# Do bisexuals have a preference?



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

There seems to be a massive misconception regarding bisexuality. Soicety puts you at straight, gay or bisexual and if your bisexual you must be attracted "equally" to both sexes. All the bisexuals I've met have had a preference at the very least in terms of sexual attraction and what arouses them if not also in romantic attraction. It seems to me that most have a preference and the ones who are dead on 50/50 are a rare, not non-existent, just rarer.

Thoughts?


----------



## kittychris07 (Jun 15, 2010)

You are probably right about this. But I don't know many bisexuals to make observation. But then if the difference were not close to 50/50 for each bisexual, would they trully be bisexual? Would the term bisexual be used based the fact that you have attraction to both types, or that you act on the attraction? 

One thing that I had heard is that it is females who are more likely to be bisexuals. Men are not likely to be bisexuals--they are either straight or they are gay. I wonder if there is any truth to this.


----------



## freyaliesel (Mar 3, 2011)

Bisexuality is a spectrum, with heterosexuality and homosexuality as the end points.

At least, that's my experience with it.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

I would agree that bisexuality meaning a 50/50 split attraction is a very common misconception. In reality I think most bisexuals definitely prefer one sex over another, even if only very slightly. That's why the Kinsey scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and things like it, exist.

If someone didn't care about gender at all and was attracted to men and women equally, they'd possibly technically be pansexual rather than bisexual.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

kittychris07 said:


> You are probably right about this. But I don't know many bisexuals to make observation. But then if the difference were not close to 50/50 for each bisexual, would they trully be bisexual? Would the term bisexual be used based the fact that you have attraction to both types, or that you act on the attraction?
> 
> One thing that I had heard is that it is females who are more likely to be bisexuals. Men are not likely to be bisexuals--they are either straight or they are gay. I wonder if there is any truth to this.


That is disappointing. I think a bisexual male would be delightful, because he would be more likely to accept my androgyny.



vivacissimamente said:


> I would agree that bisexuality meaning a 50/50 split attraction is a very common misconception. In reality I think most bisexuals definitely prefer one sex over another, even if only very slightly. That's why the Kinsey scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and things like it, exist.
> 
> If someone didn't care about gender at all and was attracted to men and women equally, they'd possibly technically be pansexual rather than bisexual.


I wish I could be pansexual. It seems nearly ideal, to focus only on the spirit while being repelled by neither masculinity nor femininity. Unfortunately, excessive masculinity repels me, and excessive femininity is entirely unfulfilling, which eliminates all but the most gender neutral males (These tend to seem mostly feminine because they must exist in constant passive defiance of the usual strict gender-based expectations that are commonly placed on males,) and it also eliminates all females, who tend to become unpleasantly harsh/threatening as they approach sufficient non-feminine levels. 

I'm not sure how to define my sexuality. I want someone who is mostly androgynous. He will identify as male, with a mind that is nearly gender-neutral, only very slightly more masculine than feminine, but because of cultural expectations, even being slightly more masculine will not be enough to prevent him from seeming completely feminine when compared with other males.

Eh, it's confusing. bisexual would be so much more convenient than being a wtf-am-I-??-sexual, but I feel like it's somehow related to whatever I am.


----------



## Konan (Apr 20, 2011)

As far as I know; its mainly "50/50" but there are a few Bisexuals that reported to having a "preference" but not many. I think it depends on the person and their own personal "preferences" and so I feel it is possible for Bisexuals to have "preferences" but not very common to do so.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

kittychris07 said:


> You are probably right about this. But I don't know many bisexuals to make observation. But then if the difference were not close to 50/50 for each bisexual, would they trully be bisexual? Would the term bisexual be used based the fact that you have attraction to both types, or that you act on the attraction?
> 
> One thing that I had heard is that it is females who are more likely to be bisexuals. Men are not likely to be bisexuals--they are either straight or they are gay. I wonder if there is any truth to this.


My ex-girlfriend was bi who preferred girls to guys yet didn't deny her attraction to guys even though it was weaker. When i asked her why don't you identify as lesbian she said "Because I'm not. Because I don't need to be attracted equally to both sexes in order to be bi. And well as you can guess that pretty much spelled the end for us.... try as I might to keep her, not much I could about that, despite how much I loved her.

As for the study about men being gay or straight and women having a more bisexual arousal pattern that was done by J Michael Bailey who is one of the leading researchers on sexual orientation but nevertheless he is not wtihout controversy. Using devices he attached to men's genitals he measured the circumference size increase of men who identified as bi when viewing straight, gay and lesbian porn. His results discovered that 75% were only aroused by men and 25% by women with little to none by both. These are rough figures from memory don't quote me. The study or at least the article was labelled as gay, straight or lying? and hence was called biphobic as you can imagine why. I was heartbroken after my girl left me for that reason so I did a bit of research I guess to better understand why, but in such an unexplored area which scientists still only vaguely understand, it led to more questions than answers. As for the females, whether they were gay, straight or bi most if not all of them seemed to show bisexual arousal patterns. But this doesn't necessarily mean that no man is bi or that all women are bi? The brains of men and women are different irrespective of orientation. Men respond to visual cues so much more than women, it's why I guess looks are so important to us purely for the purposes of arousal. But women seem to repsond to emotional cues more. So even if the individual is lesbian for example or straight and they saw members of the sex they're not attracted to engage, they may still become aroused, not because they're really bi but because they respond to emotional cues more and hence they may theoretically be aroused by "the process" and not the body type because sex is an "intimate process" irrespective of the orientation or genders of people involved. One of my other ex's had hooked up with a girl but she didn't find it arousing. I think J Michael Bailey would do well to continue his research but state the limitations of them. This could avoid future controversy.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

snail said:


> That is disappointing. I think a bisexual male would be delightful, because he would be more likely to accept my androgyny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't worry about it your fine... the kinsey scale has been described by scientists as to crude to capture all the variants of sexuality that exist. Some people are attracted to objects (fetishtists) and gender doesn't even arouse them in the least bit. Freud believed humans were born neither sexual but in fact perversely polymorphous. That is their libido doesn't discriminate or attach itself to a particular sex, it can find any person or even any object to be arousing if developed in the right environment. Not sure that's how it works considering his theories have been outdated but the possibility of variant forms of sexuality existing outside of the gay straight bi paradigm nevertheless seems plausible if not outright evident.


----------



## Stillwater (Dec 14, 2009)

Some bisexual men have told me that their preference swings back and forth with the bulk of the focus being on an individual themselves rather than their gender. They fall for whomever and gender itself fades away for that time, if that makes sense. You in chance meet someone, become infatuated with certain characteristics of that person and the courtship begins, rather than... hey I prefer guys right now, I'm going to go out and only search for men. I guess it's somewhat opportunistic and one of the advantages to being bi, haha.

Not sure if I'm explaining this properly and of course it was only the viewpoint of handful of bi men I've known which of course doesn't speak for all.


----------



## Khar (May 21, 2011)

I will have to disagree with @_Konan_ . I know of no bisexual person who is of equal interest in both, and that includes myself. I think I am the first person on this thread to identify as bisexual. To be honest, I also question my own identifying as bisexual at times, since I do know I am strongly attracted to one gender and much more weakly attracted to the other. I have absolutely no problem being called gay, whether my attraction to people of my own gender is weak or strong. 

I remember @_thor odinson_ 's article in a limited fashion. Mostly, I remember it being criticized rather heavily. While to some extent the criticisms made sense, I think the criticisms are somewhat overboard. Yes, I do feel that the sample size and selection process lead to some skewing, but I also feel that often bisexuality is used as a place term for "yes, I am homosexual, but bisexual sounds better" or as a half-way to come out of the closet. I would not be surprised if it is a strong trend in the homosexuality community, from personal experience. The study could easily reflect this in men. Straight out denying any validity from a man who is well known and respected for his research in the past is being as closed minded as some who are homophobic. It should be mentioned that similar tests could not be done to the same extent in women, and that the test was focused on sexual arousal rather than the full overview of attraction -- he has never stated anything other than that. Having read his work, I think much of it makes logical sense and the research is sound (he frequently studies homosexuality, and his work does suggest already that homosexuality is hereditary/resulting of the prenatal environment, levels of attraction is similar for the sexes regardless of persuasion, and that gaydar does, surprisingly, have a basis in reality).

Unfortunately, Bailey is in a "hot topic" area of research where he gets attacked by one side or the other depending on where the evidence takes him. I think far too often it is the "special interests" persons who chose to represent those of us who fall in their area of "interest" who take the nasty comments way too far. When his work does take him in the direction of a stereotype, and he gets blasted for it, my first response is not "he is absolutely wrong," but "is this true" and wondering if this shows that these stereotypes have a basis in reality, like they often do. This is often reflected once it moves past the media stage -- those who criticize him often end up dropping the case once it's "off the front page" or fail to make a strong case against him, often ending up being the losing party of an exchange (but winning, because the public eye is on their opinion). Even his academic critics come to his defense when these cases erupt. 

Unfortunately, due to a lack of tolerance from the homophobic and homosexual communities, the latter of which I am part of, we are absolutely screwed in getting any data which will not be called biased, simply because the viewpoints are out there and no one is shifting significantly in their viewpoint. What point is there to do science when your scientific credence is destroyed the moment it is published, no matter how sound and comprehensive the research is?

I had to delete this paragraph on Deirdre McCloskey, Andrea James and Lynn Conway since I felt it was... overstated. To be short, let's just say that it sickens me who represents me at times, and who the media chooses to focus on. For people who support or who are part of a community faced with irrational hatred, it shocks me how often I am represented by "homophobics" in sheep's clothing.

I'll admit to still being conflicted and emotional on that topic, so my judgement is likely clouded. However, I felt that the topic needed to be explored -- no doubt someone will look up the name and want to know more.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Khar said:


> I will have to disagree with @_Konan_ . I know of no bisexual person who is of equal interest in both, and that includes myself. I think I am the first person on this thread to identify as bisexual. To be honest, I also question my own identifying as bisexual at times, since I do know I am strongly attracted to one gender and much more weakly attracted to the other. I have absolutely no problem being called gay, whether my attraction to people of my own gender is weak or strong.
> 
> I remember @_thor odinson_ 's article in a limited fashion. Mostly, I remember it being criticized rather heavily. While to some extent the criticisms made sense, I think the criticisms are somewhat overboard. Yes, I do feel that the sample size and selection process lead to some skewing, but I also feel that often bisexuality is used as a place term for "yes, I am homosexual, but bisexual sounds better" or as a half-way to come out of the closet. I would not be surprised if it is a strong trend in the homosexuality community, from personal experience. The study could easily reflect this in men. Straight out denying any validity from a man who is well known and respected for his research in the past is being as closed minded as some who are homophobic. It should be mentioned that similar tests could not be done to the same extent in women, and that the test was focused on sexual arousal rather than the full overview of attraction -- he has never stated anything other than that. Having read his work, I think much of it makes logical sense and the research is sound (he frequently studies homosexuality, and his work does suggest already that homosexuality is hereditary/resulting of the prenatal environment, levels of attraction is similar for the sexes regardless of persuasion, and that gaydar does, surprisingly, have a basis in reality).
> 
> ...


Awesome... love talking to you NT's being an N myself although NF lol. You guys have this ability to look at things objectively whether or not it suits you and thus care about being technically correct not politically correct. J Michael Bailey has now admitted an interest to using fMRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to give him a bigger picture of sexual arousal beyond the devices he uses to measure penile circumference in response to erotic material. I don't think pop culture should make scientific statements that are black and white statements when even scientists don't know the answer 
i.e. some of these statements include:

1. All bisexuals must be attracted equally to both sexes in order to be bisexual
2. Deep down everybodys has a little bit of bisexual attraction
3. Nobody is bisexual, bisexuals don't exist they are simply 
a) gay people who haven't come out fully
b) really heterosexual's who are just experimenting
4. All gay men are femine and all lesbians are masculine, all straight men are masculine and all straight women are feminine
5. Homophobic men are really gay themselves
6.Is something wrong with asexuals (a comment I heard on the view by one of their annoying fucking panel members who's got no fuckin clue)

I think 

1. False. They can have a preference but not all have a preference some maybe 50/50
2. False. Awfully presumptuous
3. Ignorance...nuff said and a little insulting to bi's
a) true in some cases but not in all, the two are not mutually exclusive
b) true in some cases but not in all, the two are not mutually exclusive
4. sigh... fuck stereotypes already, if you look at Russel Brandt and Neil Patrick Harris based on stereotypes you'd expect Russel to be gay and Neil to be straight yet it's the reverse and neither are even bi
5. True for some not for all, since when does hatred need to stem from personal insecurity. Example: people tease purely at the sight of difference well because sadly that's just human nature.
6. The View is just a crap show

But yeah I wish I knew about the preference aspect before I dated my ex, at the very least her preferences


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

I won't speak for all bisexuals, but I'm a male bisexual with a slight female preference. I find myself falling for them more easily, mostly because I more often than not get along romantically (the social part of the relationship) better with them than with most gay men. I don't know any other bisexual men who I'd be interested in, and they're obviously not that common.

Also, just to provide a little anecdotal evidence for some of the questions raised in this thread, there are a lot of homosexual men who use bisexuality to "soften the blow" on coming out, or when they're still figuring things out. But there are also those who simply can't shake the attraction to both sexes, like myself, which is why we're called bisexual. Furthermore, I've noticed that generally speaking (with plenty of exceptions on both sides, of course), bisexual men are less likely to "fully" embrace LGBT culture, and "blend in" with heterosexuals (I do this, especially since I'm dating a girl right now).

I'm happy to answer any further questions.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

kittychris07 said:


> Would the term bisexual be used based the fact that you have attraction to both types, or that you act on the attraction?
> QUOTE]
> 
> I would say based on attraction and not the decision to act on it. It's what makes it an orientation and not simply a behaviour which is no wonder some people say it's a choice. A guy who has sex in prison because there is a lack of females is no more gay then a closted man married to a woman is heterosexual. Just because you can reach orgasms or ejaculate it means nothing, if your genitals are massaged in that way your body will respond as it was designed to irrespective of your orientation and irrespective of the other person's gender. The question is did it psychologically arouse you and not just physically. Hate to bring up a graphic scene but Steve Stiffler in American Pie 3 The wedding get jacked off by the dog. Had that continued well..... please don't make me spell it out lol Some rape victims not all but some have orgasmed during rape and sleazy lawyer types have said because they orgasmed it wasn't truly rape because they "enjoyed it" and the offender should be let go. And some of these poor women torture themselves wondering gee... did I really like it because I orgasmed? They feel sick at the idea, like their bodies have betrayed them but really the body doesn't differentiate physical stimulation the way the brain does for psychological stimulation. It just responds to genital manipulation. It's why gay guys can still have kids with women. Don't mean they enjoy the sex or find the woman sexually attractive.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Valdyr said:


> I won't speak for all bisexuals, but I'm a male bisexual with a slight female preference. I find myself falling for them more easily, mostly because I more often than not get along romantically (the social part of the relationship) better with them than with most gay men. I don't know any other bisexual men who I'd be interested in, and they're obviously not that common.
> 
> Also, just to provide a little anecdotal evidence for some of the questions raised in this thread, there are a lot of homosexual men who use bisexuality to "soften the blow" on coming out, or when they're still figuring things out. But there are also those who simply can't shake the attraction to both sexes, like myself, which is why we're called bisexual. Furthermore, I've noticed that generally speaking (with plenty of exceptions on both sides, of course), bisexual men are less likely to "fully" embrace LGBT culture, and "blend in" with heterosexuals (I do this, especially since I'm dating a girl right now).
> 
> I'm happy to answer any further questions.


Is the "slight preference" you speak of just romantic attraction, or sexual attraction too?


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> Is the "slight preference" you speak of just romantic attraction, or sexual attraction too?


Well I have a two part answer to this. The first is a clarification of what I mean by preference; when I say I prefer one, it means how _frequently_ I find myself attracted, not how attracted I am. If that makes sense. The second part is that yes, the preference is mainly romantic. 

So combined, that means that I find myself romantically attracted to females more often than to gay/bisexual males.


----------



## Hiccups24-7 (Oct 17, 2009)

There are things that attract me to both sexes and there are things that I really don't like about both. Yet I have and can be in relationships with either, so far not lasting relationships. My lack of 100% commitment/interest makes me want to say F it I'm asexual and buy a cat and be done with it.
To elaborate for clarity, I feel I need to be interested in showing my love and connection with a partner on every possible level yet with either I don't feel completely fulfilled.. at least not yet. With a guy I don't feel the emotional connection I need and with a woman it's estrogen overload and ...well..... oral is of zero interest. With guys I don't feel that dizzy swoony feeling from pheromones and with girls it can become unstructured, overly emo and chaotic. I don't feel like I have a preference, which I guess is partially why I'm currently disinterested and single.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

The bisexual people I know are split pretty even between the ones that have a preference and those that don't. I think it would be rather rude to assume whether or not someone has a preference as it really isn't any of my business.

I have a preference myself, but it's not really straightforward because I don't usually divide people up into women and men. I have a romantic preference for feminine people, but I have a sexual preference for men (as in gender identity; not exclusive to cis-men) or people of non-binary gender. I usually end up in relationships with women and sexually attracted to a lot of gay cis-men, which, as a pre-transition CAFAB non-binary person, is incredibly frustrating because all people see is a really confused lesbian trying to 'convert' the gay men which is just so fucked. But such is my life; too queer to be functional.

Queer sexuality is fun, guys. I don't know if you even have any idea... :mellow:


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

This thread is really interesting to me. My mother once told me that she thought everyone was at least a little bisexual, so when I told her I had never been interested in women, I think she thought I was lying. 

This doesn't mean that I have never tried sexual things with a woman I considered worthy. I have. That is one reason I know that I am not bisexual. I wanted to be. :-/ It's not really a choice for me. My friend in college was still too feminine, I guess. It would have worked out nicely, because we got along perfectly and she had a crush on me. She just didn't have that certain vibe that attracts me, which is mostly a gay male vibe.

I'm not necessarily a normal straight girl, because straight men don't usually turn me on either. There are exceptions, of course. The reason I call myself straight is that I have only been romantically attracted to men so far. I have never been romantically attracted to a female. The closest was probably the lesbian Karaoke singer (probably ENFP) who used to be intentionally seductive when she performed, would sing inches away from my face while singing sexy songs, giving sexy looks, and when she did it, I felt the desire to hug her non-sexually for being so bold and awesome, because I wished I were a powerful temptress like that, and that I could be so fearless. She left town before I could find out if I was capable of being aroused by her, but her personality certainly charmed me. I think I mostly just wanted to be her, though. 

...which brings me to another topic.
If I were tested for arousal while looking at porn, I might show a reaction while viewing porn depicting women, not because I want to fuck women, but because when I view porn, I imagine myself as the person in the porn. Whether it is porn with males or females, I'm not looking at it thinking "I want to do naughty things to this person" or "s/he has a nice body." I'm identifying with the person, imagining being in that situation, knowing someone is attracted to me, about to do naughty things to me. 

Gay porn works best for me, because imagining I am a gay male is more exciting to me than being female. Even when I fantasize about the guy I currently want, I sometimes imagine being a male, enjoying him the way a man would enjoy him.










Lesbian porn does nothing for me because imagining a woman doing sexual things to me isn't exciting. The exception is lesbian softcore in which the females are both androgynous and appear to be deeply in love. If they have the soft gay male vibe, despite being female, then it works.








This one actually works. Most do not.



Bondage porn in which the submissive partner is shown in a position of helplessness turns me on regardless of the person's gender or appearance, because I am imagining being in that position, with the other person being whomever I want to have do that to me. 








This photo of Houdini excites me for some reason. 

Images that show just a sexualized female body without any kind of specific scenario, such as this:








will likely turn me on as long as the woman doesn't look prideful or dominant, not because I am sexually attracted to the woman in the picture, but because I imagine a man who would be attracted to her, and imagine how he would feel about me if I were that woman. In this particular image, I imagine being wanted by the kind of man who appreciates vulnerability, who would feel inclined to exploit mine in enjoyable ways. The machines would show me getting aroused, but they would completely misinterpret what that arousal meant.

Images showing only a sexualized male body without any kind of specific scenario might turn me on depending on whether I can identify with the man, or consider him the kind of man I would want to be wanted by. Either works. I can imagine being him, or I can imagine him being someone who wants me. The problem is that most pornographic images depicting men show a kind of man who would neither attract me nor be attracted to me. They seem to be all about arrogance and toughness, both of which repel me. Therefore, while viewing images of men, unless they were very carefully selected, the machines might register that I was not attracted to males.








This doesn't turn me on.










This could possibly turn me on, but if it did, it might partly be because when I try identifying with him, I start imagining someone getting ready to either cuddle or assfuck me. 

(Please note that in all of these images, I have attempted to avoid any explicit nudity, in order to avoid being offensive, but if the mods consider anything inappropriate, I wouldn't be upset about the removal of anything undesirable.)



Because of how difficult it would be to determine what was going on in a person's head while the arousal was taking place, I doubt having machines test it is really all that accurate.


----------



## slime (May 21, 2011)

yeah, based on my few friends that consider themselves bisexual it seems pretty common. i know bisexual guys that prefer girls but are open to guys as well, and vice versa. and then i have some bisexual friends that have no preference and are accepting of relationships without discriminating upon gender, which is pretty logical once you think about it, i mean if you're not particularly attracted to one gender more than the other.


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

I am bisexual and I do have to say that I have more of a romantic and sexual attraction toward men. It's mostly because of my need to feel safe. I am definitely not 50/50 on the issue, but I'm open to a relationship with either.


----------

