August 25th, 2011
|01:21 pm - Like a pendulum, it goes back and forth|
A lot of people have been laughing about the recent research which has proved that bisexual men exist. Here is an article in the Guardian about it (nice Laurence Olivier pic) and here is the research paper.
This research was deemed necessary as the official line for the past few years has been that research proves that bisexual men are 'really' exclusively gay, and just pretending to like women for social reasons - see this 2005 article in the NY Times. I think enthusiasm for this point of view was fueled by misogyny (of course men are just pretending to like women) and/or homophobia (one step out of line and that's it). I think it's disrespectful to people who self-identify as bisexual to deny they are telling the truth.
This is my big problem with the saying 'an anecdote is not data'. If an individual experience is not replicable in the lab, nevertheless it may well exist. The experiences of people who are seen as 'other' are not considered real (they are anecdotes) until they are observed by official means (they become data). In this case the 'official means' of verifying sexuality is measured tumescence on viewing porn. But porn is not politically or socially neutral. It reflects many issues as well as sexual arousal - such as anxiety and projection by objectification. I personally dislike most heterosexual porn, although I am heterosexual. Does that mean my identification as a straight woman is a mere anecdote?
Anyway. Bisexual guys - you exist again. Carry on.
Decades ago, I read a book that pointed out some weaknesses in the USian medical system. The author said that, irrespective of whether the equipment works, is properly calibrated, or the techs know how to use it, the doctor orders a raft of tests until an abnormal reading is discovered. Then they actively treat *the piece of paper* until a normal reading occurs. Little or no attention is paid to the patient's body or experiences in the meantime.
It strikes me as "if people fail to conform to my nonsensical theories, they are Sick and Wrong" is not a very scientific statement, but, hey, maybe it's just me.
I was thinking of you when I read this research because I think we are both fans of Bayliss
from Homicide. The linked article says 'Detective Timothy Bayliss thereby became the first - and, as of now (2006) the only bisexual male lead on an American network television show'. Perhaps no longer true though.
Alas, I only have my Tim Bayliss "Clueless" icon on DW, not LJ. It's a matter of definitions though-- is Torchwood now considered an American network show since it's on Syfy and not the BBC? And are soaps (daytime or nighttime) considered "network television shows"? And do slash goggles count? I'd bet money on past Ripper/Ethan, for example.
Yes, I was wondering about Torchwood. Not my cup of tea - but I guess it's breaking new ground. I think on the rest of network telly it's all about plausible deniability.
One of the top male gymnasts in Make It or Break It
(teen gymnastics show) is bisexual and had a scene in the season finale in which he had to deal with exactly the kind of denial you posted about from his best friend. Was quite surprised to see it so well-handled by ABC Family
He's not quite a lead character though, since MIOBI really had 4 female leads.
|Date:||August 25th, 2011 02:24 pm (UTC)|| |
Ah man, I'm so past being furious about how bisexuality is regarded as a myth. If you identify as bi then everyone tells you you're wrong about your own sexuality one way or another; my reaction is that a) I'm doing a fine job of deluding myself, then and b) sheesh, it must be so awful to not see the beauty and appeal of all the gender spectrum and c) yay! I'm a magical unicorn!
I think the belittling of female bisexuality is done in a slightly different way - they don't say it doesn't happen, but that it isn't meaningful. It's real but it's not Real.
|Date:||August 25th, 2011 02:38 pm (UTC)|| |
Well, there's the 'it's only to titillate men' angle, which is depressingly common as an accusation.
But you do also hear the 'you're deluding yourself' aspect reasonably often as a bi woman, along with 'oh, you'll make your mind up one day'--as if bisexuality were a process, not a stable state.
Casting my mind way back, when I did identify as bi - and this is a long time ago - a lot of women got very cross with me about it. It was quite horrible really. I'd sort of forgotten what it was like. Anyway, I suppose in a way I have proved them right, by settling down with a man. I think part of the problem is when you do settle into a decades-long relationship it all becomes a little bit theoretical anyway, so one tends to give up a bit.
|Date:||August 25th, 2011 02:45 pm (UTC)|| |
Someday He'll Come Along, The Man I Love
It's at times like this that I remember the old lapel button, "Are you a lesbian? Are YOU the alternative?" with fondness.
I remember, years ago, an interview with Marianne Faithful in which she was talking about affairs with women and said something like "In the sixties, if you were young and beautiful you didn't have to be put in a box" and I thought "but why the hell do you think you had to be young, beautiful and living in the sixties to avoid boxes"? To me, the insistence on polarising attraction by gender seems bizarre and unnatural.
|Date:||August 25th, 2011 02:57 pm (UTC)|| |
Indeed. People are endlessly fascinating and diverse and what determines their attractiveness (or lack thereof) is rarely anything to do with their gender, as far as I'm concerned.
(I mean, I understand intellectually that *maybe* it's possible for one's physical and mental preferences to be found mostly in one gender or the other. But surely not 100% of the time. Maybe I just know too many androgynous people.)
Not at all surprised to read about the selection bias in the earlier study (subjects "were recruited through advertisements in gay-oriented and alternative publications") when I saw that the author was J. Michael Bailey, notorious for his similarly-flawed study, The Man who Would be Queen
God almighty, Bailey sounds like a complete git. I am surprised that people like Dan Savage bought into the research, given the background of the author. Personally I find it quite shocking:
Among some of Bailey's reported HBI cohorts, that racist science of old is still just as alive and well as their current sex research. The Institute's main activity appears to be an "invitation-only" online discussion list for "a small, elite and eclectic mix of experts."
According to a list posted on HBI's Web site until last summer, (their) "elite" includes:
Jean-Phillippe Rushton, a prominent researcher on black genetic inferiority who is president of a pro-eugenics hate group, the Pioneer Fund;
Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, which purported to show black and Latino intellectual inferiority;
Kevin MacDonald, a professor at California State University at Long Beach who has written several books about supposed Jewish strategies to subvert "Euro-American" culture;
Gregory Cochrane, a physicist who has suggested the existence of a genetic "gay germ."
I know bad people can do legitimate research but it appears to be a centre for enthusiastic axe-grinding.
(apologies for the multiple edits, screwed up the formatting.)Edited at 2011-08-25 07:18 pm (UTC)