Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bisexual chic in South East Asia (uncited)

"In most parts of South East Asia, bisexuality became a trend specially with adolescents and teenagers. They encounter such change in sexual preference since they are very much curious about their sexual orientation and their exposure to wide range of media."

This is an interesting claim both on a semantic and syntactic level. I assume we're not going to get a citation for it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.13.74.249 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 August 2006

I agree - can we have a citation for this ?? Lanzarotemaps (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Northwestern/CAMH Scientific Study

To return to a subject mentioned on an older (and now-archived) discussion, I find it hard to understand why this comprehensive article does not even mention last year's joint study from Northwestern & The Center for Addiction and Mental Health into bisexual arousal patterns. It is high-profile and generated a lot of headlines. More importantly, it is the most physiological-based study (direct measure of genital arousal) to date and, as such, should be referenced in an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. I appreciate that, since the study casts doubt on the existence of male bisexuality (feeding into the old saw about gay, straight or lying) and that the reseachers (or their sponsors) may themselves be potentially subject to accusations of bias, that it is a difficult topic. But this is an encyclopedic discussion, and not an advocacy page. Surely, then, the latest research (with caveats as needed) should be accorded an important place in the main body. Is there consensus as to how to incorporate the information? Eusebeus 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that discussed at Talk:Bisexuality/Archive_1#Recent research?
Well, the study claimed to cast doubt. As for inclusion into this article, a measure of genital arousal is not the same as a measure of sexual orientation. And we might just as well place it in the heterosexuality article as a claim of doubting heterosexuality, since 1/3 of these men showed no arousal (and also it suggests that those who did showed attraction towards both genders, thus if anything, confirming the existence of bisexuality - the conclusion seems to be based on the flawed assumption that bisexuality implies 50/50 attraction).
It is perhaps notable that people claimed that this meant bisexuality doesn't exist. In fact, this is already included in the biphobia article. So the question is, should that text be transferred here? Mdwh 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Even accepting all that (and see below), I am not clear why it is not included in the article. The study received media attention because of the explicit references it madeto patterns of (male) bisexuality. As a result, the study should be mentioned in a discussion of the subject. The concerns you have raised can cerainly be addressed, but how is that grounds for not making reference to it in an encyclopedic treatment of the article.
Further, your point and we might just as well place it in the heterosexuality article as a claim of doubting heterosexuality is unclear. The NYT article notes: But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals. Does that mean the article should state that bisexuality doesn't exist? Of course not. But the isues raised by the study should at least be mentioned as germane to the topic. It could indeed be ref'ed elsewhere as well. Eusebeus 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
"I am not clear why it is not included in the article." It's already in biphobia, so this issue isn't whether or not we should cover it, but whether it should (or shouldn't) be transferred to this article - does anyone have any opinions?
"Further, your point "and we might just as well place it in the heterosexuality article as a claim of doubting heterosexuality" is unclear." I mean that 1/3 of the men showed no arousal, despite many of them claiming to be heterosexual. Mdwh 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, those are fair points, although I assume you would agree it is a stretch to suggest that editors would accept a denial that heterosexuality exists. Since this study was, in the media and (some of the) scientific community, at least, principally associated with bisexuality (and not biphobia) , this article would presumably be a good place to cover the subject. Agreed? Eusebeus 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think many editors here would accept a denial that bisexuality exists, either. I'm not too bothered which article it goes in, though I think (along with several editors at Talk:Bisexuality/Archive_1#Recent_research) it shouldn't be included on the basis of "research" as such - but on the basis it's only notable due to the criticism and attention it received. Possibly a "criticism of bisexuality" section(?). Though I feel this article should be a place to discuss bisexuality itself, not dubious studies trying to discredit it. Mdwh 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that it's also covered at J. Michael Bailey. Mdwh 14:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I read the abstract of Bailey's research and to me it did not seem to claim that bisexuality is extremely rare. Rather it seems to suggest that bisexuality works in a different way than hetero- & homosexuality. The abstract does not claim for example that you can test sexuality just by measuring test subjects genital arousal. Neither does it seem to claim that the bisexual test subjects weren't actually bisexual but that their sexuality is less between the legs and more between the ears. Of course I have not read the complete paper, so someone who has might shed some more light on what the paper claims.89.166.21.54 01:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the part discussing this study. Clearly it was written by somebody who was not educated in science or even up to date with how scientific criticism works. So I tried to remove the parts that were off-topic or untrue, and take away the laymen sound of it as well. Much more informative that way. Possibly someone can come up with legitimate criticism of their article, although I haven't seen any myself (and the claim that they made a methodological error by claiming test subjects could not rated bisexual without equal attraction to both genders borders on the libelous).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.57.183 (talk • contribs)

I feel a relevant point here is that many bisexuals tend to be attracted to a gender -- and not necessarily a physical sex. For example, they may be attracted to feminine women and feminine men, but have little to no interest in masculine men or women. The CAMH Study utterly failed to account for (or even discuss) this.--SteelSoul 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelSoul (talk • contribs)

^^^I think the above editors did a good job cleaning up this section of the article. One thing I would add though, is that there's even more that can be criticized about using the study to say that "male bisexuality is very rare". The study says (based on what you've written -- I haven't read it myself) that bi- identified males are aroused by porn in ways that look either like the way heterosexuals or homosexuals are aroused by porn. That's a very limited definition of bisexuality, in ways that go beyond the gender vs. physical sex distiction. To personally be the example that falsifies the idea: I'm frequently aroused by just seeing hetero-porn. Occationally by gay-porn, usually only if I self-stimulate. I am, however, frequently aroused when my boyfriend kisses me. It's not just his *gender* that turns me on, his physical sex and body too. And yet, most likely, if I were in the study in question, I'd have reacted to the porn just like a hetero-sexual identified person. Conversely, those hetero-identified folks would likely *not* get aroused when kissing a guy. Clearly I (and I'm hardly unique) differ then from the het-identified folk.

I'm using myself as an anectdotal example here, but the critique is really a logical one: Given As, Bs, and Cs, who are put into a situation X, just because all the C's looked like either As or Bs during X, doesn't mean that Cs aren't a distinct grouping under conditions U,V,W, Y, or Z. Since "bisexuality" encompases a wide range of circumstances (in addition to just X: physical arousal to watching porn), it makes no sense to claim that the study says anything about "bisexuality" as a whole. It's a study about male physiological response (or was it ever further limited to *only* penis engorgement -- rather than say heartrate, brainscans, etc?) -- to watching porn. The study showed that there's no distinct category of "bisexual" for that activity. It's almost absurdly true to me, though, that during other activities such as "holding hands", "cuddling", "kissing", "having sex", (etc), you *will* find a distinctly bisexual category when measuring male physiological arousal. You'll just find it very hard to find study subjects who are exclusively identified as Hetero or Homo to be willing to *do* such activities with both sexes!

The study is fine. Making pronouncements about the non-existence of bisexuality based on the study is, frankly, unscientific. For further exageration: if I find that male and female soldiers react in largely the same way when in combat and subjected to enemy fire, does that mean that there's no such thing as male and female genders? Get my point? I guess I shut up now, and try to find a peer-reviewed critique that makes the same point. End of story, if I find it. :-)--Ajasen 10:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As I say above, we now have three places covering this. Here, Biphobia#Biphobic_stereotypes and J._Michael_Bailey#Sexual_arousal_patterns_of_bisexual_men. I've tried to integrate some of the sourced material from those articles into here, as this article was rather lacking in sources for the criticisms. I can't help thinking we should cover it mainly in only one article, to avoid repeating ourselves, and avoid having to maintain what's a rather controversial issue in three places?

Regarding comments above about what the study says - the NYT at least claims the study "casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists", and that Dr. Bailey is quoted as saying "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists". If the study itself doesn't claim this, then the article should be altered to reflect that, though nonetheless these claims about what the study shows have been made. Mdwh (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's hardly indenting their comments in this section. I'll do it. Um, as for the covering this information in three articles, I feel that we should keep doing that, since it's relevant to all three articles it's addressed in. If it's relevant to any more than that, then it should be included there as well, but maybe not to the same extent. All three articles cover the topic a little differently from each other. If they don't, then we should make sure that they cover this topic a little differently from each other so that the information doesn't seem too redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying bisexuals are targets of homophobia.

Saying bisexuals face criticism from homophobics only is unfair. Not all people that criticize gays are nessecarly afraid of them. They can believe its not productive to the human race, or against their gods will. That doesn't make them afraid of gays. (changes article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.128.195 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 September 2006

There is "reasoned" opposition to interracial marriage, and "reasoned" support for white suppremacy. That does not make them any less racist. Haiduc 10:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but racists don't necessarily fear black or white people; they could just hate them. Likewise, not all people who hate gays actually fear homosexuals - maybe they should be called homosexists? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between racist and homophobic. This is a phobia you are talking about. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking, it's a psychological issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.194.88 (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Homophobia is defined as "An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." An aversion is defined as "a strong dislike or disinclination," not a fear. Carlodrum 18:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Carlodrum
In Biochemistry, molecules that make up a cell membrane have "hydrophobic" sections. It doesn't mean they are "scared" of water. 82.153.230.130 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

it's literal definition might be irrational fear, but it has a connotative meaning that extends into its dictionary definition that basically means anti-gay. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Middle East and Central Asia

Can anyone research about a myth amongst some rare Alevites that the face of Allah is an extremely beautiful face of a young boy?Or was it an extremely young hermaphrodite person.I doN't know where to look,aseven Google fails to yield results.I heard about such a cult however.--88.247.96.210 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fitting seamlessly into gay and straight society

This is a bit glib. In many cases, bi people are not fitting seamlessly in to gay or straight society, we are closeted in them. Many bi people, on coming out as bi, face exclusion and rejection from both straight and gay culture, and many more bi people are reluctant to publically self-identify as bi because they fear that reaction. If no one objects, I'll edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by White hotel (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 November 2006

I just wanted to add my personal views on this topic.
First; let me start off by saying that I too have experimented with the gay/bi community and became very active in puersuing this feeling. I was 14 at the time. First, it started off by liking girls, wanting to go out on dates, feelings of being bisexual, and than even escalated to thinking I was a lesbian. But.... I am now 16 and have had a chance to explore my feelings and go into more depth onto what it is I am attracted to. At this time, I can tell you that I am not gay and that I am not bisexual. At the same time-I am attracted to men, but am not "sexually active" with either men nor women. I feel that as a pre-teen, feelings and emotions rise that we aren't in complete controll of. Hormones escalate, and thoughts overcome our minds and we start to experiment. Find out what we like and what lifestyle were more comfortable in living. For some, being bi-curious is just the start. For others, it goes on to confirm ones own feelings about their sexual orientation. One may consider themselves bisexual, but will later become lesbian/gay, whatever. OR one may like myself experiment, go through "phases" and learn that the lifestyle wasn't one for you. What I'm trying to say is that its not always what it is. Don't be frustrated if you can't make up your mind or if your confused weather or not you are curious, gay, lesbian, bi, whatever... don't even try and label yourself. It's not worth the social pressure that comes along with it. So you like the same sex. SImple. Leave it as that. If your not sure if your bi or gay, than don't worry, and let life take its course, and you will as you proceed through life learn what it is you are most comfortable with.

Does that all even make the least bit of sense??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc.quarious (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 November 2006

Yeah, but you forget one thing: society. Nature abhors a vacuum. If you don't label yourself, society will. Look at Alan Cumming, who refused to label himself and got made into "a frolicky pan-sexual sex symbol for the new millennium", when really he's just bi. Yeah, don't "come out" until you're sure, but once you are, there's no point trying to fight your label, is there? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. They both make sense, but neither is really what I was getting at - what I meant was that for bi people, not people who are experimenting or unsure, there's a lot of pressure NOT to come out as bi (from being perceived as being either straight or gay), and the threat of being part of neither culture is enough to keep a lot of bi people in the straight AND gay closets. So it's not so much a matter of 'fitting in' (and certainly not seamlessly, since as both straight and gay biphobics will tell you, bi people cause a lot of trouble), as being threatened with exclusion if we don't shut up.

White hotel 09:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure i understand what ur talking about. perhaps you would like to contribute to Biphobia? What, specifically, in the article did you not feel addressed the issue of social pressures adequately? if you think you can improve the article go ahead. sorry if my sentences seem disorganized... i'm currently dealing with the issue your describing... who would think that going to a bar could be so difficult for bi people? lol, but i digress. -Zappernapper 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you zappernapper - all I'm suggesting is that the 'fitting seamlessly' part should change a little to accommodate the idea of closeting for bi people. Gay men and lesbians aren't assumed to fit seamlessly into straight society when they're closeted.

White hotel 14:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

i saw your edits, and i think you addressed the issue well. i made some minor changes (taking out words like "many") and restructred it a bit so it wasn't one long run-on sentence. -Zappernapper 00:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I have to think that the notion of bisexuals fearing to come out to the gay community is absurd; however, the size of the sample upon which I base my conclusion may also be absurd. I recall that bisexuals were held in high esteem for various unmentionable reasons by homosexual Floridians in Y2K. It was only certain self-appointed elite gay folks that wanted to purge the bisexual heresy.


I think the notion that your sexual identity, or your identity in general at age 16 is fixed and defined is silly and immature. The whole notion contained within this document on bisexuality notes fludity and changes in attractions over time as being common experiences within the bisexual community.

Biphobia is a huge problem within the queer community for many reasons, anonymous person, hopefully some of which are described in the biphobia article. Consider fears about cheating and disease spreading, insatiable sexual appetite or deviance, fear that bisexuals defy the "it's natural, it's genetic, we have no choice in our queerness" argument against various religious groups, fears that bisexuals are defying the hardship other queer people deal with within society by "passing as straight" or "just experimenting for fun", etc etc.

I also take note to the "Description" section of this article and, in fact, think it points to the great misunderstanding about bisexuality:

<quote> Bisexual people are not necessarily attracted equally to both sexes.[1] Because bisexuality is often an ambiguous position between homosexuality and heterosexuality, those who identify, or are identified, as bisexuals form a heterogeneous group. Others view bisexuality as more ambiguous.</quote>

Why can bisexuality not be viewed as a third (or fourth or fifth), equally distinct and equally viable sexual identity? One that includes an understanding of fluidity, physical and emotional attraction to more than one gender at various stages in one's life?--Ms.snit (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rating?

May I ask why this article was rated as "A"class? It includes manifold unsourced paragraphs, and I doubt quite sincerely if it would make it to "GA" status in its current condition. If one looks at the assessment scale, an "A" class article Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. This article has no inline citations, and, clearly is not at "A" level yet. Jeffpw 14:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

mmm, needs some wikifying. I have moved it to a B. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambisexual Redirection and Other Uses

I think it should be added that bisexual can also be a term meaning of, or relating to both sexes. Not just sexual orientation. A.k.a, an ambisexual name. Youknowthatoneguy 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If that is to be added, it should go into Bisexual_(disambiguation), not here IMHO. 74.245.31.236 (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bisexual Userbox

I'm pretty sure this isn't the right place, but I can't find anywhere else that could be, is there a Bisexual Userbox? I can find the Gay one easy enough, but not a Bisexual or Pansexual one. Jacobshaven3 02:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See response on your talk page.  :) Aleta 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Picture

Is it truly necessary to have at the very top of the article a graphic that reinforces the stereotype that bisexuals must be with two people at once? I'm referring to the Japanese artwork captioned "Japanese sex worker entertains male client while enjoying the favors of a serving girl." -Emiellaiendiay 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that there are a couple of things that must be borne in mind. First, this type of Japanese art often has an element of humor to it, implied by the artist and expected of the viewer. Secondly, there is no possible configuration of this or any article that will please everyone. Haiduc 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration and Peer review

Bisexuality has been chosen as this month's LGBT collaboration, and so it is currently being peer reviewed here in order to give contributors something to work from if they need it. Regulars here may find it helpful to improve the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

If someone who use to like both genders don't like one gender anymore are they bisexual anymore?Shirleybiscuit

Probably the best way to find out is to ask that someone whether they identify as bisexual. Dkreisst 08:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
yeah.. every once in a while i get really angry with men and don't want to have anything to do with them... but i still identify as bi... :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuals, monogamy and mental health

hi i wanted to ask ummm well my dad does not like the whole me being bi iddea well actually he hates its he'z alwayz judging me what can i do to make him understand that this is normal for me??!!??(-Bi and Judged!!!!) Hi there. I wanted to ask here before changing the article. I'd like to add a few lines about how bisexuals may feel pressured to be either gay or straight, as conventional thinking has it that if bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, they must have more than one partner, thus defying society's value on monogamy. I'd also like to add info about how bisexuals may internalize this social tension, and maybe even a line about how psychologists help bisexuals to face these issues. I have sources too. But this might be more adequate for an article about bisexuals and mental health, I don't know. I don't wish to add something that exceeds the articles' purpose. I thought I might add it on the 'social status of bisexuality' section, but... And I don't think I have enough info to start a new section. Suggestions? Cheers Raystorm 13:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why this shouldn't be in the article (others may disagree!), provided it's kept pretty short &mdash it should probably link to an article on bisexuality and mental health with more information though. I'd be especially careful, however, about concepts like 'conventional thinking', since it's very difficult to find good evidence for that sort of thing. Ideally there'd be a well organised survey that suggested most people had this (obviously flawed) conception of bisexuality. I know of no such poll, however; if you do, great, because this is just the sort of thing that needs good support. But you say you've got sources, so provided they cover all the different claims, that's fine. garik 13:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If I cite an expert that uses the sentence 'conventional thinking' for the sentence I wrote, would that be acceptable? Raystorm 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That would probably be OK. I think you should go ahead and write the section and then people can pick it apart and mangle it as they like;) garik 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
*Grin* Well, before warring in the article I'll see what everyone else thinks about my proposal here. ;-) If I don't get further responses in a few days, I'll just go ahead. Cheers! Raystorm 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, be bold. After all, you're not removing anything. Besides, it's easier to have a constructive opinion on something that's been written than on something that hasn't. Provided your sources are good and balanced, I don't see that your proposed section is too controversial. garik 13:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) modified by garik 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As no one else made further comments, I went ahead with the changes. Cheers Raystorm 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting "Bisexuality in modern Western entertainment"

I think it makes sense to split the section Bisexuality in modern Western entertainment into its own article Bisexuality in entertainment. The section is getting kind of long. I might get around to doing it sooner or later, but I figured I'd mark the section so someone else could help out. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with splitting it into Media portrayal of bisexuality? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. I couldn't find an article like that, but I seem to have not searched hard enough :-) -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality a myth?

At least that is the impression I get regarding most of this article. Overall the article seems to advocate, in a off-handed and irresponsible manner, that someone who is bisexual is just a homosexual who is too afraid to admit it. I mean really people, there is more historical evidence of bisexuality in historical human cultures than 100% gender biased homosexuality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.215.81 (talk)

If you think so, fix it (see Be bold). Alternatively (or in addition), list your issues with the article here giving examples of what you have an issue. I'd look into it, but the article is long and I'm not sure what you're referring to. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I would, but I've grown tired of bots, and click happy wanna-be mods/admins deleting legitimate research and cited material, so I only offer my input in the discussion center anymore; and maybe the occasional spelling or grammer correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.215.81 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
That's not terribly helpful, is it? Please list your issues and we'll see what can be done about them. :-) Raystorm 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH with the "citation needed" crap

Can someone PLEASE go thru this article and clear up most/all of the nit-picked "citation needed". QFT as an example: "Although observed in a variety of forms in human societies and in the animal kingdom throughout recorded history[citation needed]..." <--- cmon! We all know this sentence is true and accurate (greeks, native americans, romans, japanses, chinese; dolphins, DOGS!!! I know youve seen your dog mess with another dog, even another species in this manner). It is as if sticking a "[citation needed]" changes the truth for these people. This is typical throughout the entire article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.215.81 (talk)

I think I'm actually the one who added the fact template to what you are talking about. I know it is true, but we need a citation and it shouldn't be too hard to fine some sources (you may want to read Wikipedia:Citing sources). Feel free to add citations, I could use the help citing the article :-) -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Wikipedia is not the place for original research and "everybody knows" is not a good reason for inclusion (which reminds me: we need an article on Aunt Jobiska's Theorem). garik 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
sorry gotta disagree garik. there is no need to cite references for common knowledge, should the person who wrote "During daylight the sky has the appearance of a deep blue surface" in the sky article provide a reference to their claims that the sky is a deep blue? it could, after all, be seen as 'original research'. *rolls eyes* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.215.81 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I had a similar discussion with someone else about this issue. I claimed that we don't need a citation to show that Sean Connery is Scottish. The other person said we did. They were right and I was wrong. Now, I agree with you that we don't need to cite things like "During daylight the sky has the appearance of a deep blue surface". Though we might want to add "often" or "usually", since in my experience the sky can be only a very light blue, or even something approaching white. However, the sentence "Although observed in a variety of forms in human societies and in the animal kingdom throughout recorded history[citation needed]..." falls into the Sean Connery category, not the blue sky one. If someone doubts the claim about the colour of the sky, they can go outside and look. This is not true of Sean Connery's nationality and it's not true of claims about recorded history and non-heterosexual behaviour among animals. garik 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny thing is, the sky article does cite the sky as being blue (as well as why) with http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html. Unfortunately, that is the only thing that article cites :-) -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 18:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That's pleasing: of course, there is a difference between citing why the sky is blue and citing the fact that it often is. Of course, I might add that Sean Connery's Scottishness isn't cited specifically, though the article does at least have plenty of references that do confirm the fact. garik 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is sneaky vandalism is easier to spot. If someone changed Sean Connery to being Irish instead, you can check out the source and find out otherwise. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 18:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I think the most important issue is that just because "everyone knows" he's Scottish, doesn't mean that he is. Plenty of things taken to be facts turn out not to be true. I have to say, I've never personally observed bisexual behaviour among other animals. I'm sure it does occur, but I'd still like to see a source for the claim here. A further issue, of course, is that sources often contain more detailed information. Wikipedia doesn't have to be just about providing direct information about things. I sometimes find it most useful as a source of references to follow up. garik 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to the tags - what can we consider "citable" and what isn't? And what doesn't have cites, should it be removed, as there is a lot of general knowledge in the article that doesn't neccesarily have a reference avaialable online? /Marbles 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See here. A lot of it is common sense. I'd say a good rule of thumb is that if something can't be checked very easily by the reader, there should be a source for it. Obviously some claims are less controversial than others. I think it's especially important to have good sources for articles such as this. So many claims are made about sexuality that are questionable. garik 19:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We people with advanced degrees or research experience truly appreciate having every fact not in common knowledge cited. As a rule of thumb, nothing is common knowledge.

I would not read wikipedia if all of its articles had so little citation as this one.

Also, citing every fact is the only way to convince third parties that you haven't been plagiarizing.

Confusing description

I think the description section is probably confusing for non-bisexuals and those outside of the LGBT circles to understand what bisexuality is. I don't think I can improve it, so hopefully someone with the ability to write clearly will come and help the section out. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone thought it clever to go and insert his friends name a couple times into this page, think I reverted to the right date/time. Although I haven't slept in two days and it *IS* six in the morning here, hope I got that right; if not - my bad. 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBrannigan (talk • contribs)

Yes, you've got to hand it to them: I don't know where they get these original ideas for vandalism. garik 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so unoriginal I guess. ZBrannigan 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Like the 5000 minutes of commercials in each show on TV now. They're more bearable if they're original- the same appears to apply for wikipedia vandalism. HunterBlackLuna 08:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

kissing

If a guy like girls then end up kissing a guy once but didn't like him at all and find the kissing nasty and then not like kissing guys anymore and always like girls then was the guy ever bisexual or not.

No. Simply trying it doesn't make you bisexual or gay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Will it still be a bisexaul contact if a guy did it but didn't like him if he always like girls?User:Shirleybiscuit

I wouldn't think so--$UIT 05:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Having a gay kiss or gay sex doesn't make you gay or bisexual. Your sexual orientation is based on who you're attracted to, not what you do. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How come it is still gay kiss if the guy kiss the guy once and don't like him?Shirleybiscuit

Cos a guy kissing a guy is a gay kiss. But that doesn't make them gay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

....Maybe we should have a section in the article for this topic that obviously is of interest to some people. ;-D Raystorm 13:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is a good idea. The question comes up enough, and is deeply relevant to quite a few (generally confused) young people. --SteelSoul 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelSoul (talk • contribs)

Hadrian picture

Is the Hadrian picture necessary? It seems too explicit for an article that is not specifically on sexual intercourse or similar. I don't think it's needed for an overview of bisexuality, although the caption text might be interesting to add to the article. — Emiellaiendiay 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Politically-correct omission of bisexual-leaning/homophobia link?

(...or mere omission? Can't add to entry myself right now.) Some evidence that Kinsey-scale "0" (zero) males, ( = exclusively heterosexual), are among the least homophobic. See for instance "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr." http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2006/08/is_homophobia_associ.html (Sorry, am not aware of any studies of female homophobia related to same-sex attraction.) This of course not an indictment of bisexuals as root of homophobia but of the social stigma, since the homophobic male may be largely unaware of his homosexual attraction, and have little understanding of the existence of bisexuality. Suggestion is that acceptance of bisexuality, (prevalent in Human "cousins" Bonobos and Dolphins for instance,) would reduce widespread homophobia. - truthdowser 15:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong caption for the Japanese illo

The Japanese illo had the ambiguous caption:

Japanese sex worker entertains male client while enjoying the favors of a serving girl

with "sex worker" being ambiguous about the gender, which led to the new caption:

Japanese art: A female sex worker entertains a male client, covering his eyes and surreptitiously kissing a female servant

with "female sex worker" being now explicit, but I think erroneous: I wondered why the image file was named "Japanesepederasty18thcentury.jpg"!

Actually, the image's description says "18th Century Japanese print of a man with his young male lover in pederastic scene"[1], and the page given as source says "From "Homosexuality and Civilization": An 18th-century Japanese print of a man with a youth and a female prostitute."[2].

Additionnaly, we have a duplicate of this image illustrating the article kagema (male entertainers and sex workers) where the caption says "An adolescent kagema toys with his customer while enjoying the favors of the serving girl.", and Talk:Kagema provides a good rationale why it's a boy.

So at any rate, the one in the middle is not a female but a young male. As for his status, it's unclear from the conflicting sources whether there's a sex worker here, and if it's the boy or the girl:

  1. The first source says it's the girl on the right side who is a "female prostitute" -- but then she may be a mere servant or a geisha, commonly but erroneously confused with prostitutes by Westerners, so the source's one-line description lacks being convincing.
  2. The second source says it's the boy in the center who is a kagema sex worker -- but he may also be the wakashu (young male) of a traditional shudo relation, and this one-line description on a Wikipedia page lacks being convincing.

I think that claiming him to be a sex worker, or her to be either "a female sex worker" or "a geisha", would need additional research into Nishikawa Sukenobu (or good knowledge about which status her kimono meant at that time).

So, without stronger and more authorithative sources, we only know we have an older male, entertained by a younger male, with the humor that the boy is also fooling with a female servant. Actually, we don't really need to known or mention everything that happened in that print, because the print isn't the topic here -- it's only there to illustrate bisexuality and shudo.

So, as per all of the above, I'm going to edit the caption to one mentionning it's a boy in the center, and not mentionning whether someone is a sex worker or not:

Shudo (Japanese pederasty): a young male entertains an older male lover, covering his eyes while surreptitiously kissing a female servant.

Feel free to discuss and justify additional, non-trivial changes.

62.147.38.251 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, this is not the sort of thing that requires a huge discussion; you can just fix it. The problem that I had was with the terms "favors" and "serving girl". Joie de Vivre 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The boy is identified as a kagema by his headwear, that covers the bare spot mandated by shogunate law in the hope it would reduce the attractiveness of the boy actors. Since he is thus shown in his professional role, one which included selling sexual favors to admirers, it is safe to assume that in attending to the man he, like the girl, is answering the call of duty. That is further confirmed by the "punch line" of the illustration, which juxtaposes what one does out of obligation with what one does for pleasure. Having said all that, we should find something in print setting this out, so we are not accused of original research. Haiduc 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: you can tell she's a "girl" (not a "woman") because her eyebrows are unshaved. She's not a geisha or a courtesan: her hairdo isn't elaborate enough. I think "serving girl" is pretty accurate. Exploding Boy 16:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Common knowledge among most therapists is that bisexuality is a myth

I think this should be looked into. Right now the article seems to be biased because it seems to only be written by people who consider themselves bi but I guess you could just say that if someone else wrote than "they just wouldn't understand". But has anyone here actually talked to a therapist about this or do we only have articles of what people were saying 50 plus years ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 20:34, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

If it's common knowledge, it should be easy to produce plenty of reliable references. Mdwh 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL Good answer Mdwh!! this comment made by a mythical creature named CyntWorkStuff 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

George Carlin allowed, Henry Rollins not?

Was just looking over my contributions, noticed that someone reverted the one about Henry Rollins and bisexuality with no reason in the subject line or in the discussion area. Any reason why an unsourced quote from George Carlin is more relevant that a counter-quote (with source) by another humorist? I might add it again if there are no actual reasons for removal. Slavedriver 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction on "Torchwood."

Article Reads: Torchwood also features bisexual characters Toshiko Sato, Owen Harper and Ianto Jones.

Article Should Read: Torchwood also features bisexual characters Toshiko Sato and Ianto Jones. (Harper is, so far as has been revealed in the series, heterosexual.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.222.89 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i've edited it. I'm personally unsure as to how bi Tosh is and whether she's worthy of inclusion. mattbuck 16:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but from all of season 1, my take is: (spoilers through end of season one)
Jack: Definitely bi. The old lady from Small Worlds and the real Captain Jack in Captain Jack Harkness as well as Ianto.
Gwen: Likely straight. Has live-in boyfriend. I don't count the Carys kiss as she was under alien influence.
Owen: Bi. Goes home with the girl from the bar AND her boyfriend in Day One.
Tosh: Possibly lesbian. She sleeps with Mary in Greeks Bearing Gifts. Bi if you count the website/interview claims that she has a crush on Owen.
Ianto: Bi. The Cyberwoman and Captain Jack.
I disagree. -- mattbuck (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Jack: will sleep with anything.
Gwen: Straight. Agree with you on the Carys kiss.
Owen: Straight. My take on Day One was that he's calling the taxi to try and get away from the guy, not to be with them.
Tosh: Straight. Said in cannibal episode to have slept with Owen, and the greeks bearing gifts thing was probably be alien influence.
Ianto: Bi. No question there.

Wording of "Adultery or Polyamory"

"Bisexuality is often misunderstood as a form of adultery or polyamory" seems mis-worded to me. Adultery is a commonly understood word specifically deals with sex outside of a person's existing marriage. Polyamory is a much more specialized word that many people haven't even heard of, and it refers to romantic affection (with or without sex) among more than two people.

There are two different missunderstandings possible here. 1) a non-judgemental misunderstanding that bisexuals are nececarily involved with people of both sexes at once 2) a judgement placed on the former misunderstanding, and labeling that state as "adultery", "being promiscuously loose", etc.


While I generally think that (1) *is* a common missunderstanding, I'd really like to see a citation before stating that bisexuality is commonly confused (and pejoritatively judged) as adultery.

As for the use of "polyamory", personally I'd dispute that Bisexuality is "often misunderstood" as polyamory, simply because even fewer people are aware of what polyamory really means than are aware of what bi- really means! Furthermore, putting "adultery" and "polyamory" adjacent to each other implies unintended things like: the idea that since adultery is often thought of as wrong even by those doing it ("committing" it), the same might be true of polyamory. An analogy would be: "forms of violence such as murder, warfare, and savate". (savate is an uncommon word to most, -- it's a specific kind of kick-boxing --, so a casual reader will think "murder: bad, criminal act; warfare: horrendous suffering, death; savate: must be something really brutal, deadly and possibly criminal". The phrase "Adultery and polyamory" has the potential to work the same way.

I personally think that "adultery" may not be the right term to use here. When they first learn of bisexuality, people (and I used to be one of them) may mistake it with promiscuity, yes, but regardless of marital status.

Based on the above, I'd reword to "Bisexuality is often misunderstood as a state of having multiple partners (one or more of each sex) at the same time". (Citation needed. lol.) You might add to that "... with connotations of generally promiscuous behavior". in which case I'd *really* like to see a citation that these indeed are common misconceptions. As for polyamory... leave it in if you want, but I think it's a rare person who misunderstands bisexuality but correctly understands (or has even heard of) polyamory.

Most probably someone edited something like "polygamy" (*marriage* to among more than two people) to "polyamory" (*relationships* among more than two at once). But that's an incorrect switch. --Ajasen 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The bisexual=adulterer stereotype has been mentioned here. I'll try to find other RS for it. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rating Scale

Well, is this 'B-Class' or is it 'Start-Class'? Which one? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rieger, Chivers, and Bailey study

Of course, their study was designed such that it wouldn't detect bi-preference-straight people. But the article can't just say that as a tautology; it needs cites.

The only sentence as such with a cite is Some outside the scientific world have criticized that such studies have typically worked from the assumption that a person is only truly bisexual if he or she exhibits virtually equal arousal responses to both opposite-sex and same-sex stimuli, and have consequently dismissed the self-identification of people whose arousal patterns showed even a mild preference for one sex.

The article refers to the New York Times story. But the story didn't really say this. The closest I can find to something like that sentence is a quote from one "John Campbell, 36, a Web designer in Orange County, Calif., who describes himself as bisexual"-- not the words of the article itself.

What the New York Times article said was that "But other researchers -- and some self-identified bisexuals -- say that the technique used in the study to measure genital arousal is too crude to capture the richness -- erotic sensations, affection, admiration -- that constitutes sexual attraction." 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.