Lisa Diamond does truly fascinating research.

She is most famous for her 8 year study of lesbian and bisexual women. Every two years she asked them "Who are you dating and what's your identity label".

A remarkable percentage (25? 40?)indicated that they had switched labels during that time (e.g., from lesbian to bisexual, from bisexual to hetero, from lesbian to hetero to no label, etc.).

She is very much focused on a) the plasticity of female sexual arousal (who women are attracted to can change), b) the fact that women are more "person-centered" in their attractions compared to men (they are attracted to the person, not necessarily the sex), and c) how fluid and changing identities are depending on life events and social context.

As for why she didn't study bisexual men, it is simply because her research focuses on women. Looking at men is a study to do for someone else who isn't already managing a large 8 year longitudinal study!!

In any case, here is her website - it's a great resource for people interested in the psychology of relationships, sexual arousal, and sexual oriention

http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/faculty/diamond/

As a bisexual woman at the age of 26, I also have a big "well duh!"

My experience has been, especially since I didn't realize I was bisexual until after I started dating my current husband (we dated young), is that people often assume a bisexual woman is really just straight-but-adventurous, which is the opposite of what bisexual men generally experience. I think this study WAS biased just to include women, but I am glad it debunked that myth. It's sad that we need research to show what to most of us is obvious, but that doesn't mean it can't help. Although, many more women identify as bisexual than men, so it's possible this study simply fell prey to the sample of convenience error. But I'm a bit more cynical; I think the study designers probably wanted to show that bisexual women were in fact straight and it showed the opposite. There is much more political impetus in declaring more women straight than declaring more men gay.

It is my understanding that several studies looking at the neurology of sexuality have shown different neurological responses in men and women who self-identify as bisexual. I was under the impression that, as compared to women, male sexuality - again, neurologically speaking - has been found to be more polarized between heterosexuality and homosexuality. I have always greeted such studies with some skepticism (I don't like the idea of a scientist telling a whole group of people that they aren't who they say and believe they are), but the notion that the complex socio-biological factors that determine sexual identity might work differently in men and women doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. I suppose that's all the more reason to make such studies comparative, but it doesn't strike me as entirely inappropriate to do single-sex studies, depending on what the researcher is trying to determine.

UCLA- thanks for that perspective. My cynicism has been temporarily quelled :)

ORIGINAL POST: ""Talk about the "no duh" headline of the day: Women's bisexuality an 'identity,' not phase""

Ack! I must say there has been a good deal of snark directed towards good research studies the past few weeks. I'm all for challenging weak studies and the social implications of them, but this is definitely not a case of that.

Also, it doesn't seem like a "no duh" finding to me. It's seems like a very important question - how do bisexual women negotiate their identities - that is worth careful investigation. We simply don't know the answer to that question.

The findings point to the fact that bisexual women can't simply be lumped into one category - there are some whose identities shift and there are others who maintain a stable identity (which is rather remarkable given the stigma toward bisexuality from both heterosexual and some gay/lesbian communities).

MATT: "It is my understanding that several studies looking at the neurology of sexuality have shown different neurological responses in men and women who self-identify as bisexual. I was under the impression that, as compared to women, male sexuality - again, neurologically speaking - has been found to be more polarized between heterosexuality and homosexuality."

The study is similar to what you described, except that they (Chivers et al) measured genital arousal, not brain activation. Compared to women, men were much more category specific (e.g., men who said they were bisexual were typically genitally aroused primarily by female or male videos,but not both, with a few exceptions). Women, on the other hand, showed genital arousal to male, female, and male-female videos, which they use to argue that women may have greater potential for bisexuality.

Does this mean I have to start taking Tila Tequila seriously?

I'm not sure how to answer that, rumpuskat. Your question seems pretty broad. Do you have to start taking Tila's self-identification as a bi woman seriously? Yes. Do you have to take her seriously otherwise? I really don't know enough about her to say, as I eschew reality "dating" shows.

I can't believe we're still even on this subject. Like, people are way past this already, into queer and genderqueer and pansexuality... If only researchers could keep up...

Also, it doesn't seem like a "no duh" finding to me. It's seems like a very important question - how do bisexual women negotiate their identities - that is worth careful investigation.

Ok...I'm being genuine in asking this:
Other than the obvious de-bunking of the whole "bi-sexual women aren't really bi-sexual," why is it an important question? Since I am not in research of any kind, I'm curious about what and how this study can be used. I know that sounds naive, but I also know there are several people that are knowledgeable in that area (like, say...UCLA) that could help a sister out. A pre-emptive Thank You to anyone who takes the time to answer my silly question.

Does this mean I have to start taking Tila Tequila seriously?

No, it doesn't (and that has nothing to do with he sexuality, just her personality)

UCLA, that sounds like an interesting study. I wonder how much of it is because of who we are able to identify with on the screen. It seems to me that while women do enjoy the visual aspects of sexually explicit videos, they are more likely to be identifying with the people in the video. As opposed to straight men, who from the comments I've heard and read tend to enjoy seeing the woman as basically an object, focusing more on the mechanics and views of parts of the body with as little view of the man involved as possible.

It seems to me that more straight women would be aroused at videos involving women than straight men would be aroused at videos focusing on a man. Not that I think this is biology. We are so used to seeing women's bodies marketed as sexy, arousing, etc, that it seems reasonable that women are more likely to react that way than men.

I'm not sure I explained that very well.

I always find it strange how people try to gauge a study from a popular account of it. I am sure the study didn't say "women" but probably gave some percentage with error-bars around it. I won't comment on it until I see the original paper so what follows is my opinion.

I think its fascinating why sexuality is more plastic in one sex compared to other. It does happen in men too, such as Oscar Wilde or Freddie Mercury, just to a possibly lesser extent and is also deserving of study. Also, I suppose this isn't going to be popular but I think teens are a time for people to experiment. People try out new activities, friends, and experiment with their sexuality before settling into something they are comfortable with. Experimentation with bisexuality, for both men and women, should be seen as a norm and not as something problematic.

I agree that a liminal sexuality seems more preferable in women. It goes back to that huge schism in level of acceptance for homosexual females vs. homosexual males.

For some reason a gay man is just so much worse than a lesbian. (Of course that line gets blurred when we have conventionally unattractive lesbians or assertive lesbians who are then "dykes" and not "hot" or accessible anymore...)

Mara Jade, when you say "people" are way past this already, who do you mean precisely? Because the reality is that most of America is not "way past" this discussion. Trust me, the number of people in the world who have even heard of the concept of pansexuality is pretty finite. Bisexuality, however, is a familiar concept, but still maligned and misunderstand by many people.

Don't get me wrong; I think we *should* be way past this discussion. But we're not. And we won't get there unless we can maintain a realistic assessment of the world we live in. In the real world, most of us have to gently, firmly, and continuously educate the people around us.

For those of us who live outside NY, DC, San Francisco, etc., studies like this can actually provide a pretty useful source of education for the people in our lives. I'm so glad that I had the chance to take women's studies classes in college, but let's face it... most of my neighbors haven't. They're much more likely to read about a study in USA Today. For bisexual women living in middle America, positive mainstream media representations can be way more useful than some obscure book of feminist theory that her neighbors will never pick up. (And of course, this goes for any other group that has to fight against stereotypes.)

UCLA is right; we should keep an eye on the snark. If all we do is pat ourselves on the back about how educated and enlightened we are compared to other people, then we won't be able to change a damned thing. (FWIW, I admit that this is something I have to remind myself of daily, because it's easy to let discouragement and righteous indignation lead to snark, but in the end, it's just not productive.)

SHELBYWOO: "Other than the obvious de-bunking of the whole "bi-sexual women aren't really bi-sexual," why is it an important question? Since I am not in research of any kind, I'm curious about what and how this study can be used."

I do think you are raising important questions. After all, many scientists are beholden ultimately to taxpayers, and their research should sometimes-often have some form of important implication for society (though I would argue not all research should - the ultimate goal of science, in my view, is to understand the human condition. Why are we the way we are? Exploring this is a worthy goal, regardless of whether a given study ultimately has practical implications).

So I guess I will answer two questions. One is why I think it's important to study sexuality in general, and then why this specific study might be important.

Why Study Sexuality Generally?
As a psychologist, people will ask me "why are you studying mating/relationships/infidelity/body image" when you could be doing "more important" research like what pathways get disrupted in autistic children, how to prevent depression and suicide, etc.

I think it's critically important to study relationships and sexual attraction because it is such a huge part of people's lives - we spend billions of dollars on dating and finding a mate and we spend countless years and years in romantic relationships with others. Relationships that go sour can have tremendously negative effects on both emotional and physical health.

Practically speaking, this makes it critical to understand how we go about choosing our mates, what attracts us to others, how couples interact.

Generally speaking, if the goal of science is to understand why humans are the way they are, then figuring out who people are attracted to and why is worthy of study because of the significant role it plays in people's lives.

This Study Specifically:

I think this study has a number of important implications.

First, there is a great deal of stigma around bisexuality which comes from both the heterosexual community and the lesbian community. Many people view it as simply experimentation or confusion. This study shows that there are a significant number of bisexual women who have a strong, stable identity, findings which can combat that stigma.

Second, because of the pressure to declare yourself as one or the other (hetero or lesbian), this can create a good deal of stress to some lesbian women who feel that their attractions are changing, and that this conflicts with their lesbian identity which is supposed to be fixed and stable. This study shows that there quite a number of lesbian women who go through this experience. This can be reassuring. (I'm not alone). It's amazing how comforting it can be just to know that others are going through the same experience you are and that you are not on an island by yourself.

It also highlights an area that clinical psychologists working with lesbian women might want to be aware of. Our stereotype is that most identities are fixed (i.e., born gay), but this study shows that many women show significant change. This study suggests that it is important to examine how these shifting attractions might influence lesbian women psychologically. Some women may face challenges negotiating their changing identities, both with their social group and internally.

Third, in order to conduct science, to some degree you need to categorize. This study provides an important challenge to the widely used model that heterosexual/bisexual/lesbian are discrete categories. This has important implications for how we understand development of heterosexual and lesbian identity.

It also has implications for large-scale STD risk studies. Currently "stable lesbians" and "fluid lesbians" are grouped together as simply lesbian. But women who have sex with men are, on average, going to have higher STD risks than women who have sex with women. This study suggests that it is critical for researchers in large scale studies to find room in their surveys for more detailed information about lesbian identity and same vs. opposite sex behavior.

So those are my initial thoughts on why this is an important study.

Below is the article from the 8 year study (the news study reports the newest 10 year study, which isn't available online yet):

Diamond, L. M. (2005). A new view of lesbian subtypes: Stable vs. fluid identity trajectories over an 8-year period. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 29, 119-128.

http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/faculty/diamond/Publications/New%20View%20of%20Lesbian%20Subtypes.pdf

This is absolutely about catering to heterosexual males. You could almost title the study "There's hope yet boys, if she was bi in college, chances are she still is!".

"First, there is a great deal of stigma around bisexuality which comes from both the heterosexual community and the lesbian community. Many people view it as simply experimentation or confusion. This study shows that there are a significant number of bisexual women who have a strong, stable identity, findings which can combat that stigma."

And from the article: "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."

Yes yes yes! As a bisexual woman studies like this do matter to get rid of harmful stereotypes.

"Experimentation with bisexuality, for both men and women, should be seen as a norm and not as something problematic."

Words matter too. Why do we call it "experimenting with bisexuality" when in reality it is experimenting with/participating in/having/etc a SAME-SEX relationship? Terms like "bicurious" and phrases like "experimenting with bisexuality" are often used to belittle bisexuals and bisexuality as not being a real sexuality, thereby perpetuating stereotypes about bisexuals that we're confused/fence-sitters/lying/greedy/not real/etc.

Dan: Can you explain how this is "catering to heterosexual males"? because I'm not seeing it.

DANFITNESS: "This is absolutely about catering to heterosexual males. You could almost title the study "There's hope yet boys, if she was bi in college, chances are she still is!"."

errr... um... what?

While I can see your claim that some guys might welcome a study showing bisexuality exists because of the prevalent 1M2F fantasy, I really don't think that was the purpose of the study.

Though that does raise another good point about the marginalization of bisexuality. It is *for* men, not necessarily respecting the identity itself. This study is about respecting the identity.

I'm happy to know that I exist. Yay.

Meanwhile, some seriously disturbing comments under that article. Yikes.

Freaking finally. Although I identify as a lesbian now, I felt I was bisexual for a few years. The narrative of bisexual women in the media is the slutty girl who will make out with other girls to impress men (their friends, frat guys, Girls Gone Wild camera crews), maybe even date a woman at some point, but always return to the dick in the end. Here's to not returning to the dick!

I wish I could send this to everyone who ever has or ever will ask me what my sexuality is. For a long time, I identified as bi, but so many people treated me as though I were just "confused" or "experimenting," I started identifying as a shrug and a change of subject instead.

Now that I'm monogamously married to a man, they assume that that means I'm straight (or, as an aunt put it, that I "used to be a lesbian"). But I wouldn't have been so confused if I hadn't had so many people telling me how wrong I was to be attracted to women and that I couldn't possibly be sexually interested in both sexes.

Anyway, on the male bisexual note, I had a friend who called himself "bisensual." He wasn't interested in penetration but found men's bodies sexually arousing. I thought it was interesting that a) he thought he had to draw a line between penetrative sex and non-penetrative sex, and b) he was actually comfortable enough with himself to say that he was attracted to men (the one other non-gay man I've known who admitted to sleeping with other men claimed it was always just because he was drunk!). People always seemed to take his sexuality more seriously than mine, too, though I don't think he was quite as open about it as I was.

I'm often surprised that 50 years on, we still haven't learned the lessons of Alfred Kinsey. Sexuality isn't absolute (straight, bi or gay), it's a continuum that can (though it often doesn't) vary widely during a lifetime.

When people ask, I tell them I'm bisexual (a bisexual male, btw), but I wasn't always. Until I was about twenty-one I identified solely as straight. Then I fell in love with a guy. That sometimes happen. We were together about two years and then we broke up, and since then I've had relationships with both men and women.

Some people are straight-up straight, some people are super-gay, some people are somewhere in between. And some people change from one to another.

One question I have is: is one's sexual identity defined only by the sex one has / is interested in having, or does one's relationships also play a role in that definition?

I know a couple of women who enjoy sex with women (usually in the context of a threesome, but not necessarily) but have never had a woman as a girlfriend / partner. When it comes to their relationships - who they go on dates with, call their partners, move in with - are always men.

They consider themselves bisexual, and I don't consider it my place to question that or argue with them, since it is after all their identity. However, I admit to wondering why they never actually date or form romantic relationships with other women?

One question I have is: is one's sexual identity defined only by the sex one has / is interested in having, or does one's relationships also play a role in that definition?

Wouldn't it be defined by whom you're sexually attracted to--a concept that would encompass both of those ideas? I mean, we have a sexual orientation regardless of whether we are, or ever will be, sexually active in a relationship. So defining it in terms of activities or relationships seems problematic.

This also gets to the idea that people continue to be bisexual in their self-identification regardless of whether they're in a monogamous relationship (which would mean they've chosen a partner of one sex or the other, usually). I might be bisexual in that I'm sexually attracted to both women and men, but then choose to marry or be in a long-term relationship with a man. That doesn't mean my attraction to women sexually disappears . . . it just means I've chosen the person I want to be with.

Does that make sense?

Thanks, UCLA, I knew you’d come through. All of those points make sense to me. Not that I didn’t think it was important, I just wondered about it’s practical implications (does that make sense?).

annajcook: I think you make perfect sense. You said exactly what I was thinking on the subject.

Xana, UCLAbodyimage,
Damn. My bad. My original thought was that just in leaving out men, and focusing in on women, it catered to a culture that tries its very best to keep that same blindness in one eye. But on consideration (especially of the quotes Xana picked out), I really can't say that about the content of the study itself.

"Thanks, UCLA, I knew you’d come through. All of those points make sense to me. Not that I didn’t think it was important, I just wondered about it’s practical implications (does that make sense?)."

Glad to be of service. I think that question makes a lot of sense. Alot of the time basic scientists get so wrapped up in their theories that they aren't concerned about the practical implications of their studies, so its good to be reminded of that.

"One question I have is: is one's sexual identity defined only by the sex one has / is interested in having, or does one's relationships also play a role in that definition?"

Also, there are different "types" or "degrees" of bisexuality; not every bisexual likes men and women to the same level. Some slightly prefer one gender over the other for emotional connection, sexual desire, or both.

As for myself, I'm bi but in a "straight" relationship. I am married and committed to this person for life, but I still consider myself bisexual, although most people (who don't know me well or certain family members) assume I'm straight and I don't usually correct them. If anyone were to straight-up ask me about my sexuality I'd be honest though. In contrast, I have a friend who identified as bisexual and had many long-term relationships with both women and men; however once she got married (to a man), now she identifies straight. I know she is still attracted to women, but she feels since she's in a "straight" relationship for life, she should identify as straight. So to some extent it depends on the person and how they define their own sexuality.

I once read a comment online to the effect of, "Dude, you haven't lived until you've had a bi girlfriend. My gf is bi, and she invited her friend over, and it was awesome." Dude.

To which I wish I could have meaningfully responded, "Bi doesn't equal promiscuous. It doesn't equal threesomes. It equals finding some men, and some women attractive."

I look at other women almost as much as other men, but that doesn't mean I want to drag them all into my lover's bed any more than anyone else thinks of dragging every person they find attractive on the street into their relationships.

And while plenty do think of it, no one assumes they by nature will if granted the opportunity. =

Thanks Oskar, I was hoping some one would mention The Kinsey Scale
This is the type of thoughtful commenting with just the right amount of attitude that makes me want to come back.
I am also left sorta scratching my head in a slightly bemused fashion when science gets around to quantifying the things that some of us haven't really had to question. I'm proudly, loudly and clearly in my sense of self bi. The attractions I feel don't have so much to do with gender as the actual person I'm attracted to (so much loveliness out there!). I understand the political desirability of the labels we wear, but wish we weren't so desperate to cling to them, we're all human beings and I prefer to leave it at that. I also know the frustration of being deeply infatuated with a lesbian who loved me, thought I was hot, but "couldn't sleep with me, because, well, Steve, I'm a lesbian." Argh. Labels and politics, such ugly necessitys.

Someone mentioned above that there are is a wide range of various preferences under the bi heading. From what I have seen and read about, I would say that is an accurate statement. A point missed by a number of people.

I have encountered a lot of stereotyping of bisexuality from both the straight and gay community for either sex. Many people seem to believe bi means slut who will screw anything that moves.

My wife is bi (I am so called straight, if that matters) and I have not seen the stereotypical behaviors others have claimed. Nor I have I engaged in any 3-way with her and her girlfriends, not that she has been seeing any at this time.

I will leave it to her to post on this topic further, but I wanted to point out that there are many people who would benefit from reading this study. Although I can understand why it might seem silly at first glance. I have been quite surprised at the number of people in the local LGBT community who express many of these negative stereo types. There are even some bisexuals who identify themselves as gay to avoid the stigma of being labeled a bisexual.

- Miles Webster

It is very frustrating to have to defend your bisexuality over and over. People (usually) don't ask others to somehow 'prove' their straight identity- even if you don't date and/or are abstinent, it is ok to identify as straight. I find this generally to be true with identifying as gay also- when one comes out, there is no need for that person to have a partner on hand or even to have had sexual experiences with someone of the same sex or gender. Yet again and again, people (women in particular) who are bisexual are expected to 'prove' it: by having a certain number of relationships or sexual experiences that other people find appropriate.

I think that's bullshit.

How you identify is your own business. It has to do with who you are attracted to and want to have relationships and/or sexual experiences with. I think we often confuse the act of sex with a sexual identity. You can have sex with someone of the same sex or gender and not identify as bisexual, gay, queer, etc. That may just be some sex you have.

As for why more bisexual women don't have girlfriends, it is really difficult to find girlfriends when you are bisexual- many lesbians will not date bisexual women, as a rule. And maybe y'all can pick and choose who exactly you want to date and poof! it happens, for me it is much more about who crosses my path, catches my eye, and tugs on my heart- I can't predict ahead of time if that person will be male or female.

RebeccaC:I was totally joking.

However, as an avid consumer of trash, I think I can safely say that Tila Tequila is not bringing the sort attention to gender identity that you and I would like to encourage. For example, my bisexual friends have stopped identifying themselves as such on myspace because it seems to stimulate floods of creepy messages from frat boys who assume that bisexual= total slut/ wants a threesome.

Cola:

"Bi doesn't equal promiscuous. It doesn't equal threesomes. It equals finding some men, and some women attractive."

I just thought I'd throw this out there. I know lots of self-identified lesbians that sleep with men from time to time. They still identify as dykes, myself included. I don't think it's an act so much as a lifestyle, a form of self-identification. Perhaps we all are somewhere in the middle, but bc we live in a binary world we have to choose gay/straight, and if we're really *radical* (sarcasm here) bi. But maybe it's not who you're fucking at all. Everyone is so quick to name. But what about HOW you live your life? Just a thought

I didn't have time to comment on this thread when it was more active, but I've been thinking about this issue. I've been reluctant to identify with either bisexual or lesbian since college, when I came to terms with the fact that I wasn't straight.

Without taking away from the legitimacy of any sexual orientation, I think it's also clear that identifying with one group is also about feeling like part of a group or community.

People spread out over the middle of the continuum have a challenge that's different (not harder or worse, just different) than people on either end. There's no sense of group identity.