|
|
|
July 18, 2005
Striking a scientific pose . . .
As if I needed another reason to dislike those who would define people by their penises, today's Philadelphia Inquirer features a "scientific" study which is undermined by a basic inability to define terminology, and which I suspect is grounded in opposition to true sexual freedom. Research on bisexuality is sparse, but a few intrepid scientists have tried to get data by wiring up a group of gay, bisexual and straight men to a machine that monitored their arousal when exposed to erotic images of men and women. The researchers found that, while some of their subjects called themselves bisexual, their male anatomy showed a notable preference for one sex or the other. That led to headlines proclaiming that bisexual men don't exist.OK, wait a second. Are we talking about science here? Or lexicography? What, if any, are the reasons for bestowing labels on people, and why are there only three? Are there not more than three people in the world? And how can one be said to be "equally attracted to both sexes"? Does that mean all people belonging to both sexes? Haven't these researchers ever heard of a thing called a "type"? (Like "Is he your type"? "Is she your type"? and so on.) As it happens, most people aren't my type; does that make me atypical? Or am I maybe bitypical? I suspect the latter. What baffles me is how it becomes the business of science to decide who or what someone is attracted to, and then engage in massive generalizations and projections onto others based solely upon the reactions of people who had their dicks outfitted with mercury-filled rings and were shown pornography. At best, this study measures the responsiveness of those individuals to the limited amount of pornography shown. To be fair to the authors, concerns have been raised by the fact that despite the headlines proclaiming the absence of "bisexuality," there are men who obviously haven't gotten word yet -- and who continue to have sex with members of both sexes: What they do know from tracking the spread of HIV is that a number of men who have sex with men also have sex with women. A report from the Centers for Disease Control notes that 13 percent of white men who reported sex with other men also had sex with women. Among black men it was 34 percent, and among Hispanic men, 26 percent. Men can and do go both ways.Does this mean white men are less inclined towards a "bisexual" orientation than black or hispanic men? Or that they're less likely to express themselves sexually with members of both sexes? (Or only that they're less likely to admit such things to the federal government?) The Inquirer doesn't say, and no racial breakdown of the study participants is offered, much less a reason for the apparent discrepancy. I guess the authors should consider themselves fortunate that they never had to study the sexual tastes of ancient Romans or Greeks, but at least they admit that they don't understand: "This is something we don't quite understand," says Gerulf Rieger, a psychology graduate student at Northwestern University and lead author of the study. Rieger, who told me he's gay, said he, too, is a bit baffled by the way other gay men manage to marry women.Manage to marry? Hey, whether a man can manage to marry a woman doesn't necessarily depend on sex; it depends on whether there's consent to the marriage. Anyone seen the ads for women seeking to marry men? Has anyone asked how many of them care how their prospective husbands might "perform" with mercury cock rings and porn? In his study, he didn't see evidence for "bisexual arousal" among the 101 paid volunteers, recruited using alternative weeklies and gay publications. Of those, 38 identified themselves as gay, 33 as bisexual and 30 as straight. The researchers showed the men short films: one with two women having sex, one with two men having sex. They used lesbian sex because previous research showed it is more exciting to heterosexual men than male-female pornography.How scientific was this "research"? Yeah, I've heard the stereotype since I was a kid, and as a longtime listener to Howard Stern I've spent many hours immersed in it, but I'm not so sure I'd about the scientific reliablility of using lesbian porn as the sole barometer for heterosexual "arousal." Would these scientists test female sexual arousal by attaching arousal meters to women's clitorises and making them watch two men screwing each other? If they did, I bet they'd be surprised how few women turned out to be totally "straight." We now, um, come to the "arousal meter": Before the viewing, Rieger and his colleagues hooked their test subjects to an arousal-meter of sorts. "It's quite simple - we put a rubber band around the penis," says Rieger. "It's filled with mercury and that's wired to hardware that goes into a computer."That is an interesting definition of performance anxiety. I'd always thought the latter involved anxiety over not being able to please one's partner. Viewing porn strikes me as more on the level of masturbation, and while I may have lived a sheltered life, I haven't yet heard of a phenomenon called "masturbation performance anxiety." Wouldn't "pornography anxiety" be a better label? Even there, they'd be missing the point. And while I'm really not into exhibitionism (and I think discussion of sexual desires with strangers verges on that), I fear that nevertheless it's true confession time here. Let me admit to the world that I am not turned on by pornography of any variety that I know of that's available for sale. I'm very sorry to have to make such a damning admission, but there it is. As a porn fan, I am a failure. I would have been among the one-third of those rejected as participants. In my defense I would say that I'd really need to see and speak with potential sex partners before I could have any idea whether they were potentially attractive to me. And even there, how could I be sure? There are too many ifs. According to the authors, my failure to be aroused by lesbian porn or gay male porn means I couldn't "handle it": For the two-thirds who could handle it, the overwhelming response was always to one sex or the other, even for the bisexuals. And yet, the penis meter did register a small amount of expansion when the straight men watched the other men, and when gays watch the women.I think I know why ordinary heterosexual porn was not shown. It might turn on more of the participants, and then the authors would be faced with accusations that the participants were only turned on by one of the males -- or one of the females. But does such an omission lead to accuracy? Why would this study avoid the possible existence of men more turned on by watching a heterosexual couple than by watching a same-sex couple? (Or just as turned on.) Sorry, but it doesn't strike me as scientific at all. But what really surprised Rieger was that some of those who identified as bisexual liked the women much more than the men. In that sense they reacted like the straight men. Why would a heterosexual man pose as bisexual?"Pose" as a bisexual? Let's look at that. When the language that we use combines with the political system which categorizes people by their penises and offers them only three labels, is it any surprise that three labels for hundreds of millions of people come short? As to these "heterosexual" men who are accused of "posing" as bisexuals, I'd like to ask the authors what they should "pose" as. Because if they called themselves heterosexual, wouldn't they also be accused of posing? If they called themselves "gay," would that too be a pose? More and more, I'm coming to see the whole labeling system as little more than a politicized demand for a pose. All this study found is that some men who call themselves bisexuals preferred watching lesbian couples perform. There could be many, many reasons for that, each one as varied and as complex as that individual. I know that whenever I look at pornography, I tend to wonder what the individual might be like as a person, and I try to get a "reading" of what that person might be all about. Lots of times, I see telltale expressions which tell me that they're not really into it, but they're going through the motions (most likely with an eye for getting money). I'll wonder where they're from, and I'll think, "Aha! Most likely Slovakian!" and stuff like that. This all takes place in seconds, with the end result being that sex is the last thing on my mind. I've known women who could turn on "gay" men who'd never normally be attracted to women, and men who could turn on "straight" men who'd never normally be attracted to men. I'm not claiming that these people are bisexual, because frankly I don't care. But I think if the researchers used attractive androgynous models, they might be very surprised by the results. "Science" aside, I still prefer sexual freedom. posted by Eric on 07.18.05 at 08:24 AM
Comments
Dear Eric: Yet another exceruciatingly fascinating post here. Thank you. The only problem for me is that there's just too, too much for me to say on this facinating subject. Hokay! Let's get started. That reply, "I'm gay, I'm not BLIND" means that he knows precisely what type of woman would turn him on if he were turned on by a woman, i.e., if he were not a man's man. Similarly, Ayn Rand, also an androsexual, could describe female characters such as Dominique or Dagny (with whom she identified) beautifully, but she was herself turned on instead by the Howard Roarks, Francisco D'Anconias, Henry Reardens, Ragnar Danneskjolds, John Galts, etc., she loved to write about. Similarly, in a parallel sort of way, I know what type of man would turn me on if I were androsexual, or what kind of man I would like to look like, e.g., Eric Scheie, or Burt Lancaster, who is one of my favorite actors ever of the old days when movies were great. I saw him as the husband in Sorry, wrong Number and also as General James Mattoon Scott in Seven Days in May. Like General Rrrripper in Dr. Strangelove, he was a conservative General being depicted by a liberal writer as a fascist villain, but I agreed with everything he said against the Communist Conspiracy. We need another General Horemheb, I say. Anyway!.... You are right about the misleading trichotomy of "heterosexual", "homosexual", and "bisexual". It's a spectrum. I usually prefer to use "androsexual" and "gynosexual" as the opposite poles of such a spectrum, as these seem to me to be more salient in many ways. ("Sadist" and "masochist" also, as another dimension.) "Heterosexuals" are then actually in the middle of this spectrum. As to "bisexual", I have been turned on by certain men on occasion, but I find myself becoming increasingly exclusively gynosexual. There obviously are bisexually-oriented men and women, but I have never bought the notion that "we're all bisexual". It's the sort of "try it, you'll like it" approach of certain liberals, who also go in for "polyamory". They can like it all they want, but not everybody else necessarily does. Sorry to be a party-pooper, but that's just the way I am. An introvert. You are absolutely right about being attracted to a certain type rather than a whole sex (or "gender"). I often speak of "androsexuals" and "gynosexuals", but I know of no one who is attracted to every human bearing either an XY or an XX chromosome. To snip the chonological extremes, very few gynosexuals are attracted primarily to women of a gerontologically advanced age, and, at the other extreme, if any are primarily attracted to prepubescent girls I don't want to know them, but the police probably know them very well. Within the age range between crone and child, it is still only, as you say, a certain type that one finds attractive. A certain type. Yes, indeed. I must confess that I seem to be getting increasingly fastidious as I get older, more and ever more elitist. While I rhapsodize gynosexually about the beauties of the Eternal Feminine and her Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology, I must confess that it is only a certain type or archetype of the Eternal Feminine who arouses that in me. I can be attacted to a European, a Negress, or even an Asian lady, to a blonde, a brunette, or a redhead. Usually, it is a mesomorphic, athletic, type of woman who turns me on. But I can also be turned on by an endomorphic woman, a fat lady, or by an ectomorphic, petite lady. What is most essential to me is a certain type of face. Show me that, and all else follows. Face, neck, hair, shoulders, and all down from there. I know what I like when I see it, and I know what I don't like. Probably only about 1% of the XX chromosome-bearing human beings have that type of face that I look for, only about 1% are my type, but those who are are the ones I love to look upon and to worship. As I say, I am becoming increasingly more exclusively gynosexual, ever more exclusively Sapphist. Viewing a beautiful woman kissing another man (or an un-attractive woman), my feeling has usually been the old jealous "what does she see in that creep?" Now, I'm increasingly beginning to feel that way about myself, too. I used to fantasize my ideal woman on top of me, but increasingly my feeling about that fantasy is "what does she see in that creep?" I find Santorum's dog less disgusting! (I know, I know, reminds me of that old joke about not wanting to join any club that would have me as a member.) My fantasies are now exclusively centered on holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma vs. wicked Wanda and her women (Wendy, Cindy, Sandy, Candy, Brandy, Brenda, Glenda, Stella, Hannah...).... As to pornography, I feel exactly the same way. I'm not turned on by it most of the time. Hardly any of it, in fact. The main thing attractive to me about any of it is precisely the fact that it's forbidden. I get turned on by reading conservative (Jehovanist) diatribes against pornography and obscenity, how obscene and disgusting and lewd and tempting and perverting and corrupting and society-destroying it all is, and why society must censor it -- but not the thing itself. I'm too perverted for pornography. The main reasons are: 1) Most pornography is about nudity. Nudity only rarely turns me on. I'm completely perverted. I'm an endytophiliac. I'm turned on far more by clothing. And by that, I don't mean "kinky" black leather and such, but, rather, by pants, skirts, blouses, etc., and especially by athletic clothing. I'm so "kinky" I'm anti-"kinky". 2) Pornography is about overt sexual actions. I'm generally less interested in visualizing the actual sexual embrace, the consummation, than I am in the sexual temptation, desire, longing, passion, that ultimately, at long last, leads up to that final consummation. It's the thought that counts. 3) Pornography is directed at the lowest common denominator, the masses. Consequently, tends to be crude, shallow, 1-dimensional, and hence, un-sexy. Lots of nudity, buggery, "f***'n's***", cussing, not much else, not much imagination, not much depth or height. In a word, it's Naturalistic. I'm a Jehovanistic-style Gnostict. I'm so deviant I deviate from all those who have been in the past seen as deviants. I'm so libertine I'm ultra-conservative. I need discipline. Tight and High. "Science" aside, I still prefer sexual captivity. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 18, 2005 08:36 PM """...and while I may have lived a sheltered life, I haven't yet heard of a phenomenon called "masturbation performance anxiety."""" Give Woody Allen a call. Petro · July 19, 2005 12:31 AM Thanks for the comments. But Steven, with this latest spectrumological analysis, you've outdone yourself (and my post for that matter). I wish you could be put in charge of all sexual research in the United States. Yes! I say "Steven Malcolm Anderson for Sex Czar!" Eric Scheie · July 19, 2005 12:22 PM Dear Eric: Thank you! (again....) But what we need is a Sex Czarina. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 19, 2005 01:25 PM One more thing: Another dimension of sex is not only which sex one more often finds more attractive, but also which sex one more often finds repellent. Very often, I think, these will turn out to be the same thing. An elitist gynosexual, I'm neither very much attracted to nor very much repelled by, my fellow man. Men are just, well, men, and I'm more or less indifferent to the way they look, though some obviously look better, more manly, than others. But women almost invariably arouse much more intense feelings in me, either positive or negative, pulchritudinous or ugly. Women either attract and arouse me or else are repulsive to me. And it's the face that does it. I'm a face-ist. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 19, 2005 01:44 PM Hands, too. Hands also are very expressive, very feminine. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 20, 2005 09:12 AM Another dimension of this sexual spectrum is obviously that of promiscuity vs. monogamy. On the whole, men tend to be more promiscuous, women more monogamous. Androsexual men (men's men) tend to be the most promiscuous, gynosexual (Lesbian) women the most monogamous. All of this, of course, ties in with wicked Wanda vs. holy Dawn.... Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 20, 2005 09:16 AM Which is why Dr Kinsey wisely set up a continuum, rather than binary (or even ternary) descriptions. Besides, the idea that a Kinsey 1.5 or 4.5 is somehow "less" bisexual than a 3 is one I'd hate to have to defend. CGHill · July 20, 2005 11:20 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
As was once said in a discussion on a beautiful actress...
"She is one sexy, sexy woman."
"Russ, you're gay."
"I'm gay; I'm not BLIND."
I think people are making way too big a deal about everything, and trying to treat sexuality as binary is a dangerous concept. After all, even in one direction, say hetero, there is a wide range of sexuality, everything from "not tonight dear, I have a headache" to nymphomania. (Also a suspect definition, but what the hell.) Besides, a sample size of THIRTY is, statistically, squat.