasn't been rehashed to death already! If so, please point me to the talk page or archive and I'll go study up :) So three comments:

1. The idea of "having a relationship with a gender," while not nonsensical, doesn't seem to be quite what's being discussed here. It should probably be "having a relationship with a person of xxx gender," or something similar.
2. The ideas of biological sex and behavioural gender seem to be used interchangeably here. I realize that reflects a current state of confusion in society at large: perhaps something explicit should be written addressing that. I notice that the homosexuality definition references sex, the heterosexuality definition references both sex and gender, and the bisexuality definition references only gender. *grin* Does bisexuality mean the ability to find people sexy whether they have a penis or a vagina? Or does it mean the ability to find people sexy whether they conform to the behaviours we call masculine or feminine?
3. The point about monogamy (or lack thereof), while not untrue, probably doesn't belong in the definition, as someone mentioned below. Anyone may choose to be monogamous or not -- it's not particularly related to sexual orientation. The idea that bi folk need "one of each" is of course a common stereotype (in fact, that might be a good section to add). It raises a question about the nature of sexual attraction... after all, a straight person may have the ability to fall in love with both blue-eyed people and brown-eyed people. Should we include that in the definition of heterosexuality? "Heterosexuals may choose to have relationships with more than one eye-colour at a time; to be monogamous with a single eye-colour; or to merely prefer one eye-colour over another." (ok, I'm being silly, but the point is there... ;)

Any thoughts? Wordie 17:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with you that the opening is very badly worded. I've fiddled with it a tiny bit, but haven't taken the time to really rewrite it, which it definitely needs. Why don't you take a crack at it? If you're not successful, others will edit it or improve it or revert it. Be bold.... Hayford Peirce 18:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree about the wording, and that there's a too-common confusion between bisexuality and non-monogamy. Still, that stereotype is exactly why I'd be in favor of making some distinction at the beginning of the article. I'd suggest something like:

Bisexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by romantic love or sexual desire for members of either or both genders, contrasted with homosexuality, heterosexuality, and asexuality. The terms pansexual or omnisexual are generally used synonymously. Bisexuals may have simultaneous relationships with partners of both genders, practice serial monogamy with partners of either gender, have relationships with partners of only one gender, or practice celibacy. Bisexuality refers to desires and self-concept, not necessarily behavior.

This also makes the article's introduction more parallel with the corresponding entries for homosexuality and heterosexuality. I've decided to be bold and change it. Thoughts?

G.Syme 16:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Trysexual"

The current article contains the following joke in the Terminology section:

Trysexual (sometimes "trisexual") is a neologism and a pun on bisexual. It is used as a humorous term for someone who will try any sexual experience at least once.

In my opinion, jokes of this sort don't belong under definitions. Unlike "pansexual" and "omnisexual", which I have seen in print and heard in speech, "trysexual" only seems to exist in the context of the joke cited.

Whether intentionally or not, including this sort of humor - especially towards the beginning of an article - is similar to a rhetorical device often seen in dismissive articles about bisexuality, which often begun by either (1) raising the question of whether bisexuality actually exists, or (2) jokingly equating bisexuality with a complete lack of discrimination when it comes to sexual partners and practices. Although the poster may well have included the term to make the section more comprehensive, I think it suggests to readers that the entire subject is one to be taken lightly, and, therefore, I think that including this term at this point violates NPOV.

If there's a strong opinion that the joke is worth retaining, I think it should be moved down to the bottom of the article, along with the Dana Carvey quote. However, I also notice that the homosexuality and heterosexuality articles don't include any humor of this sort. Is it genuinely appropriate here?

G.Syme 16:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

no lesser luminary then David Bowie described self as trysexual.

As far as I can determine from Google, Bowie was repeating the same joke. (Most Google hits for the Bowie quote prefer the "trisexual" spelling.) Perhaps a good analogy is Ringo Starr's "mocker" comment; it's well-known enough to be listed in the Mods and Rockers article, but not included in either the Mods or Rockers definitions, because the expression never had any currency outside the context of the joke. G.Syme 17:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another definition of a trisexual is someone who is attracted to men, women, and transsexuals. Hayford Peirce 18:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I certainly can understand how some bisexual people could be upset with the inclusion of a trisexual joke particularly at the suggestion that bi-ness might be something they are 'having a go at'. I'm not sure I understand the idea about it only being used in the context as a joke. Deeply held beliefs can start as humourous ideas even Anglicanism. This seems to be a great fault with wikiland its determined poe-facedness on everything the anglicanism article does not mention the latin pun at the heart of that belief and someone took from another article, what I considered a very important point, that one great work of literature was better then another as it had better jokes. Mocker is a good example as it can suggest someone who likes some of both music but doesn't dress up in silly clothes. Trysexual also suggests not only someone who does shag anything but someone who would like to shag something.MeltBanana 19:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a similar joke that someone who speaks three languages is trilingual; someone who speaks two is bilingual; and someone who speaks one is American. The joke is widely circulated, but it would still be inaccurate to say that "American" can mean "someone who only speaks one language", because the word "American" is not used in that sense outside that particular joke.

"Omnisexual" and "pansexual" are used widely, if not commonly, and can be found in dictionaries. "Trysexual" is, as far as I've seen, invariably followed by an explanation of the pun on "tri" and "try"; dictionary.com finds no listings for it at all.

Your comment suggests that, when other Wiki articles have had conflicts between being neutral and being funny, being neutral has won out. This suggests that the bisexuality article might best be handled the same way. G.Syme 20:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bi-curious

Should there be anything put in the bisexuality article about the bi-curious?

Excellent question. But is there any real consensus about what "bi-curious" actually means? Is it just curiousity about having a same-sex experience, or curiousity about the bisexual orientation itself, or something else? Maybe "bi-confusion" is a better term. Edeans 17:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have never encountered another use of the word, and I don't quite see the point of "bi-confusion". Seems to be far less used, too. -- AlexR 19:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the bi-curious article about what bi-curious means.

Arab World

"In the modern Arab world, same-sex sexual behavior between men is very common; some sources describe it as near-ubiquitous. This is despite prohibitions against homosexual behavior in the Qur'an and severe penalties for offenders in some nations, including the death penalty. While among Arabs bisexual behaviour is known to be very common, and men are not given much trouble about these behaviors so long as they marry and raise families and fulfill other societal duties, it is something which remains very covert, and an open declaration of homosexual preference would be unacceptable. In this way, bisexuality in the Arab world is somewhat similar to the DL culture prevalent in some African-American communities."

The "near-ubiquitous" comment seems exaggerated. Sounds like a comment made either by someone trying to slander the arab world, or by some homophobic commentator in the arab world... Also, isn't the arab culture largely(?) a macho culture, where it is the receiving part who gets most stigmatized?

I don't think it follows that this is some sort of slander against the Arab world, homophobic or otherwise: I've heard similar claims below. Some references would be helpful to provide some evidence to back this up, however. --Axon 16:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am naturally suspicious of any claim that Arabs, or any other ethnic/religious group, has any predisposition toward being any GLBT persuasion. But maybe it's because I'm bi myself. But what the hell would I know? [not Arabian, and not that it would matter]

I think there is a difference between a) mentioning that bisexual or homosexual activity occurs in a community or culture and b) that a group has a predisposition towards bisexuality and homosexuality. I don't think the later claim is being made here. --Axon 17:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this statement should be backed up, lest it be removed from the article. --Nathan J. Yoder 11:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A quick search on-line uncovers various references to this subject, including "Bisexuality in the Arab World" by Fran?oise Gollain This article [1] and [2] goes into detail on the subject:

"In some ways, we have less hang ups about it than the West. Here it is just something that is, and men do it and do not make a big deal about it. Of course, they have to hide it, and deny it, but everyone knows it is there, just under the surface.”

The following article also seems to make mention of it [3] --Axon 14:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those biased sources are hardly authoritative. Nathan J. Yoder 17:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You requested evidence for which I supplied. What evidence do you have that they are biased? You could simply dismiss any articles and evidence I have on the subject as biased. What level of evidence would you require? On the contrary, my evidence is far more authorative than the complete lack of evidence you have provided. --Axon 17:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A magazine about bisexuals is going to be inherently biased. The other sites are just links and it's not my job to wade through a million links for you. Try quoting a historian or some sort of authortative source on the matter rather than random magazine articles and websites. The burden of proof is on you here, since you are the one insistent on ADDing something to the article. Nathan J. Yoder 18:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would a magazine on bisexuals be biased? Please explain? If you have any evidence to doubt what they are saying please present it here. As I understand it, the arabic bisexual stuff was already in the article so if you want it removed, the burden of proof is on you. If you can't even be bothered to do any research yourself then I don't really know what you are doing on Wikipedia. --Axon 09:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's backwards logic, the stuff "already being in the article" has nothing to do with it. I can put all kinds of random garbage in the article, it doesn't mean the burden of proof has shifted. In order to KEEP something in the article you must have justifiable reason to keep it in there. I'm not really sure how to explain the bias any further, the magazine is about bisexuality so of course they're going to jump on any information say it's more prevalent than it is without bothering to check it well. Nathan J. Yoder 02:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, the information is already in the article I'ev spent time researching this and I've supplied ample proof, I've read the articles in question and they back up what I have said. We have no reason not to trust what they say unless you can provide some contrary proof which ammounts to more than a "feeling that it is wrong". --Axon 10:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have a funny definiton of ample proof. One article in a biased publication does not constitute proof. Nor does a website with a million links. You might as well offer a link to google as ample proof. If you continue to refuse to supply substantial evidence of this, it will be removed from the article. Nathan J. Yoder 07:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Niyoder, please remember to sing your posts. Johntex 07:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• clear throat* Do re me fa so ... "ooooh you have a funnnny definitionnn of proooof." ... I know I just keep forgetting, I always correct it a few minutes later though. Nathan J. Yoder 07:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you just keep repeating yourself and cherry-picking those remarks you wish to respond to without actually responding to the points I make, whilst being slightly obnoxious and border-line un-civil. This is very tiresome. If you have no wish to explain why exactly why you think my evidence is biased and you cannot be bothered to do any research yourself, there seems little point in further dicussion with you. --Axon 10:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of cherry picking? I've responded to each and every remark you've made, you just didn't like my answers. I already explained why it's biased. Find an actual authoritative source, not a magazine artcile from some biased publication nor just a giant list of links. The burden of proof is on you, as I already explained, but which you ignored.

Looking through the magazine article it doesn't even appear to support the Wikipedia article. It simply says Egyptian men often have gay sex as rite of passage, something based on an interview with some random guy mind you. That is not equivalent gay sex being VERY COMMON in the ARAB WORLD. At best it means just some number of EGYPTIAN men had gay sex a few times. This most certainly does not support the most men often engaged in same-sex relationships statement about Ancient greece either. Something which even Kinsey's own statistics on bisexuality wouldn't support.

Find a source that is a) authoritative and b) actually supports what the Wikipedia article says. That means something other than a list of links and some random magazine article. You want me to back up why this silly theory is wrong? I've got a useful link for you: http://www.google.com/ - that will give a list of links just like your sources. Stop being evasive and try to actually substantiate what the article says. -Nathan J. Yoder 13:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prevalence of bisexuality and cultural practice of it

This article should not be suggesting how many people are bisexual without backing it up with scientific evidence. Kinsey's studies are junk science and can't be trusted for this purpose. Additionally, people should cite their historical sources regarding the prevalence of bisexual sex practice in all of these cultures where it's purportedly extremely common. Barring proof of these, that stuff should be removed.

I think arguments about the veracity of Kinsey are best left to the Kinsey article, unless you have any proof of the above. --Axon 14:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So instead the article should just accept it as truth and not even question it? That's incredibly POV bias in favor of Kinsey. You MUST mention that Kinsey's research is controversial and not present it as solid fact. Nathan J. Yoder 17:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no "must" (in capital letters or otherwise) about it. The paragraphs you mention clearly cite Kinsey as the source of the evidence so your concerns that they are stated as fact seems over-inflated. Of course, for in-depth balance we could go into detail about who does and does not considers Kinsey's work controversial, discuss the detail of scientific consensus on his work and so forth but that would reproducing the Kinsey article within this article: as I stated before, discussion of controversy on Kinsey belongs in the Kinsey article. After all, the idea that Kinsey's work is controversial is itself controversial. --Axon 17:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article states it mater-of-factly with no reference to the controversy behind him. That is a bias in favor of Kinsey. Someone reading the article who didn't know about him most likely wouldn't read the article on him and pick that up. Not mentioning the controversy and the fact that this may be false is POV. Nathan J. Yoder 18:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It quite clearly attributes the source as Kinsey for all the stats is presents and, as I've stated above, the controversy is itself controversial. We could mention it is controversial, but then someone else would want to mention that teh contrvoersy is itself controversial, then there would have to be more detail on what exactly is and isn't controversial and it would quickly snowball into an full blown edit war and article on Kinsey itself. If people want to check Kinsey sources they can simply click on the Kinsey link and read more. To be quite blunt, what evidence do you have that prevalance of bisexuality is more or less? --Axon

What you are saying doesn't make sense, controversy is always controversial. Saying the controversy is controversial is redundant. I don't see what problem you have with simply stating a NPOV matter of fact. You're also making an annoying slippery slope argument here. Not mentioning the controversy is POV. To be quite blunt with you, what evidence do you have that it's actually that common? Kinsey is known, as a matter of _fact_, for fudging numbers either that or he was actually getting someone to rape kiddies. He can't be trusted for valid scientific information. Nathan J. Yoder 02:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is exactly that "knowledge" that is disputed, isn't it? And I am far more inclined to trust Kinsey than some right-wing nut who tries to turn back the clock by slander. Be that as it may, currently most people are inclined to cite Kinsey's figures, and only a small minority makes claims about him which are, as far as I know, still completely unsubstantiated. So why should it be neutral to insert those claimes everytime Kinsey is mentioned? -- AlexR 07:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The claims are not unusubstantied. His methods of data collection are totally unscientific. Go take a look at the data he has on baby and adolescent orgasms if you want to see some great number fudging. Plus apparently 62% of men have had a gay experience, I wonder how he fudged that one. It is not a small minority making claims either. It is necessary to put a notice in sections devoted just to him and in other random mentions a foot note. And lack of good figures from other sources is not good reason to use his. It's like saying "well this one pseudo-scientific source is more scientific than the other pseudo-scientifc source so it's ok." Nathan J. Yoder 07:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The entire problem with bisexuality and it's prevalence depends upon it's "definition". If a sexologist defines everything that is not exclusive heterosexuality or exclusive homosexuality as bisexual, then you have a very large group of people, as it is generally accepted that most people are not exclusively one or the other, able to (at the very least) admit that some members of both sexes are attractive, etc. (eg: Straight-identifying male who can admit that Brad Pitt is good looking is, in this definition, bisexual) This is, as should be obvious, a very broad view, and probably inaccurate, but this is the definition many sexologists apply. Others work only on self-identification: the number of people in sample size of X say "I am a bisexual".

Kinsey is one of the better known sexologists who studied the prevalence, and it is generally accepted that his numbers are accurate given the first "definition" of bisexuality. Other sexologists have come up with different numbers, but we are not an easy group to count as some of us (myself included) have very fluid sexualities where we are gay one day and straight the other. Add this to the fluid definition of what bisexuality really is, and it's no wonder there's controversy. Instead of going into a full-blown discussion of that here, as this is not where it belongs, why not find a sexologist whose numbers you like better, and add it in as a point-counterpoint: Kinsey said X, but Person B said Y. Leave the kinsey-bashing to his own page, lest his ego grow too large.

Besides which... it's sex research. There is no such thing as sex research that is not controversial. Arcuras 07:28, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's not controversial simply becuase it's sex research, it's controversial because it's unscientific. The issues isn't how he defines sexuality, it's his figures. I don't know of any large scale sex research off hand that was done even semi-recently, so I wouldn't know what to replace it with. Lack of another source isn't reason to include a bad source thouhg. Nathan J. Yoder 07:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you can't suggest some other numbers, then what proof do you have that his numbers are incorrect? I'm taking three university courses on this stuff, and everything I've read and reasearched says that, for his definitions, the prevailiance is about spot on. Arcuras 22:26, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Absurd figures:

• 37% of males had gay sex to orgasm, 13% of females
• 48.9% of males performed cunnilingus in marriage, 45.5% of females performed fellatio in marrriage
• Among males 14% had performed fellatio, 30% had received fellatio
• 69% of white males have had at least one experience with a prostitute
• 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes
• Pre-marital intercourse 68% of males (by age 18), 50% females (this was over 50 years ago remember)

http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-data.html

Contradicting numbers from other studies:

• Prevalence of homosexuality lists several studies with conflicting numbers. Numbers range from 1-10% for exclusive homosexuals.
• http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html also lists conflicting figures from other studies.

Poor sampling (massive volunteer bias):

• 5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education. (This part of the sample is referred to as the "College Sample.") Kinsey tried to compensate for volunteer bias in his sample by interviewing 100% of the individuals available in a given organization or group. Approximately 25% of the sex histories came from these 100% groups. (Kinsey did not believe a random sample was possible.)

http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-data.html

• Cochran et al. found much to praise in Kinsey's work, and they acknowledged that Kinsey could not have been expected to use more sophisticated methods when he began. It is important to remember this point when reviewing Kinsey's methodology from the vantage point of 60 years' additional experience with sex surveys. Today we look back at Kinsey with the hindsight afforded those who have access, not only to these many sex surveys, but also to many improvements in survey practice.
• Noting that Kinsey had begun his research when the use of random sampling in surveys was just beginning, the three statisticians concluded that he could not have been expected to use this sophisticated new methodology, especially given the paucity, of qualified statisticians during the war. They also took issue with Kinsey's so-called 100% samples in which interviewers attempted to obtain interviews with every member of any group they approached. As Cochran et al. noted, this created a cluster sample because each interview was not obtained independently, thereby reducing the benefit of the large number of cases.
• Asserting that random sampling applied only when one was short of data, Kinsey refused to check his data with a small probability sample

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n2_v35/ai_20846990

• "The methodology has changed the most," [Dr. Laura Berman] says, "I don't know that what he found is that different but now we have the technology and the scientific ability and we know how to do things in a more scientifically rigorous way," says Berman, who has yet to see the movie. "Instead of interviewing people, we have access to random samples, phone numbers, addresses, and we can do surveys by mail, in person, or online."

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/103990.htm

• But 26% (1,400) of Kinsey's alleged 5,300 white male subjects were already "sex offenders."[34] As far as the data can be established, an additional 25% were incarcerated prisoners; some numbers were big city "pimps," "hold-up men," "thieves;" roughly 4% were male prostitutes as well as sundry other criminals; and some hundreds of homosexual activists at various "gay bars" and other haunts from coast to coast.[35]

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html (Partial source for this: http://www.drjudithreisman.org/bbc_transcript.htm)

So basically modern (and even old) statisticians acknowledge is methodology was fundamentally flawed.

--Nathan J. Yoder 05:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I recommend reading Kinsey Reports - the articles addresses many of those complaints. Also, there is certainly some bias - but unless there is sufficient reason to assume that sexual behaviour in that part of the population - on which the data presumably is reliable - differs considerably from that of the rest of the population, which I have never heard of, then this bias just is no reason to throw out all the data Kinsey came up with. -- AlexR 01:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've already read Kinsey Reports. It doesn't even a single point I made here. The closest it comes is by saying this:

In a response to these criticisms, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, spent years "cleaning" the Kinsey data of its purported contaminants, removing, for example, all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's surprise he claimed, was that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by this bias.

No sources are given to support this claim by the wikipedia article's authors. The idea that none of his statistics were significantly effected by this massive volunteer and sample bias is ridiculous. Considering that some of the statistics I listed are extremely far fetched, I don't see how anyone can claim this. Also note that the person who conducted this 'cleaning up' was a member of the Kinsey Institute.

This is also state:

Instead of Kinsey's 37 percent, Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4 percent; the 10 percent figure (with prison inmates excluded) came to 9.9 percent for white, college-educated males and 12.7 percent for those with less education. And as for the call for a "random sample," a team of independent statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental endeavor."

No sources are given for this either. In fact, they don't even bother to specify what the 37% is referring to, which is quite odd. The best example they can come up with is mentioning some mystery statistic from a source that isn't quoted. Not to mention that this is a bad example of POV and being misleading wrt to quoting some mystery statisticians. Some modern statisticians may said that his methods were skillful for his time, but NO modern statisticians, other than those from the Kinsey Institute, say that his methods were actually accurate.

Look, even the others have acknowledged that his statistics aren't accurate. The massive disparity in studies is even futher evidence that they can't be trusted. People are being totally disingenuous in this article, they suggest "oh but no studies are perfectly accurate so it's ok", but that's not the point. The point that the stats are slightly inaccurate, it's that they're grossly inaccurate. THere's even worse justification "oh but the other studies suck too, so it's ok to quote bad statistics [i.e. two wrongs make a right]."

Even worse than all of that, one guy suggested that even if the statistics are totally inaccurate, that they should still be included because of Kinsey's contributions to society. His contributions have nothing to do with this article or its inclusion of his statistics.

I haven't seen a single remotely logical argument for inclusion of his statistics in this talk page. I present a very valid, objective view point and I get met with disingenuous responses. It is obvious that people aren't willing to listen at all. Even you criticized what I was saying on IRC without having even read my criticisms on this talk page.

There is a form of wiki bullying going on here. It doesn't matter how right I am. Any changes I make will be automatically reverted since my opinion regarding this page is unpopular and goes against the personal biases of its other editors. If this continues, I will file an RfC to get objective third parties in here to verify what is obvious--that the statistics don't belong there.

-Nathan J. Yoder 12:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This already IS on RfC, since after the incident on IRC I did not want to be the only one to debate this matter; the latest comments except mine probably were a result of that RfC. There also is no form of bullying going on here, and your accusations of others not wanting to truly debate here can be made against you just as well - you don't care what other's say, either, unless they happen to agree with you. You know, whining about bullying and bias, and spreading - to put it nicely - unconfirmed statements about others is not really going to help you to convince other people. Neutral ones, those that came in because this article has been on RfC for days.

Also, I notice, you seem to think that those indenting their comments do so for fun - but the reason is that this actually makes the talk pages much more readable. You might consider doing the same - bad style itself is not an argument, but it sure comes into play when others judge a persons comments. And it sure does not help convincing them. -- AlexR 13:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been on an RfC for only 24 hours, not for days and you never even mentioned it being added before. That is disingenuous at best and a lie at worse. Only one person has commented as a result of the RfC and he never responded back to me yet.

Furthermore, you didn't address my points about why the statistics are inaccurate and why they shouldn't be included in the article. Instead you just decided to engage in a pure attack against me. Not just that, but you mocked me for not indenting, that is very childish to say the least. It is obvious to anyone reading this that you are being very immature and ARE biased. I did not indent it because sometimes it is preferred to switch between indenting and not indenting to avoid having a long, deeply nested thread.

Please stop responding to this article unless you are willing to address why Kinsey should actually be excluded. I presented a very clear, concise argument. You presented personal insults. Who do you think is actually going to look worse? Lastly, you are reinforcing my point that you are not interested in debate since you didn't actually respond to the debate aspect of what I said. By all means, keep on engaging in ad hominem, it's sure helping your cause. And from talking to you on IRC< your response is entirely predictable, you were too stubborn on IRC to address my points then, and you're too stubborn now. I seriously doubt you even read ANY of my arguments for why the data is bad until afterwards and even then you just barely skimmed it. -Nathan J. Yoder 14:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's all very nice information... but none of it has to do what this article is about. This article is about bisexuality, not Kinsey or his samples. That's what his article is about. Additionally, you have not suggested some other numbers to add into the article. If your argument is that the numbers he supplies are wrong, and thus should be removed, then at the very least give us some other numbers to replace them with, and substantial, undenyable proof that they are accurate, since you have such an issue with the accuracy of these ones.

The straight of it is that none of these tests are ever entirely accurate. People lie, quite frequently, especially in random polls. The stigma surrounding sex, and sexual orientations especially, decrease the accuracy of "self-reporting". The numbers that are obtained are naturally flawed in any case, as they are made up only by those who are willing to discuss such issues. As such, your arguments against using Kinsey really aren't making sence to me. Stick in a "For more on Kinsey's works see..." bit if you want, but throwing in all this unnessisary and off-topic information is only detrimental to the article itself. Arcuras 05:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

It appears you didn't read what I wrote in reply to, but instead ingored it on the basis that Kinsey's methods were just as good as methods employed by other sexologists (which they clearly aren't). Kinsey didn't use random polling and his sampling methods are seriously flawed. I can easily cite one of the other figures in a study from Prevalence of homosexuality (as I already mentioned) which were actually done with decent random polling. In any case, even lacking other numbers, it's not a good reason to use bad ones in their place because promoting bad science is bad regardless of the excuses you make. It is necessary to put in a warning that Kinsey's methodologies were strongly critcized, even by modern sexologists and statisticians who are in no way prude. --Nathan J. Yoder 07:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did, in fact, read your responce. I also looked at everything you linked to before I made my reply. I know quite well that kinsey did not use typical sampling methods, and I also know that he did so in an attempt to reduce volunteer bias; however I could make no judgement on whether his attempts were successful. I also found it interesting that you cited the Prevalence of homosexuality article twice now, which makes the exact same point I made in reply (see Prevalence of homosexuality#Footnote). This is why every series of research into this area comes up with different numbers, and changes depending on the social climate, the sample size, who the interviewer is (sex/age/social status/etc), the time of day, and the class of people interviewed. You also must look at who is publishing the research (Quote: In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports. also from Prevalence of homosexuality).

I hartiliy accept that Kinsey's numbers may be wrong... but then, in my own opinion, I believe that most, if not all, of the numbers are wrong. We have no way of knowing exactly how many there are because we are an invisible minority; and because of this, an accurate count will never be made - unless we should suddenly all turn a violent shade of purple, en mass. Despite all this, you have still not responded to the simple fact that the controversy relates to Kinsey, and not to the topic at hand, which is, and shall remain Bisexuality, and the estimated number of people who are, according to varying definitions, bisexual. The controversy that is raised with Kinsey by the Fundie hordes is well delt with on his own page. Surely it need not be mentioned on every page that contains his name. Arcuras 09:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I already noted, modern statisticians have said that his "100% grouping" actually made things worse. The fact that it wasn't random sampling alone and that he knowingly picked people from very non-representative population clearly demonstrates his figures can't be trusted. If you look at some of the figures themselves, the excessively high rates (even by todays standards) of homosexual and extra-marital make it clear his figures are far off.

Modern scientific surveys use random phone polling, which actually do manage to get fairly consist results from study to study as long as the sample size is large enough. So to chock this up to 'studies being different' is absurd and it makes me think you don't really want to accept his figures as invalid. "Oh but all studies are going to have inaccuracies" is not an excuse to use one with well known and avoidable innaccuracies. Following that logic, it would be acceptable to poll a couple of my friends for a "scientific survey" because hey--all surveys are flawed.

The article may be about bisexuality, but it quotes Kinsey's figures. Why you would quote Kinsey's figures as a matter of fact and no one elses makes no sense unless you're POV pushing. You most certainly need to either mention that A) there are many conflicting figures on this or that B) Kinsey's methologies are consiered to be excessively flawed. Not to do so is doing nothing short of mispreresenting the facts. Unless you can present a damn good reason not to, I'm going to change the article to reflect the range of figures available and the sources of those figures. Nathan J. Yoder 11:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it sadly ironic that the person who just accused me of not reading what he wrote, has just made it painfully clear that he is the one who is guilty of it. If one were to go back and read the very first post I made in this section, they would notice that I suggested doing what you just unnessisarily threatened me with. My entire issue here was not with Kinsey's numbers, but with keeping the article on topic. Adding in more numbers only beings more to the article, and makes it closer to what may be believed to be accurate. Adding in sections or paragraphs on how some researchers believe Kinsey's numbers to be innaccurate to the greater and modern world is not on topic, and what I was arguing against.

Now, as to your other points, I feel as if you are misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. I was trying to point out that no polling system can ever be touted as wholly accurate. Look at the random smaple phone polls of the Amerianc ellection. Many were done, and accross the board, the vast majority showed that Kerry was in the lead by a slim margin; as hopefully anyone can see, what was reported was not the correct result. As such, and researcher who touts their research as the last and final word should be cast into question, as no study, no matter how it is conducted, can ever be accurate. However, this does not mean that they can be completely rejected as entirely false, and that the methodology can be tossed out the proverbial window, as you stated. Current methodologies go to great lengths to try and ensure the most accurate information possible, but they can never be stated as being wholly accurate.

This is especially true when it comes to sex surveys. In any sample size, you would most likely get the save average number of people who told the truth, and the same average of people who did not; and thus, current studies would continue to come up with the same approximation of numbers. However, the number who lie cast the end result into question, as you can not predict the number of straight people who say they or not, or the number of gay/bi/les who say they are not. Considering the current political and social atmosphere, it is widely agreed that the second group would be considerably larger then the first. Despite living in a "free" society, we are still dealing with groups of people who, if they keep their mouths shut, are treated as otherwise normal and equal people. Telling someone you don't know over the phone that you are not (what is appointed as) normal is a potentially dangerous thing. Further that with the fact that some people try to hide what they feel within for most of their adult lives due to the same social climate (Govneror of New Jersey, for example), and it is a higher probability that the current statistics are lower then the reality of the situation. This was the point I was trying to make, not that we should just throw up our hands in defeat and loudly proclaim "Fuck it all" and start making numbers up, as you suggest. And, before you say it (as the fundie group tends to do quite often, not that I suggest you belong in said group), no, Kinsey did not do just that. For the samples that he took, being largely of incarserated individuals, I would argue that his numbers in this area would be largely accurate. Of course, this is an opinion, and unprovable... but so then is the inverse.

I look forward to seeing the numbers you interject, but please don't simply use the ones over at Prevalence of homosexuality, as they have less to do with bisexuality specifically, and more with gay and lesbian individuals. Arcuras 20:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

With all this talk on the existens of bisexuality, one forgets that Dr. Friz Klien MD(in the Bisexual Option) show that Bisexuality is a real form of sexuality. This was do with his own scale system. --64.115.215.162 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies between Male and Female attitudes

--Maby something should be added about that most men (including myself :) would very much like to have sex with two bisexual women at the same time, while there is no such thing to be noted in everyday talks with friends and on the street about the reverse situation - that a heterosexual women would like to participate in sex with two bisexual men. This last option seems uncommon and very "unwanted". It's true that I don't have any links to provide, but most males and females reading this - be honest to yourself and ask yourself a question: "What is your great sex fantasy?" Im pretty sure that if we made a larg scale poll, majority of males would list "..to have sex with two chicks at the same time while they are kissing each other.." and majority of females would definitively NOT list something like, say "..to have sex with two guys while they are kissing each other.."?? The last probably does happen, but is definitively not that widespread as guy-with-two-chicks situation. Feamles would probably list in more equal quantities stuff like most males (the guy-with-two-chicks situation), then situation with two guys, but NOT bisexual guys, meaning straight ones with one performing anal and the other "classic" thing, then females could also list the situation with two couples at the same time and so on and on.. I mean come on.. don't make that look on your face - it's Wikipedia :) We are suppose to provide things as they are. Anybody has any clues how to check the upper claims? (..maby poll, or asking yourself about fantasies..). Then there is also no notion about that bisexual females are less attacked by rightwingers then bisexual men - which might in part explain some statements that I made above - that men, which hold more power in rightwing societies not only have nothing against bisexual females, but even secretly prefer (or fantasize in secrecy) doing it with two bi-chicks at once while any notion about guys doing anything to each other is ..huh - you know what words would they use, while on the other hand, two males doing something to one female at the same time but doing NOTHING between each other would be, in such case considered as ok.. This stuff, after researched little more maby someday, should be added, because there are more proofs that female bisexuality is different (and more desired by both sexes) that male bisexuality. They are maby technically the same, but quantitatively totally different things - hence, if you ask common people on the street to throw a few associations at two words - those would be first - for words "bisexual women" associated words - ..err..lesbians, ..err..cool, ..experimental, desired,.. and if asked for "bisexual men" associations - ..err.. gays, ..no thanks!, ..maby, ..hmmm, ..and so on. ..Ok! Now.. bottom line.. Someone might hate me for these things, someone might like it, but I think my comment was: 1.)honest, 2.)highly possible and 3.)close to real situation..! ..thanks for reading - ..hope that puts some prospect to situation..

I cite the recent (2006) popularity of Brokeback Mountain with the female viewing public. Women, even straight ones, find same-sex encounters between men just as sexually arousing as straight men find female-only sex scenes. It's just that no-one asked them before.

Nuttyskin 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there was more to the female population's enjoyment of that movie than the same-sex encounters. Had the genders been changed to make it more "hetero" the storyline and themes of the movie would be well aligned to most "chick flicks" (pardon the euphemism) and movies shown on channels like WE, Oxygen, or Lifetime. Zappernapper

I do indeed see some prospect there - namely, that somebody that clueless is not very likely to ever get one woman into bed, let alone two who could probably have more fun without him. -- AlexR 04:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• laughs* That's mean! True, quite funny, and mean! Arcuras 09:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I separated this from the discussion about the accuracy of Kinsey. Maybe removing it completely is more suitable? 137.205.246.16 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality#See also

Is the link to Pederasty really relevant? –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 04:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having been the one to list it, let me ask you how can you exclude it when you already discuss the topic in the article itself? The real question is how can you exclude it when it was (and possibly remains, from an international point of view) the main manifestation of bisexuality in society. Haiduc 04:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I refute that contention totally and unreservedly. Men who are married but still have sexual relations with other men discreetly (e.g., in cruising grounds) are the main manifestation of bisexuality in society. It merely happens that in some societies, especially historically, pederasty was the form in which bisexuality slotted into the societal norm of those times and circumstances.

Nuttyskin 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nuttyskin are you claiming to have access to some global database detailing the sexual goings-on of every person in the world who identifies as bisexual? I'd assume not. Your view is centered on industrialized nations, and i'm sure you're not even seriuously taking all of them into account. What about India (quickly catching up to China) one of the most populous countries in the world? is all bisexuality that goes on there DISCREET sex? or even perhaps in European countries... Haiduc was referring to pederasty globally, not in North America. Point in fact, what's to say that these men who are on the "down low" even identify as bisexual? perhaps they identify as straight, or the other end - perhaps they are actually gay but "stuck" in their marriage and are trying to find a way out? that actually is probably far more likely then men who identify as bisexual and live there lives as such IMO. And what of women? do bisexual women in the world not make up a large enough percentage to be considered part of the "main manifestation" ? perhaps Haiduc should have said that pedersaty is the main form of bisexuality among men, due to the small amount of historical info on bisexual women. i haven't even touched on rural and hunter/gatherer societies. aside from this logical consideration i can back up my biased point of view with anecdotal evidence as well as anyone who'd like to disagree with me. simply put... why do you think the "main manifestation of bisexuality" is "men who are married but still have sexual relations with other men discreetly" ? User:Zappernapper

are you claiming to have access to some global database detailing the sexual goings-on of every person in the world who identifies as bisexual?

No, why? Are you? The problem of identifying bisexual activity is that very few men in all cultures do so identify. There is no need to do so, as self-identification usually marks them out for harsh treatment by straight and gay society alike, and there is as a result a relatively small bisexual community and little in the way of a commodifiable identity. Consequently they continue to live sexually discreet lives, out of necessity usually, contributing albeit passively to yet more bisexual erasure.

Nuttyskin 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kinsey

Please do not remove the Kinsey data from this article. If nothing else, it is historically very important because Kinsey's figures shaped modern attitudes towards bisexuality, and continue to influence them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean his figures are accurate or should even be included in this article. It is not appropriate to include figures on the basis of how Kinsey influenced peoples' attitudes. That is not what this article is about. That section of the page is strictly statistical, it has nothing to do with Kinsey's influence. I've already had a lengthy discussion about this and why his methodology was seriously flawed on the talk page. Address that before you just blindly revert. The only person who replied suggested that the statistics should be kept only on the basis that there are no good statistics. Bad information is bad information, and shouldn't be included regardless. --Nathan J. Yoder 01:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the figures have been shown beyond doubt to be so flawed as to be useless, discuss that in the article. If the figures are of some small use but still flawed, discuss that in the article. But don't remove them again. Kinsey's findings revolutionized how we regard sexuality, particularly the former fringe sexualities such as homosexuality and bisexuality. They must be treat in some appropriate and accurate manner in the article, not just ignored. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• We are not here to pass judgment on the accuracy of certain information. We are here to summarize pertinent and verifiable information that may bear on a debate or issue that is the topic of an article. Kinsey is a widely recognized figure and while his theories may be debated in the public street, they are nevertheless both verifiable and pertinent. They should be included. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:47, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Of course we are here to pass judgement on the accuracy of information. Are you seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter if Wikipedia articles contain accurate information? His information HAS NOT been verified, his methods WERE NOT sound. The information is inaccurate and junk science. If you want unscientific information in a wiki article, take it to a different wiki.

This is not about his theories, this is about his statistics. How he revolutionized anything is totally and utterly irrelevent, to mention it is a non-sequitur. This isn't an article about Kinsey, this is an article about Kinsey and the quotes regarding kinsey are about very specific statistics he found. What "small use" do dubious statistics serve?

I specifically outlined how his information is inaccurate in this talk page and the massive disparity in even modern studies with better methods goes to show this even further (see http://www.thebody.com/siecus/report/youth_issues.html). Even LGBT rights groups acknowledge there are no definitive, accurate statistcs on this. You look at one study, you get 1%, you look at another and you get 10%. When the disparity in studies is so large, you can't really include the information. "Ok, so the information may be inaccurate. In fact, it may be TEN TIMES OFF, but we should include it anyway!"

I do not want to keep repeating myself because people can't read back through the talk page. What it comes down to is this: there are no accurate statistics on the matter. The studies have widely conflicting statistics that fall far out of acceptable room for error. It might, be 1%, 5%, 50%, no one knows. Why should inaccurate statistics be included? What purpose do inaccurate statistics serve? And why do Kinsey's statistics get special priority, especially considering modern statisticians contest even his most basic methods? Even the smaller scale modern studies are better than his. Kinsey's fame and effects on society are a red herring, which is a logical fallacy.

If I am to follow your logic, that accuracy doesn't matter, then I will just put in statistics from every single study I can find. You'll see figures ranging from 1%-50%. You are not allowed to contest me putting these in the articles following your own logic.

-Nathan J. Yoder 22:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Respectfully, I stand by my original point, which is backed up by Wikipedia's policies. You may find it useful to familiarize yourself with Wikiquette if you are not already. I will quote the pertinent section here for clarity: Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox (soapbox) for advocacy (advocacy). Kinsey's theories are extremely well-known and should be presented in the article. It's fine to include documented criticism of them as that too is part of the debate, but simply not presenting them is doing the article and its readers a disservice. People can make up their own minds from NPOV information an article presents. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to point out, in answer to the comment Nathan made above about bullying, that I came here as a result of a recent RfC. I have no axe to grind. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. Those policies don't apply here. This is not about representing views, this is about statistics. Statistics are not value judgements, nor are they views. And I'm discussing in the inaccuracy of the statistics here, which is what your quote says the talk page is for. Your quote actually supports my point.

Kinsey's theories aren't the issue here, as I've stated. Please do not make me repeat myself for the millionth time, this is about statistics. Kinsey's theories being well-known have absolutely NOTHING to do with this.

Even if you were to completely misinterpret what I was saying and were to misinterpret Wikiquette, it wouldn't make sense because including all "views" (statistics) would mean including literally DOZENS of statistics from the many studies on the matter. It would be one giant table with statistics from numerous sources that are in complete conflcit with eachother. So no matter how you look at it, including those statistics serves no purpose. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I fear we are devolving into semantics. You are passing judgment on Kinsey's statistics (and therefore, the theories he developed from them). That is clearly against the spirit of NPOV, which insists that we present all relevant, verifiable sides. Obviously there is a point of diminishing returns (we would not include statistics gathered by an 11th grader doing a class project), but given his involvement in this subject, Kinsey's information clearly deserves to be incorporated. This is all I have to say on the matter. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Yeah, too bad Kinsey's stats aren't verifiable. - Vague | Rant 08:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • His statistics don't need to be verified. What would need to be verified is that Kinsey did indeed put forward whatever statistics end up being included in the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:59, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Katefan0: it is irrelevant whether you or I disagree or not with Kinsey, Kinsey's works are widely considered to be reliable and the consensus on this page is that the article should stand as is. If you have further statistics from reliable sources that contradict Kinsey widely, as you claim, that you can certainly cite them in the article but deleting a whole section would not seem to be appropriate at all. What is more, the discusison of whether Kinsey's work is controversial or wrong belongs on the Kinsey page and not here. --Axon 11:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is becoming totally absurd. YOU are the one who is arguing absurd sematnics katefan. What you are suggesting is that LITERALLY you are NEVER allowed to remove statistics from an article under any circumstances as long as they're from a study that was actually conducted. To remove ANY statistics would be POV, because according to you "judging statistcs" means judging theories, which is a disingenuous thing to say. You didn't even address what I've already said, following your logic we'd have to include dozens of statistics from dozens of sources in the article, otherwise it would be POV. You have said Kinsey's stats clearly need to be included based on their popularity, this is a logical fallacy -- see argument from popularity. If you continue to use ridiculous illogic, I will take this beyond just an RfC since people are just being stubborn, childish and refusing to address the point.

To be absolutely clear: Argument from popularity is a HUGE logical fallacy. His popularity has nothing to do with the accuracy of his statistics. Refrain from using logical fallacies. I have already pasted a link listing all kinds of contradicting statistics from other scientists. You have chosen to ignore the link I pasted because it didn't suit you.

In summation: you are all cherry picking and engaging in many logical fallacies. I'm sorry, but that just won't cut it. Your arguments are completely irrational. And whether or not kinsey's stats are controversial DOES belong on this page if his statistics absolutely must be included. You are contradicting yourself with your own logic. You say 1. His statistics must be included because they are popular and 2. A notice of controversy shouldn't be included even though it is a popular notion that his statistics are likely innaccurate. Axon, please take your POV elsewhere, I'm putting on an NPOV notice and if you refuse to comply within 1 week I report this to higher authorities.-Nathan J. Yoder 08:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

What did Axon do?? Talk pages are meant for content discussions like this. - Mark 12:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

chuckle I'm not sure either, but i'd be interested find out out what Njyoder intends to report me for to "higher authorities". For someone complaining about people "cherry picking" issues to respond to, Njyoder has completely ignored the points I raise on this issue. Kinsey's work are not held to be controversial by the people in "the field" i.e. other psychologists and sexologists. If anyone has any figures to dispute his claims they should publish them on the page (as long as they are relevant to bisexuality and not ad hominem attacks). Finally, this page is not the place to discuss the relevance/accuracy of Kinsey's work: the Kinsey page should be used for this. I also would be interested to see how people would demonstrate that Kinsey is "wrong". I also dispute they are contested by a "vast majority" of people: surely this is not only wrong (most people probably haven't even heard of Kinsey) but isn't this also an argument from popularity?

If anything Njyoder's own, strong POV (what does his rant on "Homosexuality is still rejected by the majority" to do with bisexuality?) are self-evident, but I won't try an "argument from authority" by making impotent threats (isn't this a breach of Wikipedia's guidelines on etiquette?) or tell him to take his own POV elsewhere --Axon 08:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Njyoder up to a point. If Kinsey is widely believed to be accurate, this does not mean that we should treat his results as accurate. If they're wrong they're wrong. However we should include an account of Kinsey, just as we should include an account of Freud's ideas on dreams in an article on dreams. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Of course. If certain information is widely believed to be wrong (I am not entirely sure this is an accurate characterization in Kinsey's case, but that can be talked about too if folks so desire), then the amount of space dedicated to that information should be commensurate with what is appropriate for information that is very disputed -- the same way Wikipedia treats pseudoscience, just as an example. But that doesn't mean the Kinsey information shouldn't be in the article at all, which is what Nathan has been arguing for. I am simply discussing whether Kinsey's information should be in the article, or should not. Personally I don't see how it can be argued that it should not. But the substance of what should be included is another discussion. My only point so far is that the article should treat Kinsey in some fashion, including solid information from his detractors — that is the fair thing to do. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

"then the amount of space dedicated to that information should be commensurate with what is appropriate for information that is very disputed" 100% of the statistics that were put on the page are being disputed. All you do is keep repeating yourself that it should be included with your best reason being "he's popular." Including solid information from his detractors would make it a huge section and turn it into Kinsey Report. The solid information from detractors would end up being longer than the article itself. Furthermore, you need to specify the criteria for including other statistics. If not, I'll simply include every other statistic I can find from a scientist and put it in a giant table taking up over half the page. You keep avoiding this because you don't want to deal with it, but me doing that will force you to since you're only interested in being evasive. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• We are reasonable people who should be able to find a way to hit the high points of a rebuttal without turning the article into a fork. "Kinsey's information is disputed, some critics charge, because its methodology was flawed, [etc]. (link to reference)" -- at a minimum -- seems a fine treatment. Or, we could pick one of Kinsey's most well-known/respected critics and present that person's criticism as an exemplar. Seeing that the general consensus seems to be to include Kinsey's information, I think it's time to start seeking a reasonable compromise instead of going 'round and 'round. What do you propose? ( See Willmcw's comments below). As for a giant table, I think that could be considered disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:44, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page due to the very one-sided pattern of reversions over whether something is or is not NPOV. Please come to some agreement, and not repeatedly revert each other.

James F. (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

---

What about this text?

Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) proposed that the majority of people appear to be at least somewhat bisexual and that most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. These studies are controversial because of both Kinsey's findings and his methods. For the full article, see Kinsey Reports.

I removed mention of "some studies" because we're not presenting facts that say any other studies actually did this. I also changed "found that" to "proposed that" since it is heavily disputed. I also shortened it a lot, because if the encyclopedia reader is really interested in the topic, they can follow the link to find out whatever they want. silsor 12:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Since there seem to be many people who think the controversy has to be mentioned here (what are links for, then?), how about this; providing more people find the disputed version to long, which I also do not:

Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) proposed that the majority of people appear to be at least somewhat bisexual and that most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. Kinsey's methodology (and in particular, his sampling technique), has been criticized as producing unreliable and biased results. See Demographics of sexual orientation and Kinsey Report for more information.

-- AlexR 12:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Links are for people who are interested enough in a topic to want to learn more about it. We have information bleed for a reason: so that if someone isn't interested in a particular topic, they don't have to read the article on it, and can know what they need to know in relation to the subject they are interested in. If disputed statistics are being used, of course it should be noted, for those who don't wish to read the article on the Kinsey Report. Links are certainly not for the purpose of centralising information, which you seem to be suggesting. If this is not what you are suggesting, I apologise for the misunderstanding. - Vague | Rant 12:26, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's unacceptable to say "proposed that" instead of "found that". Kinsey's methodology may be called into question, but his findings follow from his data.

Also having looked at the Kinsey Report article, it seems to me that Kinsey's findings have withstood the test of time extraordinarily well. I think it's also probably wrong to describe them as particularly controversial. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, you're using a wikipedia article, with a strong POV slant, as a basis for your decision in another wikipedia article. I've outlined the many reasons his statistics aren't credible and even the reasons why the Kinsey Report page doesn't actually address those points and goes even further to make unsubstantiated claims. I suggest you read the part of the talk page where I debunk the accuracy of his claims well. Not just that, but read where I point out how dubious the obviously POV slanted Kinsey Report article. The only issue it comes even close to addressing is by mentioning that by removing the massive sampling bias by removing the 25% of samples which were convicts, it didn't change te results significantly. However, no evidence of this is presented, the article just quotes some mystery 37% statistic of who knows what (they literally don't say what it's a statistic of*) and don't bother including ANY other statistics and how much they've changed as a result of excluding the convicts in the study.

Lastly, his statistics have NOT stood the test of time. The majority of the population still disagrees with them and still continues to attack them without proper rebuttals? Their rebuttals come entirely from unverifiable information from the Kinsey Institute itself which are just subjective and unsubstnatited claims. In fact, if you go back and read, it's obvious some of the numbers, just common sense wise, are totally insane. *I suspect the 37% statistic, which they say didn't change when they removed 25% of the sample (all of them were convicts) was referring to how many men have had gay sex to orgasm. THat's right-- the kinsey report claims that 37% of men have had gay sex. It also claims that 69% of white males have been with a hooker at least once.

How can anyone claim absurd statistics like that are even close to right? Oh yeah, if you want to talk about the baby/child orgasm data (on how many minutes it took to reach oragasm), the Kinsey INstitute's official stance is that a) they got the data from adults recalling their early childhood on how long it took, b) they got it from pedophiles who literally used a stopwatch and kept journals of the times and c) they got it from parents who timed how long it took for their babies to masturbate themselves to orgasm (I'm NOT kidding--they claim that parents reported how long they took). Look at this direct quote from the slanted Kinsey Report article which thinks those are valid excuses: "the bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted."

Whoops! Best case scenario, Kinsey is being totally honest, these people didn't have stop watches and they were recalling very rough approximations. They were measuring how many minutes it took. So even in the best case scenario he was fudging numbers--there is no way someone recalling something that happened many years ago could be considered remotely accurate from any scientific perspective. If Kinsey truly cared about accuracy, why would he ask an adult or a teacher/parent WHO WATCHED THEIR KID MASTURBATE "years ago, can you recall, down to the minute, how long did it take to orgasm?"

I'm sorry, but these statistics are contested by the vast majority of people and the best defenses that the Kinsey Institute can come up with are assertions that "Oh, we adjusted the data and everything still turned out just as accurate" even though they wouldn't publish the results of exactly what they did to the data along with the included data itself.

Lastly, if we are to include Kinsey's statistics, does that mean I include statistics from dozens of other studies that completely contradict his? THat's right, modern statistics aren't consistent with his--modern statisticians and psychologists agree that they haven't stood the test of time. If Kinsey's statistics must be included, then I'll make a large table outlining the massive range of statistics on the matter from many different studies. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

NJY, a table of other statistics on bisexuality would be very helpful. Can you prepare one and post it here? Thanks -Willmcw 22:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think that at least part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of the term "controversial." Until recently, that description was reserved for fringe science which was not accepted in the mainstream of its particular discipline. Wilhelm Reich comes to mind, or Dr. Kevorkian. Inexplicably, however, we now find ourselves in a situation in which it is the fringe which is claiming the privilege to call the mainstream controversial. I think that here we have to resist what can only be described as a corrosion of the scientific process. The article as it stands seems fairly balanced and defensible. Perhaps the problem with the recent barrage of criticism is that the person involved does not take into consideration the fact that the statistics refer to the population as it was half a century ago. That would explain a lot in the obvious differences between present-day observations and the Kinsey database. Haiduc 00:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on not reading and addressing what I said. There is no way these statistics could not only changed, but dropped by orders of magnitude over half a century. Cultures get more liberal and progressive over time, not the other way around. If his statistics were to change, they would increase gradually, not decrease dramatically. And controversial has always meant how the general population perceives it, unless otherwise specified. Not just that, but even in the scientific community today his methods are controversial. Kinsey's statistical gathering methods put him up in the ranks with other quacks like Freud.

Kinsey's views are not mainstream. Homosexuality is still rejected by the majority and thus they will obviously reject his views. Acceptance of Kinsey's statistics are non-mainstream. I have already covered several times over why this article is not balanced and why the statistics aren't valid, don't make me keep repeating myself or I am simply not going to respond to anyone who just skips over what I say and just interjects their opinion which isn't even a rebuttal. The responses I keep hearing from most indicate that they didn't bother reading anything and just gave their opinion regardless. -Nathan J. Yoder 01:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, didn't this get settled months ago? I was of the understanding that we were going to balance Kinsey's potentially controversial/missunderstood/whatever numbers and statistics with other researcher's findings. Why are we re-debating this?

And, secondly, in responce to "Cultures get more liberal and progressive over time, not the other way around". Have you looked at the sudden directional shift in the US culture system? What had been a society that had been largely drifting leftwards towards the liberal and progressive worldviews has taken a rather sudden reversal, both in the political and cultural sence. This, of course, does happen in all societies every so often, and is not unique to these times nor to the USA - the liberal/conserative or right/left status of a culture acts as a pendulum, swinging back and forth over time. It is entirely possible that such a shift has occured, and has joined with other factors to create such an alteration in findings.

I fail to see the need why we need to rehash this entire debate, when the simplist method to balance Kinsey's numbers, and whatever possible POV issues some people may feel exist, is to simply include other numbers from other researchers. This way, those who are curious over why Kinsey's numbers may differ can simply read his article, where any controversey is well discussed. Arcuras 01:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cultures don't get more progressive over time? Tell that to abortion rights, civil rights, feminist rights, gay rights and all other similar movement advocates. I'm sure they'll totally agree with you that living 50 years ago would have been better for them, as it was a more progressive time. Congratulations on berating the activities of every rights movement over the past 50 years.

It is NOT entirely possible that such a shift has occured, we are quite clearly more progressiven when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality and sexuality than we were 50 years ago. That 37% figure definitely does not hold even 50 years ago. Are you seriously suggesting that any time over the past 100 years in the US that over 1/3rd of men have had gay sex?

As for the rest of what you said, I already address that. I'm not repeating myself. If you care to actually read it and make a counter-argument, go ahead. This wasn't properly addressed months ago as the person I was arguing with refused to concede even the slightest bit even though it seems to be the general consensus that at least a warning of some kind is suitable. Please don't respond until you've read what I've said. --Nathan J. Yoder 02:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

As another user already mentioned, cultures are cyclic in many respects. Also, the shifts are not all in unison, and some aspects may become more progressive while others may become more reactionary. And sometimes there are abrupt reversals, witness the Middle Ages. As for males engaging in sexual behavior with each other, since there are cultures where the experience is universal as well as cultures where it is infrequent, I do not see why a ratio of 1/3 would be that unlikely. In cultures which are not paranoid about same-sex relations, as ours is now (just listen to the conversation in any school) there is a lot of sex play going on, especially in adolescence. Remember, not that long ago men used to kiss, hug and hold hands without being or feeling gay, and without self-consciousness or embarrassment. Why are you using your own experience as a yardstick for American society in the mid-twentieth century?! Haiduc 03:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Take the patent nonsense elsewhere. This not a culture where homosexuality has ever been accepted. Why the heck are you comparing the US culture to other cultures? You've gone off into the realm of absurdity now, homosexuality is definitely not LESS accepted now than it was 50 years ago. I don't know what weird parallel universe you've been living in, but homosexuality was without a doubt more condemned 50 years ago in the US than it is now. To even mention other cultures is a big red herring. 50 years ago men kissing and hugging was definitely NOT accepted in the U.S. For extra emphasis, the U.S. is not other cultures. The U.S. is the U.S. I can't believe I have to point that out. I am now officially finished with entertaining this absurd notion that the US is somehow MORE conservative about homosexuality. If you bring this up, I will simply ignore that part of your response completely. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

(If we could try to tone down the hysterics a little, please?) Expanding on my previous point, I said (As Haiduc rightfully pointed out), cultures and societies are cyclic, swinging back and forth between two extremes. Yes, this also includes the US of A. Now, granted, comparing the US's attitude 50 years ago towards homosexuality 50 years ago to now, you are correct, the US is more progressive in the present. However, compare the end of Clinton's presidency and the Present, and it would be clear that the pendulum has hit it's current apex towards the left, and is moving back towards conservatism once more - of course, conservative in this case is a relative term. Now, if you want to look at another conservative swing, look at drag. During WWII, Drag shows were a popular and accepted way of entertaining troops due to a lack of female entertainers in foreign areas (this despite drag's incorrect pairing with homosexuality by society at large). After the war ended, this need for female impersonators was no longer required, and so drag shows have become unpopular in the mainstream US culture. As such, the acceptance of drag (and it's associated homosexual overtones) has declined. This is not a "weird parallel universe".. it's the history of the US. Talking to said activists, they'd agree... 50 years ago was hell, but 5 years ago was so much better then now.

Further, to address your accusation, I did actually happen to concede a few points, and I'm rather dismayed that you dismiss them so readily. One of them happened to be related to the same mistake your making now: that 37% figure has two issues that make it very specific, and all to easy to toss out to bolster a argumentative point. Primarily, Kinsey didn't specifically define what he meant my homosexual sex/intercourse/interactions - to him, a circle jerk or a casual blow job were on the same level of anal sex. Secondly, he was working with mostly interred individuals. Both of these colour his statistics, and make them very specific to certain groups. I happen to know that over 40% of the guys I knew were involved in circle jerks.... it was a small private school, and I hosted great parties. Does this necessarily make my graduating year equal to all of them? No, of course not... and this is the sort of information that is important - on Kinsey's page. And 'lo! It is!

Balance his numbers with others and be done with it. We are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Arcuras 04:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

As for Americans holding hands, I suggest you look at this book (or at least at its cover), "Dear Friends: American Photographs of Men Together 1840-1918" [4]. Oh, and here's another one, [5] American culture is not all that different from any other. Haiduc 11:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Those links you paste to books are totally irrelevent. They say nothing about the acceptence of homosexuality and males holding hands. One is just a picture book and the other is obviously a very biased and unscientific piece written by some unknown author. -Nathan J. Yoder 01:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Kinsey

There seems to be a general consensus that Kinsey's findings should be mentioned in this article in some manner. I see that in a recent edit user:Njyoder removed the section entirely. Rather than removing this material, is there some text that could be added to bring that section into NPOV? Perhaps a some more sentences to the last paragraph on how, despite its cultural impact, the underlying statistical basis was significantly flawed and the results have been supplanted by newer, more careful research. NJY, could you draft something that we can add to provide POV balance? Cheers, -Willmcw 10:44, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'll write something up with multiple statistics and different phrasing, but only to demonstrate how absurd it is to do. A "proof of misconcept", if you will. -Nathan J. Yoder 01:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

No, please do something which can add siginificant information to the article. If you think this project is absurd then there are other projects that you might enjoy more. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Many bisexual people also consider themselves to be gay or lesbian

Many bisexual people also consider themselves to be gay or lesbian (or part of the larger LGBT community). Others may be supportive of their cause but still consider themselves to be straight. I removed these two sentences from the article as they don't make any sense; bisexuals are not gay or lesbian. The second sentence isn't describing bisexuals at all, but rather queer-friendly heterosexuals. Tony Sidaway reverted my edit for some reason; instead of getting into an edit war, I decided to discuss it here. Tony, and anyone else who wants to leave that paragraph in the article, I have one question: Why? Ketsy 20:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think this entire question gets to the slipperiness of self-identity. I would say the first sentence is correct... many bisexuals do consider themselves part of the larger LGBT community, and why shouldn't they? Many people who perhaps act in a bisexual manner to some extent prefer to self-identify as straight (personally this seems counterintuitive, but people call themselves what they will). Some of the problem here is that you (and I) disagree with some peoples' self-labeling, particularly in the second instance... but that doesn't mean that people don't, in fact, identify in that fashion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Part of the larger GLBT community, yes. But gay or lesbian? Gay (or lesbian, or straight) and bisexual are mutually exclusive; you can't be one or the other. My problem is that they're being called bisexuals even though they self-identify as something else; and why should we do that? No one but one's self can conclusively say whether one is gay, bi, straight, or asexual. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 20:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the same argument -- as counterintuitive as it seems, there are bisexual people who self-identify as gay, and those who self-identify as straight. Maybe the way to find a consensus on this is to work up a paragraph about self-identity and its conflicts in the GLBT community as a whole, because they do exist. I know some gay people who get offended/irritated when bisexual people self-identify as gay (or straight for that matter). · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that there are bisexual people who consider themselves "gay"; heck, I was in a relationship with one for over 7 years. To him "gay" simply meant "I like to have sex with men" (not an unusual definition, if you ask about), and he most assuredly did. The fact that he also liked to have sex with women didn't negate the first fact, so there was no logical contradiction whatsoever. He was "gay", he was "bisexual", he was "queer", he was a bunch of things; one might choose to wear more than one label. Tverbeek 19:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The passage as it stood seemed to me to state things as they are. Many people who identify as gay or straight are functionally bisexual. Some bisexuals such as myself in some contexts see ourselves as both gay and straight, and in some contexts see ourelves as a separate group with LGBT. It may sound confusing, and confused, and perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Some bisexual people may consider themselves gay or lesbian because a looser,un-official definition of gay is being primarily attracted to the same sex, which they fit. And some may consider themselves straight/heterosexual because their primarily attracted to the opposite sex, which is a looser, not really official definition of straight/heterosexual.

Ketsuban, why don't you draft a sentence or two that talks about some of the criticisms, probably most particularly from the GLBT community itself, of this sort of self-identification? · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, I'll definitely do that once I've had some sleep (I don't want to try to do important things when I'm all @_@ tired *dies and is dead*). Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Common Stereotypes" section

This section seems far from NPOV to me. While I happen to agree with most of it, and I appreciate the goal of educating people, it reads like a "bi pride" brochure, and implies that none of this stuff is at all true... when there is in fact some degree of truth to many of them. (e.g. Some people who call themselves "bi" really are homosexuals unwilling to give up their "hetero" status.) Most of this information would be better incorporated into the factual parts of the article. (Update: Oops, there wasn't a "factual part" relating to this material; I've added one.) Tverbeek 19:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Tverbeek, I agree that the article needed information of this sort. But do you have an actual source for this addition? These situations can and do take place, but do not appear to be true of the majority of self-described bisexuals. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Only a preponderance of anecdotal evidence, hence "appear to be". Tverbeek 19:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I think that is not enough of a bar to meet for inclusion. Other people could have anecdotal evidence that would directly contradict that, and could also then reasonably write "appear to be." · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • If others have evidence to the contrary, I trust they'll edit the text to reflect it. In the meantime, how about "but is not true of all self-described bisexuals"? That's a timid enough statement to stand up without statistical proof, isn't it? Tverbeek 20:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think any kind of anecdotal evidence, in this case, is appropriate, no matter what the claim. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Source for latest edit

There are several sources one can give, but the best is of course the book on Nehru by his admirer and someone who has been close to him - Prof. Stanley Wolpert. Check out his book on Nehru at http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?pwb=1&ean=9780195100730 . I think adding a list of bisexual celebrities to this page is a good idea. I just started it off with Nehru and Mountbatten whose case is famous, but intend to add many more names.

• • I don't think a laundry list is appropriate for this article, particularly when there is already a List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to mention the List of bisexuals. -Willmcw 23:50, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I missed the list even though it is linked from the article page. Something about the article made it feel incomplete to me and I thought we need some contemporary examples. I chose the one I provided as the first one as people all around the world can identify with these characters. Had I chosen a Hollywood personna, people in many parts of the world won't even recognize them. Anyway, I'll definitely ask your advice in case I want to add any more examples. For now I shall leave it as it is with just this example for the sake of completeness and no more additions so that it does not become a laundry list.

I don't think the wording is right:

The best known case of bisexuality in modern times is that of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. He maintained a relationship with the Governor-General of British India, Lord Louis Mountbatten who was a homosexual, and his wife Edwina Mountbatten. Nehru has written that the problems and difficulties that T. E. Lawrence faced with his sexuality were similar to his own.

This is probably not the best-known case of bisexuality in modern times. Most people are not aware of Nehru's bisexuality or Mountbatten's homosexuality. I would think that the case of Oscar Wilde is better known, though not as modern, or any one of several modern celebrities. Or is the point to talk about the most famous person who was bisexual? -Willmcw 20:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC) - [ps: If we had a source that indicated that Nehru's sexuality is widely known in India then this would make sense.-Willmcw 22:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)]

• • For that matter, the most famous bisexual of modern times could arguably be someone like Madonna. Or Anne Heche. I realize these are more pedestrian and Amerocentric choices, but I would guess that more people would recognize these two celebrities before they would Nehru and Mountbatten. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Recent research

There was an article in the July 5 New York Times about some recent research, which it might be a good idea for the article to discuss. The title is "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited," and it's at [6] --- I think it may be possible for nonsubscribers to view it by doing a free registration. The study was done at Northwestern University and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, and the lead author was a grad student named Gerulf Rieger. Dunno if it's been published, but Rieger's contact info is at [7]. Obviously this is the stuff that revert wars are made of, and the study's methodology doesn't necessarily seem ironclad, but it does seem appropriate to me to discuss some scientific research that's happened since Kinsey, and that shows at least some doubt has been cast on Kinsey's ideas about bisexuality. I don't have any axe to grind here, just thought it might be relevant. I'd be happy to add a note about it in the article, but I didn't want to step on any toes about a controversial aspect of a subject that I don't know much about, so I thought I'd test the waters first. If it would be helpful for me at add a sentence or two, please let me know on my talk page. (This article is not on my watchlist.) --Bcrowell 7 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

I would be very, very, very carefull taking any research from the Blanchard/Bailey direction overly seriously - both have a history of finding facts after they made up the theories, and, let's say, their theories usually don't gain widespread acceptance. See for example autogynephilia, or the story how Bailey lost his job as head of the department at Northwestern [8]. Bailey at least is also a proponent of the gay germ theory, and let's not forget that all gay men are, according to him, quite femine. So I wouldn't put any money on any research coming out of that corner unless it has been confirmed by others not belonging to that wacko club. (Also read this comment on this piece of "research": [9])

There is also the matter of methology - what porn/erotica arouses my physically might just not be the same as the sex I have, which in turn might not be the same as the love I feel -- which happens to be quite different from the porn/erotica that gets me personally (if I am allowed a personal remark) aroused.

There has been a lot research being done since Kinsey, I personaly doubt we have to bother with the more dubious ones - unfortunately, somebody will probably insist on getting it into the article. -- AlexR 7 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

I'd add that national media watchdog groups including GLAAD [10] and FAIR [11] have gotten involved in this controversy. Jokestress 9 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

I have read the paper. It is very deeply flawed, from the way they conduct the study in the first place to the way they analyse their results. It's very obvious that they started from their conclusions and worked backwards, slinging any factual obstacles they met aside. Frankly, it deserves a Wikipedia article so everyone can see what rubbish it is. — ciphergoth 17:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

This deserves mention and links to their other works. A lot of people have been mentioning it lately. — Omegatron 23:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I also read this 'reasearch' and have found it to be extremely flawed. First of all, bisexuality exists... I have been bi or bi-curious for over two decades. Also, the mode of meaurement was from visual stimulus from explicit pornography... that is VERY subjective... the subject could be more aroused from viewing same-sex porn as it is DIFFERENT than mainstream porn or more 'taboo' therefore making it more eroticly enticing. Also, in mainstream 'straight' porn, there tends to be more heavily made-up women, lots of unnecessary dialogue and a ton of silicone breasts... each one of those things turns me off and are rarely erotically arousing to me. Also, none of these subjects were shown BISEXUAL MMF, Strap-On, Female Domination/Forced-Bi or She-Male pornography (all enormously popular genres) where there is male-to-male-to-female contact which I beleive is huge fatal flaw in researching bisexuality, especially in men. TednAZ 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency tag

This is a prime example of overreach (excuse me? you think an article on homosexuality and bisexuality are inherently indecent? Here comes the censorship!). Anybody reading this might find the VfD page here interesting Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Official lesbianism?

or a woman who is primarily attracted to other women, a looser official definition of lesbian

There's an official definition of lesbianism? Which organisation, exactly, is it that standardizes lesbians? :-) Roy Badami 21:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the word official, the sentence reads fine without it and I don't think official is what the author meant. Roy Badami 20:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, no it doesn't read right. Removed a looser official definition of lesbian altogether; it reads fine without it and the phrase really grates. a looser accepted definition might work, but it still feels self-contradictory, since the sentence has just given an even looser definition of lesbian, so that definition must be accepted at least by some people. Roy Badami 20:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps a looser dictionary definition, if anyone cares about keeping the wording, and can find that definition in a dictionary, and is convinced that the even looser immediately preceding definition doesn't occur in a dictionary.

Sorry for the verbosity. As a rather occaisional Wikipedian, I still sometimes feel rather nervous about editing pages :-) Roy Badami 20:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Percentages

Is there anyone other than advocates of gay rights or free sex who accepts figures of over 3% for prevalonce of bisexuality? Not to be argumentative, and I'm not going to start an edit war over this. All I've done today is rearrange a few things and tweak the intro.

But is there, or is there not, a controversy over the percentages? And if so, what's the best way to describe this controversy? Uncle Ed 02:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A reluctance to accept the facts. I am not aware of any reliable source which accepts 3% or higher , but that is mainly because of that contingent which obstinately rejects the objective facts.

Nuttyskin 04:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality in history the "norm"?

Haiduc, your use of the term "norm" in the "Bisexuality in history" section is a POV judgement and is therefore just as misleading as the word "widespread". To say that something is the "norm" (or "normal") is to imply that something else is "abnormal". Therefore your saying that bisexuality was normal implies that heterosexuality or homosexuality was abnormal. Even to say that heterosexuality was normal would imply that bisexuality or homosexuality were abnormal.

My point is not to determine what is normal, but to say that describing something as normal like this is a non-neutral point of view (not backed up by references, I might add), and is therefore out of place.

If you can suggest something between "widespread" and "normal", I'm open to suggestions.

--Craig (t|c) 05:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your comments, and not, I hope, from a lack of undestanding of the POV concept. Would you contest the use of the phrase "the norm" in describing, say, the modern practice of heterosexuality in the west? There is no value judgement - in my mind - attached to describing something as "the norm". I am not using it in a prescriptive sense, if that's what you are suggesting. I am simply describing societies where it was expected that the typical male will behave in that fashion. Are you contesting the historicity of the custom? Please elaborate a bit more. Haiduc 11:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In my original message I stated: "Even to say that heterosexuality was normal would imply that bisexuality or homosexuality were abnormal." That should answer your question: "Would you contest the use of the phrase 'the norm' in describing, say, the modern practice of heterosexuality in the west?" Simply put, my answer is yes. I do not propose changing the article to say that heterosexuality was the norm either. I propose changing the article so that it does not imply (especially without facts to support the argument) that anything was normal, as to say so is to make a judgement, take a stand, and espouse a point of view.

Although it wasn't my wording, the article said that bisexuality was "widespread". You removed that word saying, "I think 'widespread' is misleading here" and made the claim that "bisexuality was the norm". The word "widespread", while it could be considered a weasel word, at least didn't make a specific claim; claiming that bisexuality was "the norm" is quite specific and cries out for a reference, which you do not provide.

Quite frankly I think that the original wording ("Historical and literary records from most known societies document widespread bisexuality...") is accurate without espousing a specific point of view, whereas, "Historical and literary records from most known societies suggest bisexuality was the norm..." does espouse a point of view and (as I've said before) one that is not backed up with facts. Perhaps those facts are out there, but you have not referenced them. I do not have them either, so to answer your other question, no I am not contesting the historicity of the custom, but neither have you provided references to attest to their historicity.

I feel the original wording is adequate. If you don't, then I ask you to provide an alternate wording, here for discussion, that you feel both makes your point and remains neutral.

Thanks.

--Craig (t|c) 12:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me try again:

Historical and literary records from most known societies suggest a climate of amorphous but pronounced sexuality, where men felt entitled to pursue beautiful and attractive persons of either sex. When the object of attraction happened to be another male, that relationship was usually age structured or gender-structured. In many of these societies, against this background of unselfconscious male bisexuality, male heterosexuality and homosexuality also appear, though marginalized and seen as oddities.

My problem with the term "widepread" is that it implies "an often found variation" which in this case seems to me a reversal of object and field. Haiduc 03:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point with respect to the use of the word "widespread". I may appear to be flip-flopping on its use, but I was never 100% comfortable with it anyway, as you can see from my first message. However, I'm not sure how you see your version as an improvement. My overriding concern is meaning and use of language here, and your new version, I'm sorry to say, is torturous to read, and will only have some (probably anonymous) editor changing it a few days from now if only for that reason.

Additionally you still don't produce a reference that backs up your claim that such "structured" (to use your own word) behaviour was such an integral part of "most" (again, your word) human populations on the planet in history. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that it is a claim that would probably elicit one of two reactions from people who read it, especially people in those cultures where, today, heterosexuality is seen as the norm and bisexuality and homosexuality are still seen as "oddities" (your word, although not one I would choose), or worse: 1) It would pique their interest and they'd want to learn more, or 2) They would question the validity of the claim. (Be careful which group you assume I belong to.) Either way a reference is needed to another source, and I'm sure that in either case you would welcome the chance to provide references to back up what you write. Am I right?

If, perhaps, your point is to make clear that bisexuality was more prevalent, more accepted, or more mainstream in the past than it is in Western society today (which I think you would at least like to make known), then perhaps this wording might be more acceptable to you:

Historical and literary records from most known societies suggest a more pronounced emphasis on sexuality than we experience today, and indicate that bisexuality was common and indeed expected, at least among males, in many of these societies. In the case of same-sex male relationships, these were generally age-structure or gender-structured.

I really think that says it all. I don't think it is necessary to attempt to make the point that hetero- and homosexuality were (as you claim) oddities and marginalised, unless you provide references. Additionally I think it would be helpful to explain what is meant by "age-structured" and "gender-structured"; although the former is explained to a certain extent with respect to ancient Greece in the following paragraph in the article, considering the text to this point only refers to males I find the reference to "gender-structured" confusing.

I look forward to your thoughts.

--Craig (t|c) 10:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Your framework seems fine, with a couple of modifications. First, I would not risk a comparative statement contrasting past with present emphasis. Second, I would bring in the explanation on structuring. I am not sure how to answer your objections. The problem is that not one source, but to my knowledge all sources writing on the topic of same-sex love in history describe fundamentally bisexual societies. Unless my memory fails me, I cannot think of a single premodern non-Christian society in which same-sex love was structured in egalitarian terms. But if a source was needed, we could use Crompton, 2003, he is both recent and exhaustive.

As for the status of the "extremes", homosexuality was always the domain of the few, never more so than in the rigid, descendant-oriented past. Sources? Again, passim. Heterosexuality? Somebody should write a study of the history of heterosexuality before Kertbeny. It certainly existed, the question is how popular it was outside of the Abrahamic regions. I think it was Leupp who, in his monograph on Japanese practices, mentions that the question would not have been "Why does the lord dally with youths" but "Why doesn't he." But it has been a while since I have read much of this stuff, and I am weak on references.

How about, Historical and literary records from most literate societies indicate that male bisexuality was common and indeed expected. These relationships were generally age-structured, as in antiquity in the Mediterranean basin, or in pre-modern Japan, or gender-structured, as in the Two-Spirit North American tradition or the Central Asian baccha practices. Male heterosexuality and homosexuality, while also documented, appear mostly as exceptions, unless we are examining cultures influenced by the Abrahamic religions, where heterosexuality was privileged, and bisexuality and homosexuality forcefully suppressed. Haiduc 11:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that I like your new version much more, as it is more specific and closes gaps in the older versions. Like you I was not that enamoured with the comparative statement; I thought it needed a frame of reference, but your version shows that it's not really necessary.

Second, it would appear that you are far better read than I on this topic. The topic interests me (and so I place myself in the first category in my previous message), but my high school and university history education didn't focus on sexuality (I'm sure you're not surprised) and so that is why your assertions are new to me; not completely new (I was aware of some Greek and Roman history in this regard), but the scope of your assertions is definitely new to me. As such I would be most interested in the references you cite, and so I would be happy to see their inclusion as footnotes both for the sake of the article, and for myself and others who may have lacked a sexuality component in their historical education.

I would just like to make a small modification, which is really just to make the reference to pederasty clearer:

Historical and literary records from most literate societies indicate that male bisexuality was common and indeed expected. These relationships were generally age-structured (as in the practice of pederasty in the Mediterranean Basin of antiquity, or the practice of shudo in pre-modern Japan) or gender-structured (as in the Two-Spirit North American tradition or the Central Asian bacchá practices). Male heterosexuality and homosexuality, while also documented, appear mostly as exceptions, unless we are examining cultures influenced by the Abrahamic religions, where heterosexuality was privileged, and bisexuality and homosexuality forcefully suppressed.

If you're happy with that, I'd be pleased if you would make the change to the article.

--Craig (t|c) 12:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you Haiduc. I appreciate your engaging me constructively on this. I think we made the article better. And thanks for the references; I'll be looking for them. --Craig (t|c) 00:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Bisexual Straight Women and Bisexual Straight Men

There are people who are sexually attracted to both sexes, but are only romantically attracted to the opposite sex/can only fall in love with the opposite sex. I don't think these people are really true bisexuals. Bisexuality as a sexual orientation is about being sexually and romantically attracted to both sexes. A true bisexual should not only be sexually attracted to both sexes, but be able to fall (romantically) in love with both sexes. I suppose there are probably people who are sexually attracted to both sexes, but only romantically attracted to the same sex as well.

I disagree and think NPOV may be an issue. Bisexuality is not well defined, it's very fluid, and I'm very hesitant to exclude anyone in the broadest context of the term. Perhaps the point can be made in elucidating the kinds/types/variations/whatever, but not as is. I'm also confused by the term "bisexual straight man" et al, do such terms appear in respected scholarly literature?

---

I agree with the previous comment by Skyodyssey. I certainly don't think it's NPOV to claim that certain types of people aren't "True Bisexuals". All that matters is that a distinction is made, it is not up to Wikipedia to declare who is or isn't a "true bisexual". Whilst there may be people who say have sex with both genders, but only form romantic relationships with one gender, it is not unreasonable in my opinion to consider them bisexual.

I've not heard the term "bisexual straight" either; in my experience such people either identify as bisexual, or straight/gay, but I've not heard both terms used together. Mdwh 20:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the ability to fall romantically in love, to get aroused sexually or how you choose to self-classify are different aspects of human sexuality/mentality. They don't necessarily have to correspond. 惑乱 分からん 10:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem of trying to find a proper label for sexuality. It differs from person to person; even Kinsey wasn't able to narrow it down. The 0 to 6 scale is proof that there cannot be a set label for everyone. But I don't think anyone has the right to say someone isn't a 'real' bisexual or homosexual or heterosexual. If they want to identify a certain way, it is no one's business but theirs. Megan 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate this is extremely POV but make no apology for it: my own experience of bisexuality, in which I am pretty evenly attracted to men and women, is not the norm for a lot of bisexual people. most find they have a gender bias, which may even slide one way or the other over time, evolving as they themselves grow and change.

Nuttyskin 04:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

middle eastern prevalence of bisexuality?!

ok i respect bisexuals as i do any other being...however i have edited a couple sentences in the middle east section that says bisexuality is "common" their...where is the source???? i am middle eastern and i find this offensive, personally, if their is no proof. in my opinion, it is rare here so this should not even be a topic of concern or on the page for that matter but for the sake of objectivity i only changed what were truely mistakes or irrlevant.

thank you

Just because you are offended by it does not mean it isn't true. Sign your response and suggest more support for the idea. Don't just delete it because you don't like it.Megan 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The testimony of Middle-Eastern bisexuals I have met, as well as the sworn testimony of a (straight) friend of Iranian extraction, are very convincing and persuasive. The cultural purdah under which women are kept from male company in the Middle East makes institutional bisexuality an absolutte necessity, even if other cultural norms preclude its more open acknowledgement.

Nuttyskin 19:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Bisexual actors proposed for deletion

--Salix alba (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph on social status of bisexuality

I removed this recently-added paragraph: "Some clinicians in the psychiatric community have noted a peculiar trend amongst both self-identified and incidental bisexuals to have a history of sexual abuse, particularly the “men who have sex with men” referenced above. This is based on the trauma that is suffered by victims of abuse, wherein there is confusion or even splitting of the internal sexual identity. This is partially linked to the perculiar bipolar phenomenon where a victim of abuse will become "hyper-sexual" and seem to lose their personal boundaries."

because it violates WP:WEASEL ("some clinicians...") and possibly WP:NOR. This can be restored if somebody wants to add specific citations and rephrase it in a more NPOV way ("peculiar" is POV, for example). Catamorphism 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes on 4/5/06

Line 1: Change of the term "both" to "either" Both implies that a bisexual person must have this both a male and female. where this is not the case and promotes the stereotype that bisexual persons are sluts who cannot be satisfied by one or the other.

Line 1: Discription: Added link to bi-permissive as defined in the terminology section.

Line 48: Added... However, since "Bisexual orientation can fall anywhere between the two extremes of homosexuality and heterosexuality," some who identify as bisexual may merge themselves into either homosexual or heterosexual society. Gbm2b83

Please use : to indent paragraphs rather than spaces or tabs. The wiki reformats lines that begin with spaces/tabs in a manner that doesn't work very weel with large chunks of text. Also, i changed your indentation to italics in order to make the talk page more readable.

137.205.246.16 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive this page?

I could not help but notice that this page is rather long, and some of the discussions are growing rather old. My account is too new to move pages. Could someone a bit more experienced maybe archive the page? J.Ring 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to move pages to make an archive page, see: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Note, though, that open debates of course should not be yet archived, nor recent ones. I personally, though, always move anonymous stuff, no matter the date (which is work to find out, too). Unless they are non-anonymous answers, of course. -- AlexR 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Clear to all?

Does anyone else think the following line should be explained a bit better?

a bisexual person may be attracted to either gender but not both sexes, or vice versa

garik 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what it means. How can you be attracted to both genders but not to both sexes? Isn't that like saying you can wear a jumper or a sweater but not both? It's semantics: a jumper is a sweater, a sweater is a jumper; sex is gender - maybe not birth gender, but the whole Trans thing has never bothered me. I'm attracted to men and to women, equally, but distinctly: I might find a woman with long blonde hair attractive, but long blond hair on a man is a turn-off. IMHO, obviously.

Nuttyskin 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, sex and gender are not the same. You might wish to familiarize yourself with the article Gender. Catamorphism 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it a bit; do you think it's better now? Catamorphism 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. i think that's preferable. It just seemed to be one of those sentences I had to read three times before I got what it was trying to say. Still, I suppose I did read it fairly early this morning. garik 09:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this sentence means: "Moreover, it is possible for a bisexual person to be attracted to all genders but only one sex, or to all sexes but only one gender." I even followed Catamorphism's advice and read Wikipedia's "Gender" entry -- I still have no idea what the sentence means.

"be attracted to all genders but only one sex" -- perhaps someone is attracted to all people who have bodies typical of a female, regardless of what gender that person identifies as. For example, some people might be attracted to cisgendered women and to pre-op FTMs, but not to cisgendered men or pre-op MTFs. "all sexes but only one gender" -- perhaps someone is attracted to anyone who identifies as male, regardless of their physical makeup. For example, some people might be attracted to cisgendered men and to FTMs, but not cisgendered women or MTFs. Does that clarify things? Catamorphism 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still confused. Per dictionary.com, "sex" is "the property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions." Meanwhile, "gender" is "the condition of being female or male; sex." The confusing sentence above is using different definitions of "gender" and "sex" than is commonly understood. If there is a difference between "gender" and "sex" for the purposes of this article, they should be clearly defined within the article.

The reason why I suggested reading Gender was that it explains the difference between sex and gender. Catamorphism 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you intended that it should, but it still doesn't. I think you mean that while the sexes are male and female, the genders are masculine and feminine, so someone who may be, for example, of the male sex, can still identify as of the feminine gender. But I still think it's a stupid distinction which adds nothing to my understanding of the issue. Remind me, what was the issue?

Nuttyskin 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, needs another section.

A LOT of people see bisexual as a term for gay men who aren't comfortable with admitting to being gay, both by gays and straights. Out of all by LGBT friends, more identifty as bisexual than anything else, while more and more are coming out as gay. While I have no doubts in genuine bisexuality, I think it should be included that while some people believe everyone is bisexual, a higher number of people believe nobody is bisexual. It does annoy me when clearly gay guys refer to themselves as "bisexual, not gay" clearly showing their wish to be "not gay", when they clearly are. It should be also noted that a lot of bisexual men will use the label "gay", for simplicity, or because they feel its insulting to the LGBT community to try and place yourself on a little island outside of gay and straight. Eh, I just feel it needs a "Criticism of the term bisexual" or some sort of greater reference to "biphobia". I'm kind of rambling, but the article defiitely feels incomplete. Zythe 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't say "some people think nobody is bisexual" - who says this? What are the sources? Is this notable? Anecdotal evidence is not good enough for including such claims. As for bisexual men using the label "gay", this is noted ("Some people who might be classified by others as bisexual on the basis of their sexual behavior self-identify as gay, lesbian, or straight"). Mdwh 01:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be hard to find a gay website that criticises bisexual-chic, and in the process makes biphobic remarks? Probably yes actually. See, this is the problem with NPOV. It should be Multiple POV in some instances. Ah well. Zythe 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

'It does annoy me when clearly gay guys refer to themselves as "bisexual, not gay" clearly showing their wish to be "not gay", when they clearly are.'

Why does it annoy you? And how do you know that they "clearly are" only attracted to men? You can tell just by looking at them? Campness does not dictate sexuality - Russell Brand is a very camp man who is also a notorious womaniser. The same could be said for David Walliams. I don't see why you would be upset or annoyed though, even if you were right in a couple of instances.

Btw, I have a question for anyone. I am extremely attracted to women, but recently I have been watching quite a lot of "shemale" porn, featuring pre-op or non-op transexuals. It is an amazing kick to see an extremely feminine-looking person (who even has boobs etc) with a penis. Gay guys have never really done anything for me, but some of these transexual ladies do. They are feminine enough for me to find them pretty and attractive, but the penis is like an extra novelty and a treat.

I just wondered - is there a term for this, or does it just come somewhere under the umberlla of "bisexuality", "pansexuality", etc? Thanks in advance. -195.93.21.41 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You're straight. 95% of the straight men I know find pre-op feminine Transsexuals (never say shemales, that's very pejorative) very attractive. Even with their penises out. Bizarre, eh?

Nuttyskin 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Zythe, i just needed to say that while it seems very noble of you admit there is true bisexuality out there, and you feel we need to make reference to biphobia, it is extremely disconcerting (and biphobic) to read about your annoyance with bisexuals. I suppose I'm treading on the heels of the anonymous poster above me, but when listening to people tell me that I'm lying to myself, essentially telling me I'm wrong about how i feel and that they somehow more of an expert than I am of my own libido, I can't help but get a little peeved. I suppose it's the same kind of anger that many gay boys experience gwoing up, being told that they don't really like other boys, it's just a phase, and they really do like girls, they just need to get it out of their system. I'm not big on categorizing (Neural below) cause everyone has different perceptions on what different labels mean, but I hate going out and telling guys I'm married to a woman and then getting the "look." A raised eyebrow, a rolls of the eyes, and then some condescending remark or a conversation about what I'm doing at a gay bar in the first place (because apparantly the only reason people go to gay bars is to hook up...). These people are unaware of my openness with my wife, my monogamous relationship, or the fact she comes with half the time. I wouldn't even argue it if they'd just pretend to believe me, leave it alone, and move the conversation onto something more fun. Zappernapper 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I love Russell Brand. Sorry - I just noticed his name and had to comment.

-I wouldn't worry too much about how to "categorize" your attraction to transexual ladies - all these terms are hollow social constructs anyway. I would like to do away with all these terms and argue that everyone is just "sexual". People like the concept of "orientations" because they love to label everyone. I'm not convinced that ANYONE has a fixed orientation. I think macho culture and peer-pressure make most males simply dishonest, whereas most women I've ever discussed this with privately admit to a sexuality that is far more fluid than heterosexuality - surveys are misleading because women are usually more concerned about how others perceive them. All these generalisations aside, I would advise anyone to simply chill out and enjoy all aspects of their sexuality.

-Personally, I'm almost obsessed with women, but I never say never and don't try to limit or label my sexual attractions either one way or the other [insert confession - I also share your deep fascination for feminine transexuals].... -Neural 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just add a link somewhere to the article camp (style)? Zythe's observations are addressed there, to some extent. By the way, there are loads of men and women who fit "straight" stereotypes while being 3-6 on the Kinsey Scale. -- Music&Medicine 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it.

Nuttyskin 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... What?

From article; "Moreover, it is possible for a bisexual person to be attracted to all genders but only one sex, or to all sexes but only one gender"

From Encarta Dictionary; "sex [seks] n (plural sexes) 1. male or female gender

What is the quotation trying to say? It seems like nothing more than a glaring contradiction so I'm gonna go ahead and delete it, but please correct me if I'm wrong and revert my edits if that is the case. 86.132.223.57 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the discussion under the heading "Clear to all?" just two sections up on the talk page, this sentence is explained. You might want to read Gender; sex and gender are not synonyms. Catamorphism 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gender [12] "Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.", versus Sex [13] "The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions." It could perhaps be better explained in the article, however. Mdwh 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality and sexuality as a social construct

Bisexuality as a category within sexuality is a social construct. Western society, and in particular American society, likes to deal with binomial categories or categories which although facilitate understanding in many ways, at the same time, they limit deeper and understanding of fluid concepts of many aspects of people’s lived experience such as sexuality. Bisexuality as a category between homosexuality and heterosexuality is a very broad and at times confusing classification because although it may indicate affection or sexual behavior or attraction to people of both genders, it is not necessarily a static and permanent condition. People can also change through a life time, and depending on social circumstances, they can both lean or swing towards different areas of sexual behavior and affection or people from one or the other gender. Then, bisexuality might not be fairly understood now since it is looked at from a very Western point of view, starting with the use of one word only, therefore both the word and its current meaning are limiting. From example, in ancient times, sexual behavior between men was a common part of a men sexual and personality development –although there was limitation in age and sexual roles for each man such as in Ancient Greece. Then, bisexuality is also found in social groups as the military and the army –as encouraged for military strategists as in ancient times in Greece and Japan, and sometimes in contemporary armed forces-, or in circumstantial conditions as with men and women in jail or people living in isolated regions.

Sexual behavior is a fluid, because sexuality is fluid, people change, adapt, and expand their ways of sexual intimacy and gender attraction. Certainly, this does not mean that all human beings change their sexual preference or act upon all possible sexual behaviors, what it means though is that the potential to engage in sexual relationships and sexual affection with members of both sexes is possible, does occur, and is something that has occurred throughout history. Sexuality –behavior, attraction, and affection- is not a stationary state either. People can change and feel attractions for members of both sexes at different levels and different times. What is even more puzzling is that people can have both sexual relations with and feelings for people of both sexes at the very same time, something called polyamorous. Sexuality, as we see it today, is a social construct where heterosexuality in its monogamous manifestation is highlighted as the norm and the only desirable condition to live in; nevertheless, sexuality can and does have several manifestations, all of which can also be valid and can lead to fruitful and enjoyable life, for those who accept them. The evolution of a single form of sexual behavior is new, most ancient societies understood and lived different forms of sexual behavior, and still reached high levels of development. The understanding of sexuality as a fluid construct adjusts better to the possible understanding of the various and different sexual behaviors currently seen and lived throughout history, e.g. Greece, Rome, Japan, China... It must also be noticed that there is a biased view of sexuality even among the gay/lesbian and heterosexual populations today, where despite the acceptance of homosexuality, there are extensive restrictions upon bisexuality and bisexuals. This is due to the lack of understanding on how sexual behavior can change and adapt as well as manifest in anyone’s life time. A bisexuality is not a curios heterosexual or a repressed homosexual, although in both cases people can present bisexual behavior as a cope out for their final sexual behavior, but it is in itself bisexuality is a although broad range behavior and at different levels and motions of attraction and sexual relations with people of both sexes, is a real condition. This is all in between what is homosexuality and heterosexuality in a very broad sense. Therefore, bisexuality as such is a term that embraces many different manifestations in time and space. It can occur at one point in time, several times, or throughout all life, it can also refer to different degrees of attraction and sexual behavior and affection, as well as relationships with one individual and/or several individuals at the same time or different times, and it can be of an exclusive nature or an unconditional nature. The multiple possibilities that the term attempts to cover are far more extensive that we initially think of in the Western perspective, then from the semantic point of view, and as a social construct, trying to cover sexual behavior that refers to the attraction to both genders is both limiting and misleading to say the least with one word. The use of the term bisexuality to cover all in between homosexuality and heterosexuality is too broad to be accepted without a close look at it and deconstructing the term for what it attempts to cover.

Bible as evidence

Why no mention of the Bible? "If a man lie with a man as he lie with a woman" etc seems to indicate that all men (or by extrapolation, all people) are at least potentially bisexual. If that's the christian god's opinion, isn't it worth noting? --MacMurrough 17:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I THINK (& I am not an expert here) that there is extensive scholarship to indicate that a lot on the alleged anti-homosexual bias in the big three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is mainly bad translations, misconstruing what was happening in a smallish nomadic, sheep-herding, tribal society (for instance they also seem to be very down on Goats and Cotton- Wool blends) and folk-mythology/folk-custom in there regions theses religions are practiced.

Again, I certainly could be wrong, but I am under the impression that various phrases from the holy books of all three of those religions have been "cherry picked" and re-interpreted to conveniently support or denounce a large variety of social constructs over the centuries, (for instance they have been & continue to be used to support the validly of human Slavery).

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to put it in a neutral way. To say that at this time in history in some places, some limited number of people, who are adherents of the Abrahamic religions use various passages from their respective holy books to support or disaprove various folk customs of their regions. One of those, among many, being homosexuality (among men only, as far as I know there is no discussion whatsoever of women). But that the scholarship and provenance of this is 'in dispute'. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

provided of course we give a couple concrete historical examples. btw, the phrase used by Paul in Romans (you're gonna have to search for it yourself), "[women] exchanging the natural for the unnatural [is an abomination]..." is typically regarded as one of three things, women masturbating, women assuming the dominant position in sex, or women engaging in homosexual practices. Zappernapper 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, really? In my (admittedly limited) "formal" trip thru the Christian Religion, I was told that meant women were to say in their "natural" sphere, i.e. for woman her “world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home,” so to speak. That they should not go out of their "natural" environment, for instance to work where they might employee men, be their boss, etc.

And that it was further a prohibition against women assuming to much of a leadership role in Church affairs, They shouldn't preach to men, etc.

Maybe different Christian denominations interpret that passage differently? (goes off to look things up) CyntWorkStuff 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

it seems odd that Paul would suddenly start talking about keeping women domesticated in the midst of a tirad about sexual abominations. he was preaching to the romans though (if i remeber, that's why it's 'called' romans right? lol) and if i remember my ancient history right woman had already gained a good amount of social power in rome and greece. moreso than in other parts of the world, namely jerusalem and other middle eastern areas. so i see the reasoning, but then are we to take the same phrasing he uses towards men as saying they should not step out of 'thei' natural world? that seems odd because i think that the only differences were the romans proclivity towards depravity which is what paul seems to be more concerend with... this is my take on it.... i'll provide some links later on, i have a wedding to get ready for... sigh Zappernapper 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry i dragged things off topic, to the original post and original reply - you have to take into consideration that there is a lot of cherry-picking done by both sides of the issue, and much argument over translation. I could argue that god destroyed soddom really only because of the pedophilia going on, but others could say that homosexuality still played a pivotal part. We can certainly reference it, but we must be careful because the "pro-gay" church does it's fair share of odd translation too. Zappernapper 16:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the Bible, there are no sexualities, only sexual acts; in other words, everyone is believed to become involved in any sexual activity entirely by choice. I suppose this does mean that the Bible considers everyone to be potentially bisexual; but by the same logic, it also considers everyone to be a potential bestialist, too - and it certainly doesn't think that's a good idea. You have to understand that the relevant texts as we have them were subjected to many recensions over time, and that in the last phase the entire Jewish nation reckoned it was facing extinction. In that frame of mind, every drachm of Hebrew sperm not expended making Hebrew children is a coffin nail for the children of Isaac.

Nuttyskin 20:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

biological evidence

i thought people here would be interested to read this if they haven't already, it's still relatively recent. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/ I would have posted it in LGBT commons but we apparently don't have one. Zappernapper 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)