Talk:Bi-curious

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kroset1. Peer reviewers: Nickroakes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
people of a single, traditional biological gender -> people belonging to one gender I was more specific because "belonging to a gender" is ambiguous. Do you mean biological gender or gender identity?

Someone born with ambiguous genitalia, someone who is transgendered, or who just does not feel like they fit in their biologically male or female body may consider themselves to be of a non-male, non-female third/alternative gender.

Attraction to such people is not usually considered a part of being bi-curious, it it? I was under the impression it almost always entails people who identify as hetero and who identify as either male or female only, due to being biologically male or female, becoming interested in people who identify as that same gender.

that person's notion or their peers' notions -> that person or others notion

I'm pretty sure the former was grammatically correct with the possessive case, although I was unsure whether to use a singular 'notion' on both. I chose to say peers rather than others because it seems more likely that the person who is being labeled bi-curious is seen as defying the boundaries of some people's definition(s) of heterosexuality (or homosexuality) but not their own or certain other people's definition(s) of such.

I felt that just saying "others' notion(s)" would inappropriately include definitions of heterosexuality/homosexuality in which the same-gender interest is not seen as aberrant; there would be nothing to differentiate bi-curiosity in those situations. - mjb 19:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"An inaccurate usage for bi-curious describes a person who has a desire to be sexually intimate with the same sex,but hasn't acted upon it and a person becomes bisexual once one has had a sexual experience with the same sex and maybe even liked it."

As a linguistics student, I have to say that no informal word (like "bi-curious", which seems to be a recent word that I can't find in dictionaries) has an "incorrect usage", since there is no fixed, official definition of them. They tend rather to have many definitions within different social groups.

"Bisexual", however, does have an established meaning and I don't think this is it. What would you call someone who is strongly sexually attracted to both genders but has never had a sexual experience? As far as I can tell, terms for sexual orientation like "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" do not make reference to one's sexual history but merely to the objects of their sexual interests. Livajo 19:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. People who keep editing the first half of this article keep trying to make their own definition canon, and it keeps getting worse. The list of "inaccurate usages" is idiotic and sounds like it was written by someone who desperately wants to retain their heterosexual identity while they are coming to terms with their own less-than-hetero desires. They want to stretch the definition of heterosexual to encompass everything short of actively pursuing homosexual intercourse, and they're putting arbitrary boundaries on bi-curious in the process. I'm holding off on editing it because I'd really just ditch the whole first section and put it back like I had it when I de-stubbed this article, the fruit of which is more or less preserved in the second section. I'm surprised all these anonymous contributors haven't gutted it yet. :| mjb 01:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It is considered hot or hip for females to be bi-curious or bisexual,but not the other way around for males."

Where? By whom? This probably isn't the case in, say, Libya. Livajo 22:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed another POV sentence
Removed the following:
 * "Bi-curious just like the word bisexual applies more to females than males.It is considered hot or hip for females to be bi-curious or bisexual,but not the other way around for males."

-- The Anome 02:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think something from that could be reinserted, with proper context. What about something like:
 * In the United States in particular, media that appeals to younger males depicts female bisexuality or bicuriosity as hot or hip. Some version of these views are actually held by a large number of younger males.  On the other hand, among this demographic, male bisexuality and bicuriosity do not carry the same appeal.  Interestingly, neither does media targeting younger females present a chic view of male bisexuality.
 * Perhaps cite magazines like Maxim.
 * There is definitely some truth to this. I'm just not sure how pertinent it is to the article. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 06:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue would be a good addition to bisexuality or Social attitudes toward homosexuality (which would need to be expanded beyond its title). -- Beland 03:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed because the lack of relevance to the article, it is not even a logical sentence. "People for centuries have had devoted relationships not based on sexual predestination, but rather the actual attraction to a particular person for reasons other than gratification, such as class & status holders,another observation is that curiousity is just to learn about yourself." -- Morbid_Lynx 2008 07 June

"To classify oneself as any predetermined sexuality is false, because it is inherent that we all communicate through sexual behavior for other reasons than procreation, such as self gratification, and also expression of one's self through a momentary passionate act." Who wrote this? It has NO arguments, NO citations, yet is making several assumptions of gendered behaviour. -- Morbid Lynx (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarity
Is it possible to clarify or remove the following statement? It is more akin to an anonymous diary entry than something fit for an encyclopedia.

"These are individuals who either openly or secretly are contemplating it, fantasizing about it, or have actually had an encounter or two and are still battling as to whether or not they liked it or would even do it again."

The elusive "it" is childish, and the entire passage doesn't serve to expound on the meaning or use of "Bi-Curious"

Rewrite and NPOV
So I read the two dueling articles on this page and reconciled them by essentially writing a new article from scratch. Though the ideas I have documented were largely already noted on the page, I hope I have been able to present them in a relatively neutral fashion. I have not replicated the POV tag. Please review the article, and if you find any inaccurate or non-neutral parts, please fix them or slap the appropriate tag on the page if need be. -- Beland 03:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU. I really appreciate your attention to detail, respect for the conflicting points of view, and the many concrete examples. I hope this new version has some longevity. I still feel there should be some mention of the pervasiveness of the term bi-curious in sexually explicit marketing and the role of that marketing in the word's popularity, but I'm not sure where such a mention belongs. It just seems to me that the term is rarely used in the media, except in advertisments for phone sex services featuring photographs of shirtless, muscular, bare-chested male couples (imagery every bit as unrealistic and narrow as is often found heterosexual-oriented marketing). - mjb 05:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I added an example of how the term might be used in advertising.  I'm not sure that such marketing drives the word's popularity; I seem to remember it appears a lot in personal ads, too.  Of course it's difficult to say whether the word's appearance in a particular place is the reason people like using it, or if it's there because it's a well-liked term, etc.  I wouldn't feel comfortable speculating, but it might be illuminating to do a literature search. -- Beland 04:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Awww, group hug ^_^

hedonism
from my point of view its completely possible that hedonists who are straight dont give a rats ass about sexual identity and gender. this article is completely vague, what about oppurtunists who are indifferent but definately find the opposite sex gets them boiling? Like a main course with a less interesting side dish. &mdash; Raddicks 07:03, 8 January 2006 MST
 * People who are "straight hedonists/opportunists" but actually are romantically and/or sexually interested in people other than members of the opposite sex projecting as the opposite sex? They can call themselves what they want, I guess, but I would perhaps want to call them pansexual (not perceiving any significant difference between sexes/genders), bisexual (open/drawn to two sexes/genders; doesn't matter to what degree IMHO), or bi-curious (interested in exploring bisexual behavior while not calling themselves bisexual). The article is not going to pick a label for them for you; the point is that such labels are ultimately a matter of personal identity and often say as much about the person doing the labeling&#8230;&mdash; mjb 18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Asexuality
After some recent changes, the intro became a little incoherent as to whether it was discussing three or four categories (homo, hetero, bi, and asexuality). I'm not sure asexuality is directly related to bi-curiosity, though it's certainly directly related to boundary-drawing problems relating to sexual orientation. I tweaked the lead to reflect a more indirect relationship, and point readers to fuller coverage of such complexities. -- Beland 04:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

How on Earth...
If someone says they'e "bicurious" does that simply mean they're (at least) bisexual, but aren't fully willing to accept it? Maybe I'm grouping people together, but bicurious would not fall under its own orientation. It sounds like 1-2 on the Kinsey Scale kinda thing to me. Which would essentially make it fall under bisexuality right? You can't not know if you like a gender, at least if you're a guy, you and everyone nearby can see what you like... Eh, I just think it's a word used by bisexuals and gays (mostly nmen) who want to identify as heterosexual whilst still actively exploring their sexuality in search of the same sex...Zythe 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, you are wrong. Say you are a male and you are straight. But then you start thinking about what it would be like to sleep or date a guy, but you don't have any attaction to guys, you don't "want" to date guys... but you are just curious to what it would be like. That would be much more bicurious rather than bisexual. Now if you want to sleep with guys, date guys and be kissed and cuddled by a guy ever night, but didn't ever do it because of social stigmas or fears onset by your family, that would be bisexual. Heck, with the latter, you could die at 85 and never even tasted the sort of relationship you want with another male and that would still be bisexual. JayKeaton 07:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now if you want to sleep with guys, date guys and be kissed and cuddled by a guy ever night, but didn't ever do it because of social stigmas or fears onset by your family, that would be bisexual
 * That is what is meant by the word bi-curious. Simply being curious about bisexuality is not the same as being bi-curious. Bi-curious is a convenient and noncommittal way of expressing a bisexual or gay sexuality to which the person speaking has not had time or inclination to become accustomed.
 * Nuttyskin 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You talk as if the term is one of self-denial, and it isn't. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be clearly defined, as the meaning is fluid and exclusive to the user of the term. 24.186.215.182 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But isn't bi - curious just questioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mznaya (talk • contribs) 13:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would a man – in a culture where men's sexual and romantic interest in other men carries such a strong stigma – who experiences zero sexual or romantic attraction to men still have such a strong interest in sex/romance with men to want to adopt a label relating to it? Compared with the hypothesis that the man in question is simply effectively bi but – because of said stigma, and additional stigma and prejudice against specifically bi people – reluctant to accept the label "bi" (or "pan"), that's just a tremendously implausible proposition. I'd say this man experiences attraction by definition.
 * Don't get me wrong, it's hard not to empathise with the situation, 'cause societal prejudice is nasty; but let's get real, that just absolutely reeks of denial. (How deep the denial can go is demonstrated by those who literally have sex with men yet insist that they are 100% straight. Or these guys, of course. There's a whole culture surrounding "no homo", "bro jobs" and "Is it gay if ...?" And of course the whole MSM thing.)
 * I'm sure that misconceptions or silly ideas like "you're not gay until you've had gay sex", "you're not gay if you're not a 'flamer'" or "I might not like the sex even though I've got the hots for him" play important roles, but I think deep down these men know very well what's going on. It's a bit like listening to a band's music all the time and obsessing over everything related to them but denying being a fan. Also, closer to the topic, reminds me of the poor souls who exhibit an intense interest in all things transgender, an obsession with topics such as hormonal treatment and trans-related surgeries, and the like, yet insist that they are totally cisgender. Yeah, right ... (Hint: there's even a dedicated term for it – "egg mode".) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Queer or Questioning
Doesn't the "Q" in "LGBTQ" stand für "Queer" instead for "questioning"?
 * It can be either; in fact, sometimes QQ is used to represent both. Aleta 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No citations
There are no citations whatsoever in this article. Also, it sounds to me like an informal essay more than an encyclopedia article. Aleta 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be deleted along with the all of the rest alike. I have not ever heard of this nonsense before. No encyclopedia most people own would even have this.--Margrave1206 23:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When you say "This article needs to be deleted along with the all of the rest alike.", what in particular about it were you referring to? CyntWorkStuff 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no one is born bisexual or homosexual. You are born normal until something happens to you making you hate the opposite sex. If you take this offensive, which someone always will, this is fact and you are trying to hide fact with lies. --66.218.12.100 21:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Except for the part where your hypothalamus matures during childhood and makes you responsive to either estrogen-byproducts or testosterone byproducts or both. Oh, and the part about hating is wrong.  I mean, it can caouse some people to seek the sex they don't hate as an alternative and fetishize them enough to sexually function if that's not the gender their brain naturally responds too.  Oh and I guess you can claim you're not born bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual because that part of your brain isn't matured or "preset" to respond sexually to hormonal activation later on.  But, it's a matter of timing on that.


 * So, except for the being born hetero, homo, or bi, the hating part, and possibly the lying part, you have a point. Deathbunny 04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you used the word normal, then linked it to the heterosexuality page amazes me. Dont push your homophobic POV's on everyone else thanks. And yes obviously people are going to "take this offensive" because what you just said is a load of offensive BS. Dylan (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Article over-pruning
I see that thanks to User:Frenchboi023, this article, after enjoying a long run of relative stability, has recently fallen victim to the relatively new fad where rulebook-throwing, Jimmy Wales-quoting editors are hell-bent on the unilateral, aggressive removal, from non-BLP articles, of uncited material that's not even controversial. Rather than expressing doubt about specific points made in the article and using the discussion page to call upon past curators to deal with attribution issues (many of which can be dealt with through more careful phrasing, if not explicit citations), they just delete and delete volumes of material, claiming "uncited" or "no original research" in their edit summaries.

Editors like this ignore the great deal of work and reasoning that went into building up the content that was there and why certain topics were being addressed, and then fail to accept responsibility for the aftermath: vandals and frequent, poorly written attempts to expand the article to address the points of view that are no longer represented.

Massive pruning of an article without discussion and without acknowledging its history and the concerns of past editors is irresponsible and destructive. If you are going to insist that people play by the rules, fulfill your obligation as well, and use the Talk page to raise concerns and see that they're dealt with in a manner more productive than instant deletion of large portions of content. —mjb 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

South Park?
Do we really need the South Park reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.57.165.224 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Probably not... the article is a bit light to be getting out a "Bi-curiosity in Popular Culture" section. I've removed it... Rtucker 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Motivation
I removed this;  'It is often used by people who do not want to commit to the label of 'bisexual' because they feel it has negative connotations or they are still unsure.'  from the start of the article, because not only is it uncited, I don't believe there is anything you could cite to back this up, it's merely an opinion on the motivation of people who choose to self-describe this way, a motivation that wouldn't be apparent or expressed by the very nature of them supposedly trying to pretend that this isn't the motivation, as though they would say 'oh yes, I say I'm bi-curious but I'm really actually bi-sexual, but I like to avoid the negative conotations of that, so I won't say I'm bi-sexual... er... except I just did. Bugger.', the second part of the sentence, ' or they are still unsure ' is redundant within the article.Number36 00:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm as bemused by your example as you presumably are by my edit. I'll accept that the second part is redundant but I don't think everything can be cited - I wasn't passing it off as factual information, just something to clarify/give a rounded view. But I'll accept your edit...I don't think my statement added to the article but it didn't devalue it either...I was just trying to bulk up what is a pretty lean item. Yohan euan o4 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Reference
The reference stated is obviously a lesbian source, but being bi-curious is not a female only thing. Could we also find a reference from a male oriented site?C. Pineda 06:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge
This is just a dictionary type definition so far. It also lacks references to establish notability (i.e. that this is a distinct topic with enough material to create a full article). Since this term is basically an overlap between Questioning (sexuality and gender) and bisexual, the article should be merged into those articles as appropriate and this page turned into a disambiguation page, linking to bisexual, questioning and wiktionary Bi-curious. Zodon (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking the same thing myself. I think the dab might be overkill. Anyway I recommend you be bold and just do it. Lionel (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to it being merged with Bisexuality, as questioning/being open to the idea of being sexual with the sex you do not prefer does not mean that the person should be considered bisexual. It seems very logical to merge it into the Questioning (sexuality and gender) article, however.


 * About not having enough sources to back this term up, I wouldn't say that. I'm sure there are enough, starting with whatever valid material can be found on Google Books. Until then, it should likely be merged. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the article to this until it is further fixed up or merged with the Questioning (sexuality and gender) article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tweaked the intro too. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a stand alone article, or should it be merged into a Glossary of LBGT terminology or List of terms relating to homosexuality? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Italics
I have reverted back to the non italicised version. Applying BRD I will state my reasoning for reverting.
 * Italics are only used under specific circumstances. They do not apply here.

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The heterosexuals place in a bisexual vortex
I want to contest this part of the description for Bi-curious because I think it has left out another possibility

"A heterosexual or homosexual who engages in bisexual activity during a three-way/threesome/ménage-à-trois, 3-on-2, or other group sex is known as a vortex bisexual. This is a group to whom the term switch hitter may be accurately applied; other slang terms such as AC/DC, ambisexterous, versatile etc. are reserved to denote a stronger form of bisexuality.[3]"

Saying this is switch hitting makes me think they are saying the heterosexual or homosexual will do there best to be an actual bisexual as they can when in a three-way group etc in order to suit the situation.

my argument is that if a heterosexual or homosexual could be be physically stimulated by some sort of sexual machine and be turned on by the opposite sex in hetero and the same sex for homo thru just their presence but the hetero is impartial to the same sex or a homo is impartial to the opposite sex, if they replaced the machine with a member of the same sex for a hetero and if they replace the machine with a member of the opposite sex for a homo and the homo or hetero has not engaged in attempting to appear bi-sexual in anyway but just assumed their own identity that they are either homo or hetero then how are they hitting a switch.

I am a heterosexual male and don't believe that I am trying to escape any part of my sexuality but I would be very interested to here any ones interpretation or what I have posted particularly if any of it needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.143.127 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the source -- CoB, 1992 -- that is used to support that line comes from or how reliable it is, but, at this site, we generally need to use WP:Reliable sources to contest a reliably sourced line. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The article should just be merged with bisexuality since bi-curious is just another term for being bisexual as are heteroflexible and homoflexaible. The whole vortex nonsense someone wrote about is just another form of bisexuality and not all bisexuals are even into 3 ways or group sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.8.249 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, as you can see, whether or not being bi-curious is the same thing as being bisexual has been debated above on this talk page. People define bisexuality differently, as is addressed in the Bisexuality article. And there are enough gay men and lesbian women out there who have stated that they had sex with a heterosexual and that the heterosexual in question most assuredly was bi-curious instead of bisexual. Some people go through a questioning phase, as made clear by the Questioning (sexuality and gender) article, which is a good candidate (the best, in my opinion) to redirect the Bi-curious article to. Many, perhaps most, gay men and lesbian women have gone through the questioning phase and a lot of them would state that, while bi-curious, they were never bisexual. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The supposed gays and lesbians who claim to have had sex with an actual heterosexual are simply the type of gays/lesbians that lust after heterosexuals as this is a fantasy/pipe dream for many gay men and lesbian women. It's interesting to note how there's biphobia in the idea that these people are supposedly somehow not really bisexual but are bi-curious which is just another term for being bisexual. If a person is having sex with the same gender then they're not heterosexual. When gay men and lesbian women question their sexuality it just means they are in denial or in the closet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.8.249 (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nah, because of my research on these topics, I'll just agree to disagree with you on all of that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Content added today
Moving content added in this dif here to talk.

As I noted in my edit note, this is WP:SYN - it weaves together primary sources to make an argument. We don't do that in Wikipedia. We read secondary sources that themselves synthesize the literature, and summarize that here. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia expresses accepted knowledge, not the synthesis of its editors. The tone is also chatty and non-encyclopedic and would need revising if this is something we could use.


 * Female Bi-Curiosity

This phenomenon has usually been synonymous with females experimenting with their sexuality and has been played upon in many media sources (i.e. Sex and the City, Friends), typically being directed towards the male audience. Multiple studies have been conducted actually exploring female sexuality and their sexual fluidity, specifically their “experimental phase”, or bi-curious tendencies, essential asking the question, “why do girls who aren’t lesbians kiss girls?”

The tendency of identifying as bi-curious was found to happen after at least one sexual encounter for the majority of women in Morgan’s and Thompson’s study. They discovered that exploration is a key factor in identifying as bi-curious, which goes hand in hand with their other study, saying that discovery is a common theme in women who have identified as bi-curious. This is logical, as once you discover you may be attracted to someone other than your identified to like, you of course want to explore it. There are multiple reasons on why girls who aren’t lesbians are kissing girls, such as female closeness and party acceptance. As such, females who “discover” they may like females are likely to “experiment” with their attractions, especially if they have a more beneficial surrounding (party scene) for it or a comfortable environment (female closeness). After such steps, it possible that she may continue to identify as bi-curious, or she may then be more solidified in her sexuality after having experimented and more fully realized their identity.

In Rupp’s and Taylor’s article, they discussed the bi-curious tendencies of women in college. The paper split up the “girls kissing girls” incidents into three different categories. Getting Attention, Experimentation, and Same-Sex Desires. As it sounds, the Getting Attention aspect of female same-sex kissing was done to get male attention and in some cases, in attention in general. A circle of people would surround the girls, “egging” them on. Some of the girls admitted that their homosexual kiss may have been more than just a drunken dare, which leads to the Experimentation stage. In all of the cases reported in the paper, the girls were close friends. This suggests that women are more likely and more comfortable in experimenting and solidifying their sexual identities. This is reinforced by Morgan’s and Thompson’s study, who researched the emerging factors in women realizing their sexual identities. They concluded that female closeness is a very important aspect to women who are exploring their bi-curiosity. It was identified that closeness was a “precursor and a result of a sexual encounter with a female friend” and that the girl typically described as feeling “comfortable” and relaxed with said friend. Because of this result of female closeness, it could be connected to the increased amount of sexual exploration or bi-curiosity between women in college. With the prevalence of sororities and same-sex housing, life long friends are made in college. As such, women are surrounded with their comfortable friends and so in turn feel comfortable in exploring their sexuality.

Diamond’s study followed the sexual fluidity of females throughout their life. Here Diamond discovered one’s peer’s sex ratio could affect their sexuality. It was found that in a more male dominated friend group, women were more likely to identify as heterosexual while the same being true for a female dominated group and identifying as homosexual. This can be used to explain the rise of bi-curiosity in college. In the study, one participant was confused to her sexual identity and tend to identify as what the majority of her friend group sex was. As such, if girls are confused to their sexual identity and find themselves in a college atmosphere, where the female population is higher than the male population, it is possible that she may want to explore her same-sex options, especially with sororities in college.

Sororities can also be traced to furthering the prevalence of bi-curiosity because of how they act upon their romantic or sexual desires. The hook-up culture of college helped the girls “explore non-heterosexual possibilities” in the Rupp and Taylor paper. Because it was very normal for girls to drunkenly kiss each other, some girls used the “Getting Attention” tactic to actually explore her curiosities. Instead of the homosexual act being frowned upon, as one might worry, the same-sex sexual act was actually cheered and wanted by the men at the party. This positive effect of course could lead to the rise of bi-curiosity. In Stokes’ study, it was found that men with better mental health were more likely to transition to homosexual. This is not saying that the same is true for females, but it is possible that the positive party environment described in Rupp’s and Taylor’s article could have a female in a better mental state, thus allowing to pursue her bi-curiosity out of the party scene and in a more personal, experimenting scene.

In conclusion, these studies and articles have shown that bi-curiosity has multiple factors on why and how it may be discovered and identified. Most of the articles presented were done over females, and so it is not safe to assume the same concepts for men. Nor should it be assumed that these notions apply to mature women, as the majority of the studies focused on young adults or adolescences.

- Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jytdog. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a problem with lead intro sentence as it seems to exclude the possibility of some "straight people" actually being closeted/suppressed bi/gay.
I change the intro sentence to add "self-identified" before "heterosexual" because at least some people who are identified as strictly straight (either by others or self-identified) are actually closeted gays or bisexuals/pansexuals or simply in denial about being gay or bi/pan. This article needs to consider the possibility that some "straight" people are actually bisexual/pansexual or even closeted gay/lesbians who simply choose to label themselves bi-curious as they perceive that term as having less stigma then coming out as bi/pan or gay. Given that bisexuals/pansexuals receive stigma/biphobia from both the straight and gay community, some people may perceive bicurious as a more accepted label since they are "just curious" and thus they have an out if they receive criticism from bi-phobic straight or gay people by just claiming they were merely curious. While it's certainly possible that some or many "Straight" bi-curious types are really just 100% straight people who are truly just curious about gay/lesbian sex without any genuine sexual attraction to same sex people, without any objective way to determine another's sexuality we can never truly know if that's the case. Thus we can only take them at their word based on the self-identification. Only in a world where all sexual orientations are fully accepted would self-identification generally always reflect one's true identity (Save for the sexually confused). Notcharliechaplin (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)