Home > Gay Leaders Swing Brickbats Over Study On Switch Hitters
Discriminations-Minorit. USA Wayne Besen
by Wayne Besen
Certainly no one is suggesting the "B" come out of the GLBT movement, but a new study by a group of researchers in Chicago and Toronto questions how widespread bisexuality is in men and shows a need for more comprehensive studies to examine the topic.
The controversial experiment recruited 101 young men from ads placed in gay and alternative newspapers, with 33 identifying as bisexual, 30 as heterosexual and 38 as gay. The psychologists had the men rate their desires from 0-6, with 0-1 indicating heterosexuality, 5-6 signifying homosexuality and bisexuality falling in between.
The subject’s members were hooked up to a sensor that shows sexual desire by measuring blood flow to the penis. The human lab rats were then shown gay and lesbian pornography to see what truly turned them on.
About a third of the men in each group showed insignificant response, which is not surprising because a lot of men are not easily aroused by porn. There is also the likelihood that the men were shown porn that did not appeal to them. No matter our sexual orientations, we all have "types" that we find attractive. For example, I rarely date anyone who can out-bench press me. So, if I were shown a bunch of muscle head types, it would have as little effect on my arousal as lesbian porn.
Surprisingly, the men who self-described as bisexual were interested in either female sexual images or male, but not both. Three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns indistinguishable to those of gay men; the rest were identical to heterosexuals.
The New York Times did a cover story in their Science section on the explosive study under the provocative headline, "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited." Sadly, reporting on research that questioned assumptions on switch hitters earned the Times brickbats by leading GLBT advocacy groups.
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a media watchdog, bitterly complained that the news article "promotes bisexual stereotypes" and "veers toward hasty generalization."
Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said, "We remain stunned that The New York Times Science section would carry such a shoddy, sensationalistic and downright insulting story." He went on to complain that the study is flawed because it equates sexual orientation with sexual arousal and that the Times should "be ashamed".
While there are certainly other aspects to sexual orientation, such as love and emotional connection, sexual arousal is generally recognized as a key component. Arousal is the universal alarm bell that made each gay man in high school think, "my God, I want to sleep with the quarterback, I must be gay!"
Mainstream America understands the centrality of arousal in sexual orientation. That is why people "get it" when a large packaged male or a big-busted woman strolls by in a beer ad and heads automatically turn. As humans, we see, we like and then we react. It is usually a primitive, reflexive response, not the "complicated" exercise some people make it out to be. It only becomes complex when we build walls and weave intricate webs of denial, so we do not have to acknowledge the often-painful truth.
What is so threatening about this new study is that it used a crude device to show a cause and effect relationship that deftly peeled away all the convoluted hang-ups and justifications that keep many homosexuals from coming out of the closet. Indeed, a 1994 Advocate Magazine survey found that before coming out as homosexual, 40 percent of gay men described themselves as bisexual. The new research simply confirms the Advocate survey and what many gay men say privately about bisexuality.
Please, don’t misconstrue what I say. I do not question for a moment that true bisexuality exists for males. All people who claim bisexuality should be respected and not have their orientation questioned. Furthermore, they deserve full legal protection from discrimination, whether it is at the hands of straight or gay Americans. Many bisexuals are leaders in the GLBT movement and should be applauded for their heroic efforts.
However, this study implies that bisexuality in males is a more rare phenomenon than we previously thought, just as true ambidextrous people are difficult to find among the vast majority of left and right-handed people.
I can understand the noble impulse to defend an integral part of the GLBT community. Indeed, there are insidious stereotypes that must be combated, such as the absurd and offensive notion that bisexuals are unstable and have more difficulty with monogamy.
Nevertheless, shutting down debate, hounding the media and savaging science are not in the best long-term interest of GLBT people. There are many legitimate criticisms of this study and NGLTF did a real service in bringing these flaws to the fore. Most of these criticisms may prove to be true. However, this does not change the startling fact that the bisexual subjects in this one study had a different arousal pattern than they professed. This research is intriguing and merits further study with new researchers and a much larger group of participants, not reflexive attacks and derisive dismissal.