Women's Bisexuality an 'Identity,' Not Phase

[Varaj]

Bisexuality among women isn't just a phase, according to new research that followed 79 non-heterosexual women for a decade and found that bisexual women continue to be attracted to both sexes over time.

Being bisexual is a distinct orientation, not a temporary stage, says the study by Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. It is being published next week in the January issue of Developmental Psychology, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Diamond conducted face-to-face interviews around New York state in 1995, when the women (who identified themselves as lesbian, bisexual or unlabeled, but not heterosexual) were ages 18-25. She then spoke with them by phone every two years.

"These findings are therefore more consistent with the model of bisexuality as a stable identity than a transitional stage," the study says.

Diamond suggests that most women "possess the capacity to experience sexual desires for both sexes, under the right circumstances."

She found that bisexual women were more likely than lesbians to switch between describing themselves as bisexual and unlabeled, rather than to identify as lesbian or heterosexual.

"If it was a phase, it should have burnt out," Diamond says. "They might have a change in identity and relationships, but that pattern of non-exclusive desire is still there, even among those who have married. It debunks the notion of it being a phase."

Sociologist Paula Rust of East Brunswick, N.J., has conducted quantitative research on bisexuality and says Diamond's study is important as the only long-term look at women's bisexuality to date.

"What she's doing is an in-depth study of people's lives," Rust says of the 79 women who participated. "For qualitative research, that's a pretty good number."

Other limitations noted in the study include a reliance on a small, exclusively female and disproportionately white and middle-class sample.

New attention has focused on young women today and their interest in experimenting with their own sexual identity, which Rust says is because the young are more open about sexuality and are more tolerant.

"I think young women are feeling a little bit freer," Rust says. "If they have anything other than purely heterosexual feelings, they are more free to think about it & and question their identity."

Diamond says heterosexual women may "experiment with same-sex desires and behaviors, but if they really are predominantly heterosexual, they may enjoy experimentation but may not change their sexuality."

The study also debunks the stereotype that bisexual women aren't able to commit to monogamous relationships because they're always thinking about desire for the other gender.

Denise Penn, a clinical social worker who serves on the board of the American Institute of Bisexuality, based in San Diego, says there hasn't been enough research on these questions:

"Women's sexuality in general has taken a back seat in terms of research overall."

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/Story?id=4142729

I suppose I can't really file this under a duh story since I still hear people say "it's just a phase".

[Radu]

So the good news is if I get a bisexual girlfriend, she will continue to be open to threesomes for life? That's pretty damn sweet.

[FeatsofClay]

:threaten: I really, really hate the "Bi = slutty" equation, even as a joke.

What makes threesomes slutty?

[Varaj]

Call it "sexually adventurous" or "open" or whatever you like, but the idea I'm getting at is that bisexuality does not equal a tendency towards non-monogamy, and yet the idea that it does is incredibly popular.

Very common idea. Just smack them and point them to this study. :)

The study also debunks the stereotype that bisexual women aren't able to commit to monogamous relationships because they're always thinking about desire for the other gender.

[Hatter]

I'd love to say 'duh' on this study, but given how common those misconceptions are I guess it was necessary.

[The Winslow]

the idea I'm getting at is that bisexuality does not equal a tendency towards non-monogamy, and yet the idea that it does is incredibly popular.

Because for many people, if a person who claims to be gay or bi only has sexual relationships with the other sex, then that person is actually hetero. The assumption is that to be bisexual, you need to have sex with a man and with a woman. If you only have sex with one but not with the other, then it's not bi because you're not practicing both.

It's a confusion between sexuality and partnership.

[Hatter]

It's a confusion between sexuality and partnership.
Or a confusion between identity and behavior. Although that's the same as what you're saying.

[Varaj]

Because for many people, if a person who claims to be gay or bi only has sexual relationships with the other sex, then that person is actually hetero. The assumption is that to be bisexual, you need to have sex with a man and with a woman. If you only have sex with one but not with the other, then it's not bi because you're not practicing both.

It's a confusion between sexuality and partnership.

I've never really understood the position that it is action as opposed to attraction that defines sexual orientation.

[Hatter]

I've never really understood the position that it is action as opposed to attraction that defines sexual orientation.

The whole premise falls apart as soon as you start asking people if they were straight before they'd had sex for the first time.

[Varaj]

The whole premise falls apart as soon as you start asking people if they were straight before they'd had sex for the first time.

I've also noticed it is almost never applied to heterosexual orientation. :rolleyes:

[The Winslow]

Now that I think about it, it's also that confusion that leads to things such as "OMG we don't want no gay priests!" because priests are supposed to be abstain from sex and if someone is gay it means he has sex with other men and since he has sex he can't be a priest.

Apparently, abstaining from sex is heterosexuality by default...

Completely stupid, but you can't expect people to be educated about it. After all, they're just people.

[Martin]

First of all, I'd like to join Hatter in the 'duh' response that he wanted to give, but from which he refrained.

I am a bit curious as to why women who identified as heterosexual weren't included in the study. I think that you would have found that there would have been more 'phase' bisexuality (or as most of us like to call it, 'college' or 'tequila' bisexuality) had they included that sexual orientation. Of course women who are willing to strongly state that they are bisexual are going to continue to find that they have those tendencies throughout life. My ex is bisexual. She was attracted to other women before I met her and while I was with her and I'd be damned surprised to find out that that had changed. However, from my knowledge of her, her longest and most enduring relationships have been with men.

I think that part of the problem is that most sexual orientation isn't completely set in stone so much as to cover ranges. Some people have bigger ranges than others. I agree with Varaj in that attraction is a large part of it. I think that situation has much to do with it as well.

I wonder if they'll ever do a study covering phase bisexuality/homosexuality in boarding school males (with an emphasis on British public schoolboys) or if that would just be considered talking out of school.

[Radu]

:threaten: I really, really hate the "Bi = slutty" equation, even as a joke.

I don't see how saying someone wouldn't mind a threesome is slutty. Is it worse to joke about threesomes with a bisexual partner than with a hetero partner? My last girlfriend is someone I would never, ever broach the subject to. She just wasn't the type of person you said those things to.

Sorry if I've offended you, but the case remains that if I've got a bi girlfriend who I think is a bit adventurous, you know I'm going to suggest it. I also follow a rule of "I don't ask you for anything I'm not comfortable with." If I was asked to have a threesome with another man, I would have more issues with involving 3 partners than with the sex of the 3rd person. And clearly, as I made the obvious knee-jerk reaction joke, that's not as much of an issue.

Now, if I was married, on the other hand, I'd have more issues. I am slightly more open to multiple partners/poly(gyn/gam)y with casual daters than with a wedded couple.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled internet.

[Janos]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/Story?id=4142729

I suppose I can't really file this under a duh story since I still hear people say "it's just a phase".

While I agree with the conclusions, I'm not sure 79 people is a large enough pool to draw the wide-spread conclusions they are either. That study generalizes a lot of conclusions without a lot of research behind it.

[Radu]

Poor word choice on my part aside, your statement assumes a connection between bisexuality and "adventurousness" that bisexuals are constantly having to combat. I get that it was most likely an off the cuff joke, but it's a stereotype that I don't find funny.

Sorry you found it offensive. I'll keep that in mind next time.

[Martin]

While I agree with the conclusions, I'm not sure 79 people is a large enough pool to draw the wide-spread conclusions they are either. That study generalizes a lot of conclusions without a lot of research behind it.
Sociology. It's the cashmere of sciences.

[Eliezer]

Funny, I don't see any qualifications for this imaginary girlfriend being open to threesomes, except for her bisexuality. Poor word choice on my part aside, your statement assumes a connection between bisexuality and "adventurousness" that bisexuals are constantly having to combat. I get that it was most likely an off the cuff joke, but it's a stereotype that I don't find funny.

Having explored your bisexuality could in some circles count you as adventurous.

I know a lady who has admitted that she's been attracted to women, but when discussing it later has to qualify it and reinterpret her feelings as a non-sexual feeling or a misinterpreted a feeling as sexual because she identifies herself as hetero. I suspect she could be bi if she were more open with herself.

So what is adventurous anyhow? A willingness to explore, take a chance, do something that society may frown upon? Do something that might shock your mother? Sounds like the very definition of adventurous, sounds like someone willing to explore their sexual feelings despite the societal stigmas.

I'm not trying to discount your feelings, but I suspect you might be transposing some feelings or covering some of your own.

[Hatter]

Yeah the gay community stereotypically treats people who identify as bi pretty badly too. It sucks and is even more retarded than when the general populace does it since you'd think they'd know better.

[Freedom Canadian]

Yeah the gay community stereotypically treats people who identify as bi pretty badly too. It sucks and is even more retarded than when the general populace does it since you'd think they'd know better.

Yeah.

And it surprises me since gay rights organizations tend to be "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered" rights organization. Around here, at least.

I've always wondered why they lump transgendered people in there since to my limited understanding, it's an altogether different situation than homosexuality.

[GhostWolf69]

:threaten: I really, really hate the "Bi = slutty" equation, even as a joke.

The only sluts I know are gay men... the stories I could tell...

One of them explained it to me like this:

"Men have a strong drive sweetheart. Honestly... how often do you want to have sex with your wife? Quite a lot more than her? Right. So you are rejected most of the time and only get to drink from the honney cup once every, what, two weeks? ...now imagine living in a relation ship where your partner is just as horny... Exactly!"

It could be worth mentioning that stories pop up from time to time and that one individual, drunk as we both were at the time, does not speak for everyone he shares one or two traits with. This particular queen also ends up with women from time to time... usually when he's had one beer to manny. I asked him about that to at one time and he said:

"Look, honney. If you have a bucket full of stones, and then put one or two seashells on top... it's still a bucket full of fucking stones! I was drunk and horny, get over it! You're not my lover any way, what do you care? Curious eh? Well if you're that curious I can educate you in a thing or two... No? I didn't think so!"

Wha'ya'gonna'do?

/wolf

[GhostWolf69]

<rant_mode>

It could of course also be argued that the wole point, or reason for putting a lable on these things is a little twisted in the first place. I mean common. Who cares?

But to follow up on my earlier story I'd like to add something about the dykes I know. For equality's sake.

Strangely enough most lesibians I know are very political about their sexual behaviour. As opposed to the gay guys, the dykes seem to be atracted to women less and repelled from men more. A couple of them more or less state it openly:

"Me being a lesbian is a political statement. I'd never let a man penetrate me, never!"

Stuff like that.

One of them seems to shift back and forth. Does that make her bisexual? Not according to her:

"Nope. I was a dyke before, now I'm straight... maybe I'll turn dyke again in a couple of years, who knows... why?"

Human kind has this need of categorising everything. I guess it's the way our brain works, like a network of assumptions that is the basis of our actions. It is a biological must, to be able to evolve out of the mud. We need those patterns for our brain to work properly, and lack of pattern makes us anxious, nervous and scared. So we create these illusions. Small boxes filled with traits and attributes, and we must force every single individual into them. Gay, straight, bi, christian, muslim, jew, white, black, red, blue, rich, poor, well to do, they're all part of the pattern mesh that allows our brain to cope with the ammount of info it does.

I'm trying, to the best of my ability to just let these lables fly. Not to use them as much, unless the lable itself is being discussed, like here. If I tell a story that is not sex-related but that includes one of my gay friends, I will not do what most people do, include a: "...,btw he's gay,..." I'm fighting these type of "signaling". I don't allways succeed... but I'm trying. Others not so much.

Example:

My mother does this habitually, if she's been to the doctor and tell you about the visit afterwards she must add that he probably was from Pakistan or something because he looked a littel like that.

My comment: What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Was he a good doctor? Were you sick?

Media here in sweden is trying to shape up but only a couple of years ago they seemed honor bound to include these lines; "Of foreign inheritage", "from an african country" etc.

They used to claim that this was becuase it was a) true and b) their duty to inform the public. Granted they have become more sensitive when it comes to ethnic origins and don't do that as much. But they still do it all the time when it comes to other lables, and I for one am sick and tried of it.

Example:

Karate teacher arrested for child abuse.

If you ask my opinion, a headline like that is ok as long as the abuse took place during karate-class. If not, the karate-part is redundant info that has nothing to do with the abuse, and is only aimed to send signals to the public that karate is dangerous and will hurt your children. In this case I think the abuse took place during a summer camp where the guy was a sort of leader. Why not type: "Summer camp leader arrested for child abuse." ???

I could go on... but this rant seems to loose it's momentum. Thank you for your time.

/wolf

[Lady Fury]

"Men have a strong drive sweetheart. Honestly... how often do you want to have sex with your wife? Quite a lot more than her? Right. So you are rejected most of the time and only get to drink from the honney cup once every, what, two weeks? ...now imagine living in a relation ship where your partner is just as horny... Exactly!"




Not all wifes are like that. I hate that kind of assumption. There are many of us wives who have a high sex drive and even a few of us whose sex drives are higher than our husbands. Yes we do exist.

[GhostWolf69]

Not all wifes are like that. I hate that kind of assumption. There are many of us wives who have a high sex drive and even a few of us whose sex drives are higher than our husbands. Yes we do exist.

Agreed. It's just another pattern, I guess. And assumpitons are (as allways) based on general opion and the media image of things.

In my particular case though, his comparison struck home.

/wolf

[The Winslow]

If not, the karate-part is redundant info

The word you seek is "superfluous," not "redundant." :)

Redundant would be if it already said elsewhere he was a karate teacher.

[GhostWolf69]

The word you seek is "superfluous," not "redundant." :)

Redundant would be if it already said elsewhere he was a karate teacher.

Well... if it's going to be like that:

Main Entry: re·dun·dant
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow -- more at REDOUND
1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition <a group of particularly redundant brick buildings> d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off

I'd say that the duplication of information you imply is nessecary is only the case for ONE of it's meanings, but my use of it as merely meaning "exceeding what is necessary" is still ok.

Main Entry: su·per·flu·ous
Pronunciation: su-'p&r-flü-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin superfluus, literally, running over, from superfluere to overflow, from super- + fluere to flow -- more at FLUID
1 a : exceeding what is sufficient or necessary : EXTRA b : not needed : UNNECESSARY

Sure this word could have been used, but 'redundant' is still very much valid. i.e. More than is necessary.

Can I go now? ;)

/wolf

[The Winslow]

Okay, I yield, you win. But I never saw saw redundant used before without the meaning of being a repetition.

[GhostWolf69]

Okay, I yield, you win. But I never saw saw redundant used before without the meaning of being a repetition.

We all live and learn sister, next time it will be my turn. :)

/wolf

[Eliezer]

Okay, I yield, you win. But I never saw saw redundant used before without the meaning of being a repetition.

I'm with you Helga. I think Merriam-Webster needs to update their definition. Redundant has always included the idea of repetitive in my mind.

[The Winslow]

I'm chuckling because I just noticed I typed "saw saw redundant." :)

[Kyle Voltti]

I've always figured that the whole Bi as a pahse for women thing comes less from actual bi-sexuality but more from the fact that women have a bit more latitude in exploring their sexuality then men do.