More from Wayne Besen:

[vaneramos]

In an answer to comments on his "Bisexuality is bullshit" column:

Sexuality is not complex, as is often said. You either get it up, or you don't. It is really one of the simpler things in life.

Sadly, what is complex is the metnal contortions, cognitive games and unhealthy neurotic walls people build to avoid acknowledging that their attraction may put them at risk for discrimination.

If your sexuality is "complex", see a shrink - because it should be rather easy to figure out what turns you on or off. It is a biological reaction, not rocket science.

My response:

As a gay man trying to live the straight lifestyle I was married from 1990 to 1996 and involved in the ex-gay movement for most of that time. I had a functional sexual relationship with my wife. I got it up. I didn't have to think about men in order to do so, despite the fact that I was primarily attracted to men. Since coming out in 1996 I have known many men who considered themselves gay but had fathered children the traditional way. Obviously they got it up for women, too.

I've been recommending your column for a while because I admire your work to discredit the ex-gay movement. But reading these comments, that sexuality is so simple, I question whether you understand what you're writing about. I'm glad it has been so simple and straightforward for you, but you can't assume everyone's experience is the same.

Comments

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

those are besen's words you've quoted? i'm a little shocked, not only by the oversimplification of his criterion, but also by his apparently disparaging attitude toward people who might be seeing "a shrink." i need to go look at his blog more often, instead of just viewing his column in my mailbox. not that i'll ever argue...

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Yes, as far as I could tell, the comment was posted by Besen. And I'm quickly becoming disillusioned by his attitude here. It's like this:

"My controversial column attracts a lot of attention so I must be brilliant, and that qualifies me to make cute, imprecise remarks."

For myself, I can't take his column as seriously now. I'm certainly going to stop recommending it.

[eloquentwthrage.livejournal.com]

Bravo!

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

If sexuality were that simple, no one would ever be able to have sex with people they aren't completely into physically, right?

Wayne Besen may never have given a mercy fuck--he doesn't sound very merciful, from what I've read--but maybe he really really needs to believe he's never gotten one. :)

I know, isn't it just like me to descend into unflattering personal supposition at the slightest excuse, but still. "Sexuality is simple"? "Bisexuality is bullshit"? Who believes this shit?

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it disappoints me. I wanted to believe someone who had done so much muck-raking against the ex-gay movement was more intelligent.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

Sadly enough, just because someone agrees with you about something important doesn't mean that they're doing it for the right reasons, that they've thought it through clearly, or that they're going to feel like you do about anything else. I know you know this, but it bears repeating.

There's a scholar in my field who is incredibly famous and passionate about what we do. He's one of the more popular talking heads for programs on PBS or TLC or the History Channel, is very emphatic about the importance of our discipline, etc, but he and another scholar actually wrote a book saying that scholars like me are killing our discipline, because liberals aren't worthy to be academics. Seriously.

I respect him for the work he's done and for his passion, but I hate him personally and wish he'd shut up about everything else. He's also a neocon. :/

[that-dang-otter.livejournal.com]

What I don't get is why everyone is jumping on the existential questions, while ignoring the phenomenological questions.

The observation was that there were no study participants that showed a strong erectile response to pictures of both genders. That in itself is interesting and worthy of discussion. (Do you dispute the observation itself?)

The connection to whether there are "true" bisexuals or not is laying on a whole lot of assumptions about how sexuality works and how it should be classified. This is a far murkier issue, and one that needs to be set aside. For example, maybe the mechanism of bisexuality is actually a kind of pendulum swing - one week, it's men, the next week, it's women. Nobody said that bisexual attraction needed to be simultaneous. There are hundreds of possible hypotheses of this form, but none of them can be addressed without focusing first on observation, without prejudice.

I hasten to point out that it's the same prejudice that says both "bisexuality is bullshit" and "this study is bullshit". Both arguments are relying on the same form of premature abstraction. Bisexuals that dismiss the observations of the study are no less guilty of it than the monosexuals that use it to dismiss bisexuality. If anything, this study points out that we don't have a good model of how sexuality works at all, and if bisexuality is ever going to be understood at a level beyond sexual activity, everyone needs to step back and let go of what they think bisexuality is and look at what bisexuals actually do.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

I actually did say something about the methods of the study. I think there was something wrong with it, mainly that it didn't take into account how attraction works. Despite that "men are visual" thing, I know quite a few men that pictures/video don't do much for. It may spark interest, but won't really trip their trigger arousal-wise.

Also, for people who are particularly typey, showing them random pictures of either sex probably won't do much, especially if it's professional porn, since professional porn doesn't tend to portray people who look like people. I like girls, but pro porn doesn't do much for me, because the women in it aren't women I'd be attracted to. I will admit that I'm generalizing from my own experience, and perhaps the mechanics of my bisexuality are different from the mechanics of everyone else's, but I didn't find this study compelling.

Also, apparently the study used physical erection as the measure of whether attraction was "genuine". This may explain why they used men (we women are notoriously hard to pin down, reaction-wise) but it also doesn't seem particularly compelling, since I know plenty of men who don't spring into action when they hear the bell, if you see my point.

There is an enormous amount of junk science out there about sexuality--it's something that we have strong social and cultural taboos about, people are often embarrassed by it--and the easiest thing in the world is to tell your study group that what you expect is normal, and they'll fall all over themselves to be "normal" for you, often without even realizing it.

I'm not sure I find it desirable to have a bunch of researchers trying to "explain" bisexuality one way or the other--agendas are so pernicious in this kind of research, I don't know that I want my preferences and psychological makeup being dragged through the mud (or put on a pedestal, for that matter).

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Good questions raised here.

"If anything, this study points out that we don't have a good model of how sexuality works at all."

Really, that is my whole point (I didn't express it clearly). I don't dispute the observations, but question the methodology and conclusion that bisexuality does not exist. wolfbear had made some interesting remarks on the study and the article published in the NY Times.

[eloquentwthrage.livejournal.com]

I hasten to point out that it's the same prejudice that says both "bisexuality is bullshit" and "this study is bullshit". Both arguments are relying on the same form of premature abstraction.

I beg to differ. You are well aware from what's going on in the world that a majority of folks, whether they're hetero or homo, see sexuality in black and white. You're either straight or you're gay. There is no "premature abstraction" in saying a study is flawed for numerous reason, none of which have to do with whether a person is gay or straight or bestial for that matter. It's a pure and simple fact that the study lacks many of the basic rules used to collect empirical data. Prejudice against bad science is miles away from prejudice against people thought of as defective.

[queenmomcat.livejournal.com]

I couldn't even finish the column; just the first few paragraphs had me fuming. I confess I'm not entirely convinced that bisexuality could be used as a euphemism for gay in order to avoid discrimination in all cases, although I'm sure it is more often than I'd care to think. If one was that afraid of prejudice...wouldn't it be easier to say "I'm straight. See? I sleep with the opposite gender!"

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I know from experience that it happens. Once upon a time I used it as a euphemism in order to test the waters by admitting to people I was attracted to men, while I wasn't prepared to give up on having a conventional marriage.

Part of the problem behind this controversy is that many people don't want to accept that sexuality really is a preference. Many activists put great stock in the idea that homosexuality is entirely determined by biology and can't be changed, as if that will somehow protect our right to live it. I believe there is at least some degree of choice involved, but that should not diminish our right to exercise it. After all, we live in a society that protects freedom of religion, and religion is a choice.

bisexuality, homosexuality and personal choices

[queenmomcat.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know it happens; I was in no way trying to deny that! Just to defuse any possible animosity or misunderstanding, I am quite in agreement with you on both the idea of bisexuality as "euphemism" and that there is a great deal of choice in sexuality.

Is it possible that some people claim to be bisexual because they are themselves not entirely comfortable with the idea of being homosexual?

Re: bisexuality, homosexuality and personal choices

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, in fact that is more precisely why I used it. I was extremely homophobic. At the time I came out to a girlfriend and my parents as bisexual (19), I had no intention of ever exploring my same-sex attractions.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

To put bisexuality on the side burner for the monent, what about us gays who took years to finaly realize we were gay and came out months later? That's not to say some of us did the "bi" thing, I surely didn't. I was asexual up until I began exploring my true sexuality and never consciously considered labeling myself bisexual. It was either I was gay or I wasn't. Turns out I'm gay and that's that. :-)

Sex, like life is never an easy one to explain, label or compartmentalize away in some neat little package. It's a very complex thing and what will trigger one's reaction to someone will not another.

I'm very attracted to the hairy cubbish/bearish/otterish types with facial hair and less so to the non hairy/clean shaven types, but like everything in life, there are exceptions. I even take a pocket bear/cub if he's whom I'm attracted to.

At the end of the day, it's what turns you on physically, emotionally and psychologically that's what counts, not trying to explain/codefy/label what type of sex we are (be it gay, lesbian/dyke, bi or what have you).

I do find oversimplifying things nevers makes for a compelling argument and this article is just that, a non compelling, overly simplified colum that should not be taken with a grain of salt for those reasons alone.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I believe sexuality is, at least in some degree, a choice, but one we should have the freedom to make. Even asexuality is a choice. At times I feel more asexual that others. I can choose how I act on the basis of my feelings, and the resulting experience will most likely alter the way I feel.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

Van,

I think you may be onto something with your statement that it sexuality is in some cases a choice. What I see and I may be wrong in this is that while some of us have more predilection towards homosexuality daily basis and love nothing other than a man for a partner etc but the residing moment may have you feeling different for a short bit and the choice to act on it or not is up to you. Right?

Anyway, my asexuality was by conscious choice it just was as I could never see myself boinking a female's vagina as far back at HS at the very least and all of my self sexual moments were male oriented from as far back as I can recall so on that note, my predilection towards homosexuality is not a choice, but I do excercise that choice now and I'm very glad I did. :-)

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Earlier in my life, homosexuality felt like a trap I couldn't escape from. It certainly felt like I had no choice.

Now that I have a sense of freedom about my choice of partners, there's no question I prefer men. I also imagine that under certain circumstances I might want to choose a woman. And if that experience were more positive than the ones I've had, I might want to do it again. That should not diminish my freedom of choice.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

Oh no it definately shouldn't. It's not that I don't respect those who like women for what they are, because I do and that's their (and your choice) but to go around and say it's dispicable etc and force their opinion on the matter to you is definatly something I won't tolerate.

In the end though, I'm glad we ultimately made the decisions we made and that they seem to be working out for the most part. :-)

[bigmacbear]

You know, if all the folks who agreed with this Wayne dude lived in the same geographical region, wouldn't it be called the "Bi-bull Belt" ?

(Yeah, yeah, gmjambear wasn't too impressed either.)

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

*groan*

;0)

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Sounds pretty kinky to me.