Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 2

Bisexual chic in South East Asia (uncited)
"In most parts of South East Asia, bisexuality became a trend specially with adolescents and teenagers. They encounter such change in sexual preference since they are very much curious about their sexual orientation and their exposure to wide range of media."

This is an interesting claim both on a semantic and syntactic level. I assume we're not going to get a citation for it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.13.74.249 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 August 2006

I agree - can we have a citation for this ?? Lanzarotemaps (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Northwestern/CAMH Scientific Study
To return to a subject mentioned on an older (and now-archived) discussion, I find it hard to understand why this comprehensive article does not even mention last year's joint study from Northwestern & The Center for Addiction and Mental Health into bisexual arousal patterns. It is high-profile and generated a lot of headlines. More importantly, it is the most physiological-based study (direct measure of genital arousal) to date and, as such, should be referenced in an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. I appreciate that, since the study casts doubt on the existence of male bisexuality (feeding into the old saw about gay, straight or lying) and that the reseachers (or their sponsors) may themselves be potentially subject to accusations of bias, that it is a difficult topic. But this is an encyclopedic discussion, and not an advocacy page. Surely, then, the latest research (with caveats as needed) should be accorded an important place in the main body. Is there consensus as to how to incorporate the information? Eusebeus 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that discussed at Talk:Bisexuality/Archive_1?


 * Well, the study claimed to cast doubt. As for inclusion into this article, a measure of genital arousal is not the same as a measure of sexual orientation. And we might just as well place it in the heterosexuality article as a claim of doubting heterosexuality, since 1/3 of these men showed no arousal (and also it suggests that those who did showed attraction towards both genders, thus if anything, confirming the existence of bisexuality - the conclusion seems to be based on the flawed assumption that bisexuality implies 50/50 attraction).


 * It is perhaps notable that people claimed that this meant bisexuality doesn't exist. In fact, this is already included in the biphobia article. So the question is, should that text be transferred here? Mdwh 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even accepting all that (and see below), I am not clear why it is not included in the article. The study received media attention because of the explicit references it madeto patterns of (male) bisexuality.  As a result, the study should be mentioned in a discussion of the subject.  The concerns you have raised can cerainly be addressed, but how is that grounds for not making reference to it in an encyclopedic treatment of the article.
 * Further, your point and we might just as well place it in the heterosexuality article as a claim of doubting heterosexuality is unclear. The NYT article notes: But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals.  Does that mean the article should state that bisexuality doesn't exist?  Of course not.  But the isues raised by the study should at least be mentioned as germane to the topic.  It could indeed be ref'ed elsewhere as well. Eusebeus 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "I am not clear why it is not included in the article." It's already in biphobia, so this issue isn't whether or not we should cover it, but whether it should (or shouldn't) be transferred to this article - does anyone have any opinions?


 * "Further, your point "and we might just as well place it in the heterosexuality article as a claim of doubting heterosexuality" is unclear." I mean that 1/3 of the men showed no arousal, despite many of them claiming to be heterosexual. Mdwh 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, those are fair points, although I assume you would agree it is a stretch to suggest that editors would accept a denial that heterosexuality exists. Since this study was, in the media and (some of the) scientific community, at least, principally associated with bisexuality (and not biphobia), this article would presumably be a good place to cover the subject. Agreed? Eusebeus 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think many editors here would accept a denial that bisexuality exists, either. I'm not too bothered which article it goes in, though I think (along with several editors at Talk:Bisexuality/Archive_1) it shouldn't be included on the basis of "research" as such - but on the basis it's only notable due to the criticism and attention it received. Possibly a "criticism of bisexuality" section(?). Though I feel this article should be a place to discuss bisexuality itself, not dubious studies trying to discredit it. Mdwh 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that it's also covered at J. Michael Bailey. Mdwh 14:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the abstract of Bailey's research and to me it did not seem to claim that bisexuality is extremely rare. Rather it seems to suggest that bisexuality works in a different way than hetero- & homosexuality. The abstract does not claim for example that you can test sexuality just by measuring test subjects genital arousal. Neither does it seem to claim that the bisexual test subjects weren't actually bisexual but that their sexuality is less between the legs and more between the ears. Of course I have not read the complete paper, so someone who has might shed some more light on what the paper claims.89.166.21.54 01:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the part discussing this study. Clearly it was written by somebody who was not educated in science or even up to date with how scientific criticism works. So I tried to remove the parts that were off-topic or untrue, and take away the laymen sound of it as well. Much more informative that way. Possibly someone can come up with legitimate criticism of their article, although I haven't seen any myself (and the claim that they made a methodological error by claiming test subjects could not rated bisexual without equal attraction to both genders borders on the libelous). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.57.183 (talk • contribs)

I feel a relevant point here is that many bisexuals tend to be attracted to a gender -- and not necessarily a physical sex. For example, they may be attracted to feminine women and feminine men, but have little to no interest in masculine men or women. The CAMH Study utterly failed to account for (or even discuss) this.--SteelSoul 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelSoul (talk • contribs)

^^^I think the above editors did a good job cleaning up this section of the article. One thing I would add though, is that there's even more that can be criticized about using the study to say that "male bisexuality is very rare". The study says (based on what you've written -- I haven't read it myself) that bi- identified males are aroused by porn in ways that look either like the way heterosexuals or homosexuals are aroused by porn. That's a very limited definition of bisexuality, in ways that go beyond the gender vs. physical sex distiction. To personally be the example that falsifies the idea: I'm frequently aroused by just seeing hetero-porn. Occationally by gay-porn, usually only if I self-stimulate. I am, however, frequently aroused when my boyfriend kisses me. It's not just his *gender* that turns me on, his physical sex and body too. And yet, most likely, if I were in the study in question, I'd have reacted to the porn just like a hetero-sexual identified person. Conversely, those hetero-identified folks would likely *not* get aroused when kissing a guy. Clearly I (and I'm hardly unique) differ then from the het-identified folk.

I'm using myself as an anectdotal example here, but the critique is really a logical one: Given As, Bs, and Cs, who are put into a situation X, just because all the C's looked like either As or Bs during X, doesn't mean that Cs aren't a distinct grouping under conditions U,V,W, Y, or Z. Since "bisexuality" encompases a wide range of circumstances (in addition to just X: physical arousal to watching porn), it makes no sense to claim that the study says anything about "bisexuality" as a whole. It's a study about male physiological response (or was it ever further limited to *only* penis engorgement -- rather than say heartrate, brainscans, etc?) -- to watching porn. The study showed that there's no distinct category of "bisexual" for that activity. It's almost absurdly true to me, though, that during other activities such as "holding hands", "cuddling", "kissing", "having sex", (etc), you *will* find a distinctly bisexual category when measuring male physiological arousal. You'll just find it very hard to find study subjects who are exclusively identified as Hetero or Homo to be willing to *do* such activities with both sexes!

The study is fine. Making pronouncements about the non-existence of bisexuality based on the study is, frankly, unscientific. For further exageration: if I find that male and female soldiers react in largely the same way when in combat and subjected to enemy fire, does that mean that there's no such thing as male and female genders? Get my point? I guess I shut up now, and try to find a peer-reviewed critique that makes the same point. End of story, if I find it. :-)--Ajasen 10:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As I say above, we now have three places covering this. Here, Biphobia and J._Michael_Bailey. I've tried to integrate some of the sourced material from those articles into here, as this article was rather lacking in sources for the criticisms. I can't help thinking we should cover it mainly in only one article, to avoid repeating ourselves, and avoid having to maintain what's a rather controversial issue in three places?

Regarding comments above about what the study says - the NYT at least claims the study "casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists", and that Dr. Bailey is quoted as saying "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists". If the study itself doesn't claim this, then the article should be altered to reflect that, though nonetheless these claims about what the study shows have been made. Mdwh (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one's hardly indenting their comments in this section. I'll do it. Um, as for the covering this information in three articles, I feel that we should keep doing that, since it's relevant to all three articles it's addressed in. If it's relevant to any more than that, then it should be included there as well, but maybe not to the same extent. All three articles cover the topic a little differently from each other. If they don't, then we should make sure that they cover this topic a little differently from each other so that the information doesn't seem too redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying bisexuals are targets of homophobia.
Saying bisexuals face criticism from homophobics only is unfair. Not all people that criticize gays are nessecarly afraid of them. They can believe its not productive to the human race, or against their gods will. That doesn't make them afraid of gays. (changes article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.128.195 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 September 2006
 * There is "reasoned" opposition to interracial marriage, and "reasoned" support for white suppremacy. That does not make them any less racist. Haiduc 10:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but racists don't necessarily fear black or white people; they could just hate them. Likewise, not all people who hate gays actually fear homosexuals - maybe they should be called homosexists? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between racist and homophobic. This is a phobia you are talking about. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking, it's a psychological issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.194.88 (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Homophobia is defined as "An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." An aversion is defined as "a strong dislike or disinclination," not a fear. Carlodrum 18:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Carlodrum
 * In Biochemistry, molecules that make up a cell membrane have "hydrophobic" sections. It doesn't mean they are "scared" of water. 82.153.230.130 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

it's literal definition might be irrational fear, but it has a connotative meaning that extends into its dictionary definition that basically means anti-gay. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Middle East and Central Asia
Can anyone research about a myth amongst some rare Alevites that the face of Allah is an extremely beautiful face of a young boy?Or was it an extremely young hermaphrodite person.I doN't know where to look,aseven Google fails to yield results.I heard about such a cult however.--88.247.96.210 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fitting seamlessly into gay and straight society
This is a bit glib. In many cases, bi people are not fitting seamlessly in to gay or straight society, we are closeted in them. Many bi people, on coming out as bi, face exclusion and rejection from both straight and gay culture, and many more bi people are reluctant to publically self-identify as bi because they fear that reaction. If no one objects, I'll edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by White hotel (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 November 2006


 * I just wanted to add my personal views on this topic.
 * First; let me start off by saying that I too have experimented with the gay/bi community and became very active in puersuing this feeling. I was 14 at the time. First, it started off by liking girls, wanting to go out on dates, feelings of being bisexual, and than even escalated to thinking I was a lesbian. But.... I am now 16 and have had a chance to explore my feelings and go into more depth onto what it is I am attracted to. At this time, I can tell you that I am not gay and that I am not bisexual. At the same time-I am attracted to men, but am not "sexually active" with either men nor women. I feel that as a pre-teen, feelings and emotions rise that we aren't in complete controll of. Hormones escalate, and thoughts overcome our minds and we start to experiment. Find out what we like and what lifestyle were more comfortable in living. For some, being bi-curious is just the start. For others, it goes on to confirm ones own feelings about their sexual orientation. One may consider themselves bisexual, but will later become lesbian/gay, whatever. OR one may like myself experiment, go through "phases" and learn that the lifestyle wasn't one for you. What I'm trying to say is that its not always what it is. Don't be frustrated if you can't make up your mind or if your confused weather or not you are curious, gay, lesbian, bi, whatever... don't even try and label yourself. It's not worth the social pressure that comes along with it. So you like the same sex. SImple. Leave it as that. If your not sure if your bi or gay, than don't worry, and let life take its course, and you will as you proceed through life learn what it is you are most comfortable with.

Does that all even make the least bit of sense??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc.quarious (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 November 2006


 * Yeah, but you forget one thing: society. Nature abhors a vacuum. If you don't label yourself, society will. Look at Alan Cumming, who refused to label himself and got made into "a frolicky pan-sexual sex symbol for the new millennium", when really he's just bi. Yeah, don't "come out" until you're sure, but once you are, there's no point trying to fight your label, is there? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. They both make sense, but neither is really what I was getting at - what I meant was that for bi people, not people who are experimenting or unsure, there's a lot of pressure NOT to come out as bi (from being perceived as being either straight or gay), and the threat of being part of neither culture is enough to keep a lot of bi people in the straight AND gay closets. So it's not so much a matter of 'fitting in' (and certainly not seamlessly, since as both straight and gay biphobics will tell you, bi people cause a lot of trouble), as being threatened with exclusion if we don't shut up.

White hotel 09:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * i'm pretty sure i understand what ur talking about. perhaps you would like to contribute to Biphobia?  What, specifically, in the article did you not feel addressed the issue of social pressures adequately?  if you think you can improve the article go ahead.  sorry if my sentences seem disorganized... i'm currently dealing with the issue your describing... who would think that going to a bar could be so difficult for bi people? lol, but i digress. -Zappernapper 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you zappernapper - all I'm suggesting is that the 'fitting seamlessly' part should change a little to accommodate the idea of closeting for bi people. Gay men and lesbians aren't assumed to fit seamlessly into straight society when they're closeted.

White hotel 14:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * i saw your edits, and i think you addressed the issue well. i made some minor changes (taking out words like "many") and restructred it a bit so it wasn't one long run-on sentence. -Zappernapper 00:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to think that the notion of bisexuals fearing to come out to the gay community is absurd; however, the size of the sample upon which I base my conclusion may also be absurd. I recall that bisexuals were held in high esteem for various unmentionable reasons by homosexual Floridians in Y2K. It was only certain self-appointed elite gay folks that wanted to purge the bisexual heresy.

-

I think the notion that your sexual identity, or your identity in general at age 16 is fixed and defined is silly and immature. The whole notion contained within this document on bisexuality notes fludity and changes in attractions over time as being common experiences within the bisexual community.

Biphobia is a huge problem within the queer community for many reasons, anonymous person, hopefully some of which are described in the biphobia article. Consider fears about cheating and disease spreading, insatiable sexual appetite or deviance, fear that bisexuals defy the "it's natural, it's genetic, we have no choice in our queerness" argument against various religious groups, fears that bisexuals are defying the hardship other queer people deal with within society by "passing as straight" or "just experimenting for fun", etc etc.

I also take note to the "Description" section of this article and, in fact, think it points to the great misunderstanding about bisexuality:

Bisexual people are not necessarily attracted equally to both sexes.[1] Because bisexuality is often an ambiguous position between homosexuality and heterosexuality, those who identify, or are identified, as bisexuals form a heterogeneous group. Others view bisexuality as more ambiguous.

Why can bisexuality not be viewed as a third (or fourth or fifth), equally distinct and equally viable sexual identity? One that includes an understanding of fluidity, physical and emotional attraction to more than one gender at various stages in one's life?--Ms.snit (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rating?
May I ask why this article was rated as "A"class? It includes manifold unsourced paragraphs, and I doubt quite sincerely if it would make it to "GA" status in its current condition. If one looks at the assessment scale, an "A" class article ''Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.'' This article has no inline citations, and, clearly is not at "A" level yet. Jeffpw 14:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * mmm, needs some wikifying. I have moved it to a B. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambisexual Redirection and Other Uses
I think it should be added that bisexual can also be a term meaning of, or relating to both sexes. Not just sexual orientation. A.k.a, an ambisexual name. Youknowthatoneguy 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is to be added, it should go into Bisexual_(disambiguation), not here IMHO. 74.245.31.236 (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bisexual Userbox
I'm pretty sure this isn't the right place, but I can't find anywhere else that could be, is there a Bisexual Userbox? I can find the Gay one easy enough, but not a Bisexual or Pansexual one. Jacobshaven3 02:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See response on your talk page. :) Aleta 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Is it truly necessary to have at the very top of the article a graphic that reinforces the stereotype that bisexuals must be with two people at once? I'm referring to the Japanese artwork captioned "Japanese sex worker entertains male client while enjoying the favors of a serving girl." -Emiellaiendiay 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would respectfully suggest that there are a couple of things that must be borne in mind. First, this type of Japanese art often has an element of humor to it, implied by the artist and expected of the viewer. Secondly, there is no possible configuration of this or any article that will please everyone. Haiduc 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration and Peer review
Bisexuality has been chosen as this month's LGBT collaboration, and so it is currently being peer reviewed here in order to give contributors something to work from if they need it. Regulars here may find it helpful to improve the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
If someone who use to like both genders don't like one gender anymore are they bisexual anymore?Shirleybiscuit
 * Probably the best way to find out is to ask that someone whether they identify as bisexual. Dkreisst 08:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah.. every once in a while i get really angry with men and don't want to have anything to do with them... but i still identify as bi... :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuals, monogamy and mental health
hi i wanted to ask ummm well my dad does not like the whole me being bi iddea well actually he hates its he'z alwayz judging me what can i do to make him understand that this is normal for me??!!??(-Bi and Judged!!!!) Hi there. I wanted to ask here before changing the article. I'd like to add a few lines about how bisexuals may feel pressured to be either gay or straight, as conventional thinking has it that if bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, they must have more than one partner, thus defying society's value on monogamy. I'd also like to add info about how bisexuals may internalize this social tension, and maybe even a line about how psychologists help bisexuals to face these issues. I have sources too. But this might be more adequate for an article about bisexuals and mental health, I don't know. I don't wish to add something that exceeds the articles' purpose. I thought I might add it on the 'social status of bisexuality' section, but... And I don't think I have enough info to start a new section. Suggestions? Cheers Raystorm 13:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why this shouldn't be in the article (others may disagree!), provided it's kept pretty short &mdash it should probably link to an article on bisexuality and mental health with more information though. I'd be especially careful, however, about concepts like 'conventional thinking', since it's very difficult to find good evidence for that sort of thing. Ideally there'd be a well organised survey that suggested most people had this (obviously flawed) conception of bisexuality.  I know of no such poll, however; if you do, great, because this is just the sort of thing that needs good support.  But you say you've got sources, so provided they cover all the different claims, that's fine. garik 13:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I cite an expert that uses the sentence 'conventional thinking' for the sentence I wrote, would that be acceptable? Raystorm 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That would probably be OK. I think you should go ahead and write the section and then people can pick it apart and mangle it as they like;) garik 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * *Grin* Well, before warring in the article I'll see what everyone else thinks about my proposal here. ;-) If I don't get further responses in a few days, I'll just go ahead. Cheers! Raystorm 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, be bold. After all, you're not removing anything. Besides, it's easier to have a constructive opinion on something that's been written than on something that hasn't.  Provided your sources are good and balanced, I don't see that your proposed section is too controversial. garik 13:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) modified by garik 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As no one else made further comments, I went ahead with the changes. Cheers Raystorm 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting "Bisexuality in modern Western entertainment"
I think it makes sense to split the section Bisexuality in modern Western entertainment into its own article Bisexuality in entertainment. The section is getting kind of long. I might get around to doing it sooner or later, but I figured I'd mark the section so someone else could help out. -- Ash Lux ( talk 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with splitting it into Media portrayal of bisexuality? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing. I couldn't find an article like that, but I seem to have not searched hard enough :-) -- Ash Lux ( talk 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality a myth?
At least that is the impression I get regarding most of this article. Overall the article seems to advocate, in a off-handed and irresponsible manner, that someone who is bisexual is just a homosexual who is too afraid to admit it. I mean really people, there is more historical evidence of bisexuality in historical human cultures than 100% gender biased homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.215.81 (talk)
 * If you think so, fix it (see Be bold). Alternatively (or in addition), list your issues with the article here giving examples of what you have an issue.  I'd look into it, but the article is long and I'm not sure what you're referring to. -- Ash Lux ( talk 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would, but I've grown tired of bots, and click happy wanna-be mods/admins deleting legitimate research and cited material, so I only offer my input in the discussion center anymore; and maybe the occasional spelling or grammer correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.215.81 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
 * That's not terribly helpful, is it? Please list your issues and we'll see what can be done about them. :-) Raystorm 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH with the "citation needed" crap
Can someone PLEASE go thru this article and clear up most/all of the nit-picked "citation needed". QFT as an example: "Although observed in a variety of forms in human societies and in the animal kingdom throughout recorded history[citation needed]..." <--- cmon! We all know this sentence is true and accurate (greeks, native americans, romans, japanses, chinese; dolphins, DOGS!!! I know youve seen your dog mess with another dog, even another species in this manner). It is as if sticking a "[citation needed]" changes the truth for these people. This is typical throughout the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.215.81 (talk)
 * I think I'm actually the one who added the fact template to what you are talking about. I know it is true, but we need a citation and it shouldn't be too hard to fine some sources (you may want to read Citing sources).  Feel free to add citations, I could use the help citing the article :-) -- Ash Lux ( talk 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wikipedia is not the place for original research and "everybody knows" is not a good reason for inclusion (which reminds me: we need an article on Aunt Jobiska's Theorem). garik 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry gotta disagree garik. there is no need to cite references for common knowledge, should the person who wrote "During daylight the sky has the appearance of a deep blue surface" in the sky article provide a reference to their claims that the sky is a deep blue? it could, after all, be seen as 'original research'. *rolls eyes* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.215.81 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I had a similar discussion with someone else about this issue. I claimed that we don't need a citation to show that Sean Connery is Scottish.  The other person said we did.  They were right and I was wrong.  Now, I agree with you that we don't need to cite things like "During daylight the sky has the appearance of a deep blue surface".  Though we might want to add "often" or "usually", since in my experience the sky can be only a very light blue, or even something approaching white.  However, the sentence "Although observed in a variety of forms in human societies and in the animal kingdom throughout recorded history[citation needed]..." falls into the Sean Connery category, not the blue sky one.  If someone doubts the claim about the colour of the sky, they can go outside and look.  This is not true of Sean Connery's nationality and it's not true of claims about recorded history and non-heterosexual behaviour among animals. garik 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny thing is, the sky article does cite the sky as being blue (as well as why) with http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html. Unfortunately, that is the only thing that article cites :-) -- Ash Lux ( talk 18:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's pleasing: of course, there is a difference between citing why the sky is blue and citing the fact that it often is. Of course, I might add that Sean Connery's Scottishness isn't cited specifically, though the article does at least have plenty of references that do confirm the fact. garik 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing to consider is sneaky vandalism is easier to spot. If someone changed Sean Connery to being Irish instead, you can check out the source and find out otherwise. -- Ash Lux ( talk 18:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I think the most important issue is that just because "everyone knows" he's Scottish, doesn't mean that he is.  Plenty of things taken to be facts turn out not to be true. I have to say, I've never personally observed bisexual behaviour among other animals.  I'm sure it does occur, but I'd still like to see a source for the claim here.  A further issue, of course, is that sources often contain more detailed information.  Wikipedia doesn't have to be just about providing direct information about things.  I sometimes find it most useful as a source of references to follow up. garik 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Coming back to the tags - what can we consider "citable" and what isn't? And what doesn't have cites, should it be removed, as there is a lot of general knowledge in the article that doesn't neccesarily have a reference avaialable online? /Marbles 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See here. A lot of it is common sense. I'd say a good rule of thumb is that if something can't be checked very easily by the reader, there should be a source for it. Obviously some claims are less controversial than others. I think it's especially important to have good sources for articles such as this. So many claims are made about sexuality that are questionable. garik 19:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We people with advanced degrees or research experience truly appreciate having every fact not in common knowledge cited. As a rule of thumb, nothing is common knowledge.

I would not read wikipedia if all of its articles had so little citation as this one.

Also, citing every fact is the only way to convince third parties that you haven't been plagiarizing.

Confusing description
I think the description section is probably confusing for non-bisexuals and those outside of the LGBT circles to understand what bisexuality is. I don't think I can improve it, so hopefully someone with the ability to write clearly will come and help the section out. -- Ash Lux ( talk 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone thought it clever to go and insert his friends name a couple times into this page, think I reverted to the right date/time. Although I haven't slept in two days and it *IS* six in the morning here, hope I got that right; if not - my bad. 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBrannigan (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, you've got to hand it to them: I don't know where they get these original ideas for vandalism. garik 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so unoriginal I guess. ZBrannigan 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like the 5000 minutes of commercials in each show on TV now. They're more bearable if they're original- the same appears to apply for wikipedia vandalism. HunterBlackLuna 08:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

kissing
If a guy like girls then end up kissing a guy once but didn't like him at all and find the kissing nasty and then not like kissing guys anymore and always like girls then was the guy ever bisexual or not.
 * No. Simply trying it doesn't make you bisexual or gay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Will it still be a bisexaul contact if a guy did it but didn't like him if he always like girls?User:Shirleybiscuit
 * I wouldn't think so-- $U IT  05:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a gay kiss or gay sex doesn't make you gay or bisexual. Your sexual orientation is based on who you're attracted to, not what you do. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How come it is still gay kiss if the guy kiss the guy once and don't like him?Shirleybiscuit
 * Cos a guy kissing a guy is a gay kiss. But that doesn't make them gay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

....Maybe we should have a section in the article for this topic that obviously is of interest to some people. ;-D Raystorm 13:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is a good idea. The question comes up enough, and is deeply relevant to quite a few (generally confused) young people. --SteelSoul 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelSoul (talk • contribs)

Hadrian picture
Is the Hadrian picture necessary? It seems too explicit for an article that is not specifically on sexual intercourse or similar. I don't think it's needed for an overview of bisexuality, although the caption text might be interesting to add to the article. — Emiellaiendiay 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Politically-correct omission of bisexual-leaning/homophobia link?
(...or mere omission? Can't add to entry myself right now.) Some evidence that Kinsey-scale "0" (zero) males, ( = exclusively heterosexual), are among the least homophobic. See for instance "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr." http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2006/08/is_homophobia_associ.html (Sorry, am not aware of any studies of female homophobia related to same-sex attraction.) This of course not an indictment of bisexuals as root of homophobia but of the social stigma, since the homophobic male may be largely unaware of his homosexual attraction, and have little understanding of the existence of bisexuality. Suggestion is that acceptance of bisexuality, (prevalent in Human "cousins" Bonobos and Dolphins for instance,) would reduce widespread homophobia. - truthdowser 15:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong caption for the Japanese illo
The Japanese illo had the ambiguous caption:


 * Japanese sex worker entertains male client while enjoying the favors of a serving girl

with "sex worker" being ambiguous about the gender, which led to the new caption:


 * Japanese art: A female sex worker entertains a male client, covering his eyes and surreptitiously kissing a female servant

with "female sex worker" being now explicit, but I think erroneous: I wondered why the image file was named "Japanesepederasty18thcentury.jpg"!

Actually, the image's description says "18th Century Japanese print of a man with his young male lover in pederastic scene", and the page given as source says "From "Homosexuality and Civilization": An 18th-century Japanese print of a man with a youth and a female prostitute.".

Additionnaly, we have a duplicate of this image illustrating the article kagema (male entertainers and sex workers) where the caption says "An adolescent kagema toys with his customer while enjoying the favors of the serving girl.", and Talk:Kagema provides a good rationale why it's a boy.

So at any rate, the one in the middle is not a female but a young male. As for his status, it's unclear from the conflicting sources whether there's a sex worker here, and if it's the boy or the girl:


 * 1) The first source says it's the girl on the right side who is a "female prostitute" -- but then she may be a mere servant or a geisha, commonly but erroneously confused with prostitutes by Westerners, so the source's one-line description lacks being convincing.
 * 2) The second source says it's the boy in the center who is a kagema sex worker -- but he may also be the wakashu (young male) of a traditional shudo relation, and this one-line description on a Wikipedia page lacks being convincing.

I think that claiming him to be a sex worker, or her to be either "a female sex worker" or "a geisha", would need additional research into Nishikawa Sukenobu (or good knowledge about which status her kimono meant at that time).

So, without stronger and more authorithative sources, we only know we have an older male, entertained by a younger male, with the humor that the boy is also fooling with a female servant. Actually, we don't really need to known or mention everything that happened in that print, because the print isn't the topic here -- it's only there to illustrate bisexuality and shudo.

So, as per all of the above, I'm going to edit the caption to one mentionning it's a boy in the center, and not mentionning whether someone is a sex worker or not:


 * Shudo (Japanese pederasty): a young male entertains an older male lover, covering his eyes while surreptitiously kissing a female servant.

Feel free to discuss and justify additional, non-trivial changes.

62.147.38.251 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For heaven's sake, this is not the sort of thing that requires a huge discussion; you can just fix it. The problem that I had was with the terms "favors" and "serving girl".  Joie de Vivre 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The boy is identified as a kagema by his headwear, that covers the bare spot mandated by shogunate law in the hope it would reduce the attractiveness of the boy actors. Since he is thus shown in his professional role, one which included selling sexual favors to admirers, it is safe to assume that in attending to the man he, like the girl, is answering the call of duty. That is further confirmed by the "punch line" of the illustration, which juxtaposes what one does out of obligation with what one does for pleasure. Having said all that, we should find something in print setting this out, so we are not accused of original research. Haiduc 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: you can tell she's a "girl" (not a "woman") because her eyebrows are unshaved. She's not a geisha or a courtesan: her hairdo isn't elaborate enough. I think "serving girl" is pretty accurate. Exploding Boy 16:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Common knowledge among most therapists is that bisexuality is a myth
I think this should be looked into. Right now the article seems to be biased because it seems to only be written by people who consider themselves bi but I guess you could just say that if someone else wrote than "they just wouldn't understand". But has anyone here actually talked to a therapist about this or do we only have articles of what people were saying 50 plus years ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigboy (talk • contribs).
 * If it's common knowledge, it should be easy to produce plenty of reliable references. Mdwh 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL Good answer Mdwh!!  this comment made by a mythical creature named CyntWorkStuff 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

George Carlin allowed, Henry Rollins not?
Was just looking over my contributions, noticed that someone reverted the one about Henry Rollins and bisexuality with no reason in the subject line or in the discussion area. Any reason why an unsourced quote from George Carlin is more relevant that a counter-quote (with source) by another humorist? I might add it again if there are no actual reasons for removal. Slavedriver 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction on "Torchwood."
Article Reads: Torchwood also features bisexual characters Toshiko Sato, Owen Harper and Ianto Jones.

Article Should Read: Torchwood also features bisexual characters Toshiko Sato and Ianto Jones. (Harper is, so far as has been revealed in the series, heterosexual.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.222.89 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, i've edited it. I'm personally unsure as to how bi Tosh is and whether she's worthy of inclusion. mattbuck 16:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but from all of season 1, my take is: (spoilers through end of season one)
 * Jack: Definitely bi. The old lady from Small Worlds and the real Captain Jack in Captain Jack Harkness as well as Ianto.
 * Gwen: Likely straight. Has live-in boyfriend.  I don't count the Carys kiss as she was under alien influence.
 * Owen: Bi. Goes home with the girl from the bar AND her boyfriend in Day One.
 * Tosh: Possibly lesbian. She sleeps with Mary in Greeks Bearing Gifts.  Bi if you count the website/interview claims that she has a crush on Owen.
 * Ianto: Bi. The Cyberwoman and Captain Jack.


 * I disagree. -- mattbuck (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jack: will sleep with anything.
 * Gwen: Straight. Agree with you on the Carys kiss.
 * Owen: Straight. My take on Day One was that he's calling the taxi to try and get away from the guy, not to be with them.
 * Tosh: Straight. Said in cannibal episode to have slept with Owen, and the greeks bearing gifts thing was probably be alien influence.
 * Ianto: Bi. No question there.

Wording of "Adultery or Polyamory"
"Bisexuality is often misunderstood as a form of adultery or polyamory" seems mis-worded to me. Adultery is a commonly understood word specifically deals with sex outside of a person's existing marriage. Polyamory is a much more specialized word that many people haven't even heard of, and it refers to romantic affection (with or without sex) among more than two people.

There are two different missunderstandings possible here. 1) a non-judgemental misunderstanding that bisexuals are nececarily involved with people of both sexes at once 2) a judgement placed on the former misunderstanding, and labeling that state as "adultery", "being promiscuously loose", etc.

While I generally think that (1) *is* a common missunderstanding, I'd really like to see a citation before stating that bisexuality is commonly confused (and pejoritatively judged) as adultery.

As for the use of "polyamory", personally I'd dispute that Bisexuality is "often misunderstood" as polyamory, simply because even fewer people are aware of what polyamory really means than are aware of what bi- really means! Furthermore, putting "adultery" and "polyamory" adjacent to each other implies unintended things like: the idea that since adultery is often thought of as wrong even by those doing it ("committing" it), the same might be true of polyamory. An analogy would be: "forms of violence such as murder, warfare, and savate". (savate is an uncommon word to most, -- it's a specific kind of kick-boxing --, so a casual reader will think "murder: bad, criminal act; warfare: horrendous suffering, death; savate: must be something really brutal, deadly and possibly criminal". The phrase "Adultery and polyamory" has the potential to work the same way.

I personally think that "adultery" may not be the right term to use here. When they first learn of bisexuality, people (and I used to be one of them) may mistake it with promiscuity, yes, but regardless of marital status.

Based on the above, I'd reword to "Bisexuality is often misunderstood as a state of having multiple partners (one or more of each sex) at the same time". (Citation needed.  lol.)  You might add to that "... with connotations of generally promiscuous behavior". in which case I'd *really* like to see a citation that these indeed are common misconceptions. As for polyamory... leave it in if you want, but I think it's a rare person who misunderstands bisexuality but correctly understands (or has even heard of) polyamory.

Most probably someone edited something like "polygamy" (*marriage* to among more than two people) to "polyamory" (*relationships* among more than two at once). But that's an incorrect switch. --Ajasen 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The bisexual=adulterer stereotype has been mentioned here. I'll try to find other RS for it. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rating Scale
Well, is this 'B-Class' or is it 'Start-Class'? Which one? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rieger, Chivers, and Bailey study
Of course, their study was designed such that it wouldn't detect bi-preference-straight people. But the article can't just say that as a tautology; it needs cites.

The only sentence as such with a cite is Some outside the scientific world have criticized that such studies have typically worked from the assumption that a person is only truly bisexual if he or she exhibits virtually equal arousal responses to both opposite-sex and same-sex stimuli, and have consequently dismissed the self-identification of people whose arousal patterns showed even a mild preference for one sex.

The article refers to the New York Times story. But the story didn't really say this. The closest I can find to something like that sentence is a quote from one "John Campbell, 36, a Web designer in Orange County, Calif., who describes himself as bisexual"-- not the words of the article itself.

What the New York Times article said was that "But other researchers -- and some self-identified bisexuals -- say that the technique used in the study to measure genital arousal is too crude to capture the richness -- erotic sensations, affection, admiration -- that constitutes sexual attraction." 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreasonable Study
Or else somebody can't add up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.246.85 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the study on percentages of people who identify themselves as bisexual. The numbers are absurdly low and can only reflect a flaw. No one needs to read this and assume they are in such an extreme minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.190.167 (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidently they're back. Do you know of any other valid, relevant research that backs up your claim, or are you just speaking from ideology? 66.234.220.231 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Projects
Shouldn't this article be in WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say yes; although homosexuality isn't within that project either, so perhaps it's left to LGBT studies? It seems, however, that both would apply.  I'm going to add bisexuality to the philosophy wikiproject, which already contains the homosexuality article.  Evolauxia (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bisexuality in Wicked?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.145.74 (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC) I've recently read through Gregory Maguire's Wicked myself and can't remember any bisexual characters (certainly no significant bisexual characters) appearing in the novel. I haven't read its sequel, Son of a Witch, though, and I suppose I could be forgetting about something, so I thought I'd ask here first before removing it. Oh, and while I'm commenting, this talk page could probably stand to be archived, but I'll leave that up to a more frequent editor of the article (I wouldn't want to accidentally archive an ongoing discussion or anything). —Mears man (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * maguire actually touches on "non-hetero" sexuality in a few of his books. While not as blatent as Son of a Witch (where Liir is checking out a guy's butt while away from his pregnant wife/girlfriend), the reference in Wicked is during the discussion Elphaba has with her father when she comes back to Munchkinland to visit.  Frex talks briefly about the unusual relationship between him, Melena, and Turtle Heart - the telling quote is, "We shared him." -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Bisexuals in this sense may be attracted to more than one gender but only to one sex. For example, a male bisexual may be attracted to aspects of men and masculinity, but not to the male body." It seems odd that this would but mentioned but the other position, being attracted to a gender regardless of sex, is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.11.250 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Should Jenna Haze be an example on there or something? Sealim (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Biasexuality
The term "Biasexuality" is a neologism, and not found in any of the scholarly literature. I have reverted someone who added it to the lede definition. Atom (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bisexuality does not encompass asexuality
In fact, it is a logical contradiction. Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes to some degree, whereas asexuals are not attracted to either sex. If they were, they wouldn't be "asexual." It's true that some people may identify themselves as asexual bisexuals, or asexual heterosexuals, or whatever, but it shouldn't be part of the definition. The clearest definition is what was here previously and can be found on many websites (e.g. https://www.msu.edu/~alliance/faq/faqbisexuality.html#A1: "Bisexuality means sexual or romantic attraction or behavior directed towards some members of more than one sex." --Jcbutler (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro
This page defines bisexuality as only a sexual orientation, yet many section in this page do no deal with sexual orientation, but rather sexual relationships with both men and women. It seems in some instances bisexuality could be used to refer to a sexual orientation of someone attracted to both men and women or to someone who has sex with both men and women. This is similar to the definition used on the homosexuality page.I think we should use the same designation. This is also consistent with scientific articles such as A study of the married bisexual male: paradox and resolution. I think the current definition is incorrect, does not reflect what is in the article and should be changed to say something like:
 * Bisexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of both sexes, or to a bisexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, bisexuality refers to people who "can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex"; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos
Despite the need for some improvements, Bisexuality is an excellent Wikipedia entry and I want to personally thank all the editors who have contributed to the page. From a personal perspective, as a psychologist, and as a writer, I am impressed with the sensitivity, sophistication, and well-crafted prose of the article. I appreciate your hard work. Markworthen (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Could someone with more skill/knowledge than me please remove the "[justincredible11] (jeff is super gay) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)" insert at the beginning of the article. I can't seem to find where it's located in the edit page. Thanks. Farmercarlos (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to have been taken care of. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bisexual novels - Science fiction
Though not a prevailing theme or plot point, the bisexual themes of the following novels should be included: Dhalgren - Samuel R. Delany - 1970. "Kid", shows a bisexual bent throughout the novel, and the novel has ties back to Greco-roman mythology suggesting just such a tie in. I Will Fear No Evil - Robert E. Heinlein - 1975. A man is put into a womans body with her thoughts still intact. His acceptance of the physiological needs and psycological needs of the female side are addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.180.28 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Change in lead?
BiAndBi wants a change in the lead, proposing that bisexuality should not be defined as a sexual attraction to only two genders. I point out that the current, long-standing lead, the one I restored it to, mentions nothing of gender; it rather speaks of sexual attraction to both sexes (male and female). Gender (man and woman, or any other optional name) is not necessarily the same thing as one's biological sex. Transgender is a perfect example of this. BiAnBi's version of the lead is what I believe to be too similar to pansexuality. Bisexuality and pansexuality are not necessarily the same thing, which is why we have two different articles for both.

Since the version of the lead I have restored it to has been this way for the longest now, I feel that this change should be discussed first. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So sorry, am only an occasional contributor so only just saw this. Not wishing to hurt anyone's feelings but I usually  avoid this article since IMHO it is a total mess.  It is so very large and primarily but a place where culture wars and biphobic and homophobic fights are carried out, line by line and word by word - combined with a heavy mishmash of "vanity" additions, which are only occasional noticed.


 * I also think that in addition to the general biphobia/homophobia that informs this article, even thought the editors valiantly fight against it, the other problem is that there are two meanings of "Bisexual" at war with each other here. One is a scientific one, having to do with things like flowers.  The other having to do with an English-language word sometimes used to describe people who are not 100% homosexual and not 100% heterosexual.


 * Over the years this second, slang-version if you will, has "drifted".


 * It used to be that ALL people who were somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey Scale were called bisexual because there were no other English-language words to use. Now as things become increasingly better in Western Europe/USA for LGBT people of all varieties, there have developed different "flavors" of bisexual people.  Strictly speaking, saying that ALL bisexual people are only attracted to two genders and especially in some sort of 50/50 way was NEVER correct. That only describes one way on being a bisexual person. Now people are beginning to find ways of expressing these variation within the larger bisexual community by borrowing more words from science such as pansexual or omnisexual and coining new ones like fluid, hetroflexible/homoflexible and all that.  That was all I wanted to express somehow.  BiAndBi (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated on my talk page, I am not sure what biphobia you feel this article suffers from; it is watched by some people who identify as bisexual. And as for the other stuff, this article does not say that bisexual people are only sexually attracted to two genders; it says both sexes -- male and female, and even then it does not say "only." You want us to note intersex in the lead, when a sexual attraction to an intersex person may or may not be the case? Furthermore, you mention new terms, but your version put a new term in the lead as well...such as genderqueer. Is this term not a result of some people not wanting to be thought of as one gender? Is this not what you would say...different "flavors" of gender? This article also definitely goes into detail as to say that bisexuality is not a 50/50 attraction in most cases (if in any). Basically, I am not seeing your problem with this article. It is only noting, with valid sources, what this term means, its concepts, and what it has evolved into. It being a "mess" in this way is not our faults.


 * I do not contribute heavily to this article, but perhaps you can work with someone on this talk page who does...in order to sort out and fix the problems you have with it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry. I have expressed myself badly and have unwittingly hurt the feelings of people who work hard to maintain this article for the good of all.  That was not my intent. I believe the article is (a) very large (b) has a problem in that one English-language word is used for two different concepts and (c) the meaning of one of those concepts has evolved further away from the original scientific usage from which it sprang.  Not sure what to do about it, but there it is. Peace BiAndBi (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on, BiAndBi. Will you stop apologizing, LOL? You have not hurt my feelings, and I would bet that you have not hurt anyone else's feelings in regards to this article. This talk page is supposed to be used for improving this article. Thus, if anything you have stated on this talk page can improve this article, then it is a good thing. With your version, I am simply worried about it essentially being the same thing as pansexuality...which does distinguish itself from the general bisexuality term. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

--here is my take on the actual issue addressed (The section below):

The problem with the lead definition
"Bisexuality is sexual behavior with or physical attraction to both sexes (male and female), or a bisexual orientation. People who have a bisexual orientation can experience sexual, emotional, and (shouldn't this be "or"? I know this is quoted, but I think that on Wikipedia we should should use the least inclusive conjuction "or" rather than "and" which would imply that one contain all the criteria on the list, wheras "or" does not.) affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex; it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them. It is one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation, along with a heterosexual and a homesexual orientation. Individuals who do not experience sexual attraction to either sex are known as asexual." (quotations and references removed.)

This may not be the best definiton: The first problem is that it doesn't define where the connection and seperation occur in "affectional attraction" and behavior; it presents them as if they are mutually inclusive. The other problem is that it implies that one must be in a greater bisexual community in order to be bisexual (...the world as a whole could be a considered a community). Also, it references "social identity" in a way that is somehow connected to personal identity, as if they mean the same thing. But with these problems in the defintion noted, there is one major positive to the definition: it mentions that bisexuality is an attraction or an orientation toward both sexes; and does denote that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive within the framework of the rest of the defintion, but that is the only positive that I have been able to note. Sincerely, Wolfpeaceful 208.119.72.6 (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Etymology Section needed Renaming
The section actually deals with the evolution of social responses and critiques of the bisexuality phenomenon (for lack of a better term) in regards to studies, social factors, and theroies rather than the linguistic origin of the term bisexual (i.e. etymology). I changed the title to "Study, Theory and Social Response" as an alternative title, for now. However, if someone else has another proposal lets hear it! Thank you, Wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Media Stereotype section
I think this phrase: "In other words, the bisexual is always the cause of the conflict in the film." is what is confusing some of you into thinking Amy Andre had the perception that in "All" movies with bisexual themes bi characters were seen in a negative fashion. However she uses the term "Most movies with bi characters..." as the lead in to her point of view. The final sentence is a conclusive topical; in other words it references "those" movies... in "those" or..."most movies with bi characters" which show bisexuals negatively... "the bisexual is 'always' the cause of the conflict of the film." If I were to paraphrase her I would say "Many movies carry negative interpretations of bisexual characters. In those movies, bisexual characters are the primary cause of the conflicts within the plot." Wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Marjorie Garber
Why is Marjorie Garber, who's books is probably the best on bisexuality (ok, that's my subjective opinion), so underrepresented in this article? Her arguments are directly against these essentialist propositions made here. Minff (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So add her stuff Minff! Mizzm2 bi 13:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizzm2 bi (talk • contribs)

Also Add in the study Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality by Martin S. Weinberg, Collin J. Williams, and Douglas W. Pryor. It is a sort of dated study about bisexuality spanning from the early 80s before GRID/HIV/AIDS to the late 80s with the emergence of HIV/AIDS.173.59.42.46 (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Penile plethysmograph study
Mizzm2_bi, could you please elaborate on why you reverted |my changes to the article from April 27th? In particular, I have some serious reservations about the statement that the plethysmograph study "purported to find that bisexuality is extremely rare in men." Based on the study itself, this does not seem to be the case. The study concerns the penile arousal response patterns of bisexuals, which is arguably quite distinct from sexual orientation. As I mentioned in my edit, the authors explicitly state in the report that bisexuality is "a style of interpreting or reporting sexual arousal rather than a distinct pattern of genital sexual arousal," thus denying that their genital arousal measurements imply bisexuality does not exist. To state as a matter of fact that they hold opinions which they very much seem to have denied doesn't seem encyclopedic. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Cached version on Google
The cached version of this page that google is maintaining has the opening line of this article as Bisexuality is a disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.195.2 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing we can do about cache registers on search engines; except possibly become an employee of said search engine and change them via programming. However, caches typically use the most commonly searched words in addition to the word being searched. So for example, if most people write "Is bisexuality a disease? and another large majority write "why do some people consider bisexuality as a disease? Then the cache picks up on the word bisexuality attached to disease. Then this becomes the cached listing. I'm not sure this warrants a mention in the article, because search engine caches put "up top" so to speak the words most commonly searched in relation to each other. For example, if tomorrow and every day after that for a year all of the people in the world searched on google "an apple" in relation to "Jesus", a cached version might appear as "Jesus is an apple." 165.138.95.59 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bisexual Men
It is often forgotten that there are two genders, male and female. Each gender has a rather different sexual anatomy and this is the basic reason for bisexual attraction. viz: one can do different things sexually with each of the two genders. This difference is obscured when men practice anal sex with each other because obviously they are doing with their own gender something very similar to what can be done with the other gender, and to do so they are diverting the anus from its usual function and risking considerable health problems. A more imaginative type of male bisexuality exploits to the full all that is distinctively male in a man - which does not include the anus, since women have an anus too! This is true bisexuality because it affords a balanced sexual diet wherein the two aspects complement each other without competing. Garrett Jones (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? We cannot include your above content without citing reliable sources. If this is not just your own personal viewpoint and you can cite some reliable sources it might be appropriate to include in some form... otherwise please let's stay on the topic of improving the article as Wikipedia is not a forum. -kotra (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As one who has been happily married for over 50 years, who now has 4 granchildren, who has had 2 long-term male lovers alongside the marriage, I do not feel a need for a reliable source to back up what I say since this is based on experience, not theory. Surely Freud's oft-repeated contention that human beings are bisexually constituted has been verified in innumerable lives. But if men with each other simply ape what men and women do with each other, this may be ok if they have opted to be exclusively gay but it is not bisexual; it is simply turning a male into a quasi-female. Garrett Jones (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You say you don't "feel a need for a reliable source" to back up what you say. I'm afraid, however, that this is an absolute requirement for including information in a wikipedia article (and, indeed, for discussing it on talk pages).  I'm sorry, but contributors' own experience will not do, except inasmuch as it contributes to a search for reliable sources.  Read WP:VERIFY and WP:OR for more information.  Since talk pages are for discussion of improving the relevant articles, and for nothing more (see WP:TALK), please restrict discussion here to what you do have reliable sources for.  Truth is not the issue.  Verifiability is.  garik (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I realise what I just said wasn't very clear in at least one respect. Apologies! I'll try to clarify it. First, what goes in the article must be supported by reliable sources. Second, while you don't have to provide sources on the talk pages, your contributions should be limited to discussion relevant to improving the article.  Therefore, since original research and accounts based on personal experience aren't going to make it into the article, they're rarely relevant enough even to be discussed on talk pages.  Where you're talking about content, stick to what you can support with reliable sources, or are looking for reliable sources on (which may be the purpose of your talk-page contribution). garik (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been having another look at the main article and, whilst I think it is fair and covers an enormous range, I think it does not sufficiently recognise the difference between homosexual and heterosexual acts, not least because, throughout history, there has been a lot of ambiguity about this. In Greece, for instance, the tendency to approve relations between an older and a younger man was largely because a male youth more closely resembles a female than an adult male (who has more body hair and heavier muscalature) and is therefore more likely to attract the male for the same reason and for the same ends as the female. This is easily understood but it tends to obscure the basic reason for bisexual attraction, which is, quite simply, that males and females are different and most of us can benefit by relating to both - but preferably in the awareness that these are two different modes of relating and the two together make a more satisfying whole than simply following the dominant drive and being restricted to that one mode. I don't really see that the issue of providing source references is relevant to this basic contention, which anyone is free to test in their own experience.Garrett Jones (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This must be clear: it doesn't matter if people are free to test it in their experience. If you want to put it in the article, you need a reliable source for it (and personal experience doesn't count).  Full stop. garik (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am not regarded as a reliable source but there is plenty to back up what I say from other sources in my online book, "Coming Clean about Bisexuality". This was in the bibliography of the article for a few years - it headed the list in fact; I'd put it in but not at the top - but then it was censored out for some unexplained reason. I tried to put it back with a revised link a week ago, but the same thing happened. The documentation is there in the book so there would be no point in putting it in the article. Garrett Jones (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As the last editor to remove the link, I'd like to direct you to three crucial policy documents -- WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:OR. It's not censorship. Eponymous (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that to me this does feel like censorship. [a] we are not now talking about a Wikipedia article but about a book in the bibliography to an article; [b] the book in question was accepted for some years then suddenly disappeared along with every other reference to its author in Wikipedia; [c] the author was accused of vandalism and self-advertising; [d] one of his books, also wiped from Wikipedia, "Tales and Teachings of the Buddha" is in its second edition, is in most English area university and large public libraries, is cited in the "International Encyclopedia of Sexology,vol 3 sec 5" and been favourably reviewed in the "Journal of Asian Studies"; [e] your devotion to "properly published" sources seems odd in view of what has happened to publishing over recent decades; projected sales are now the dominant criterion, not editorial judgement; [f] your own editors are legion and safely anonymous. Garrett Jones (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will reply on your talk page as this disscussion far exeeds the scope of this article's talk page. Eponymous (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

'Start to identify as bisexuals' when?
A recent edit by 72.179.52.204 has changed the sentence that read, "Bisexuals commonly start to identify as bisexuals in their early to mid twenties" to "Bisexuals commonly start to identify as bisexuals in their mid to late twenties". So, which is it? I can't find either of the two references given online so I can't sort it out (per WP:V). Ha somebody got access to these works or shall we remove the sentence to prevent everybody who comes along adding their own ideas here? --Nigelj (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sound like nonsense to me, case history would show that sexual self-identity can "start" or change at almost any adult age. Remove if not clearly in quality sources. Fæ (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Such a narrow and (now) controversial age-range seems unsupportable to me. What about those refs, shall we delete them along with the sentence? Have they any other use? Do you have a ref for what you just said. so that we can add that? --Nigelj (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

People start to identify as bisexual at any age. I remember being at around age 10 and for sure young teenager in when I identified my sexuality as being bisexual. I know some bisexuals who thought they were gay or straight men first and then decades later in their 40s, 50s, and 60s came out as bisexual.173.59.42.46 (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove text
Okay, I've had a proper look at just the first reliable source mentioned in the text:. The key data is on page 67 with a table on page 68-9. The table extracts the work of a number of different authors for the tabulation. However I am singularly unimpressed with any conclusions being drawn from the data. The table shows a list of "Average" ages based on each source with associated sample sizes but the statistical deviation or type of average is undefined. I can see averages being from 22 to 36 so to say "mid-twenties" at all is a bit silly as you cannot just average the averages across all these different studies which would have different pre-conditions.

I propose the section is removed and reposted below for discussion. The sources should be listed and discussed on this talk page and until the interpretation about what say with regard to age and sexual identity is verified. The current text must count as original research and fails the WP:SYNTH guidelines to the extent that it misrepresents the sources quoted. Any other opinions or suggestions? Fæ (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -mattbuck (Talk) 17:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per discussion above. --Nigelj (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC) - Clarify: I mean I support removal of the sentence discussed above (not the whole section of the article).--Nigelj (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the paragraph being removed, but not the whole section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Extent of removal
We haven't discussed the other sentence in that short para, about first experiences. Is that supported by it's non-web cited source (Hyde, Janet Shibley, John D. DeLamater. Understanding human sexuality)? --Nigelj (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hereby challenge the text and all sources in the paragraph under question as requiring verification, until the sources are verified I propose moving the text to the talk page for review in accordance with the guidance of Five pillars #2. Fæ (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Text removed for review
Following discussion above, the following text has been removed from the article for review: --Nigelj (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Polyamory Dispute
In the spirit of assuming good faith and having a discussion, some edits were reverted by a user relating to what sounds like people who identify as bisexual who are also part of the polyamory community, and some of the edits are still on the article right now. See these edits: (1, 2). I assume good faith (except for the edit war). My opinion is that these edits are original research that introduce bias and absent verifiable references and encyclopedic writing, these polyamory references should be removed. Does anyone else have an opinion? —<B>Tony Webster</B> (talk / contribs) 17:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bailey -- "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited"
I reverted this removal by Wookiebookie because the section is not simply about J. Michael Bailey's study, and it certainly isn't promotion of it. It should be there because it specifically addresses the belief, what many call the misconception, that people must be equally sexually attracted to both sexes in order to be bisexual. It addresses this, then proceeds to discredit it full-on. It has been described as one of the biggest cases of biphobia, and is most definitely notable, which is also why it is addressed in the Biphobia article. Furthermore, the section does not only contain Bailey's study and criticism of it, but also the view of Marjorie Garber on bisexuality (though I'm not sure how valid it is to mention her view). The section can be about more than just those two. Most importantly, Bailey's view is not even fringe, as many people believe that one must be equally sexually attracted to both sexes in order to be bisexual; this is why we tackle it in the lead as well. There should definitely be a section about this belief, and it's difficult to argue that Bailey's study should not be included in such a section. Perhaps the information on Bailey's study should be toned down, but I am not seeing why this viewpoint that many call damaging to bisexuality should not be addressed in detail within this article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I balanced out the section a bit with information (taken from the Biphobia article and reworded a little) on how bisexuality is discriminated against in general -- people automatically assuming that a person is heterosexual (though that is quite common), people feeling that one is either heterosexual or gay (homosexual), and that bisexuality does not truly exist unless one is equally sexually attracted to both sexes, which then goes into the study by Bailey. I feel that all this information should be in the article, and early on where it is, given that these are prominent issues with the bisexual identity. The biphobia articles (Biphobia and Bisexual erasure) cover this, but a summary of it should be in the main article (Bisexuality) as well. The Bailey information can be toned down if necessary, but I still feel that a bit about it should be mentioned here as well. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding at about the same time and I'm not familiar with the sources, but I agree that the subject is worth discussing. It's important partly because of a popular belief that everyone is heterosexual until contrary proof is very unmistakeable, very much not a standard that uses scientifically parallel definitions for all sexual orientations. A definition of heterosexuality parallel to virtually equal bisexuality would be that any same-sex attraction would make a person not het. If a definition should be narrow, they all should be, and then comparative statistics would be meaningful. But then we'd have gaps between the sexual orientations, and, as far as I know, they haven't been named yet, which means that, within the academic discipline, they haven't been generally recognized yet. We'd need to recognize a sexual orientation for, say, "mostly bi but a little gay". Until that happens, if there's a sourced present-day debate around narrowing one or all definitions, including criticism of narrowing, then the debate needs presenting. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, Nick. You always do look at things from all angles and try to weigh them appropriately, which is why I appreciate your opinions so much. The section, and maybe the section title, could definitely use improvement, but, as I stated before, I feel that some information on it is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We should also include how Bailey suddenly "discovered" male bisexuality once he got paid by bisexuals to find it. See the American Institute of Bisexuality site at bibrain.org, where Bailey claims he now regrets repeating that men are gay, straight, or lying. Jokestress (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Do you want to go ahead and include it yourself, Jokestress? Any particular way you want it worded? Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally limit my edits about Bailey and friends to talk pages. Perhaps "In 2008, Bailey claimed he regretted repeating that men are gay, straight or lying after receiving funding from bisexuals." Source: Bi the Way Jokestress (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That wording seems decent to me, except that "claimed" is typically one of the Words to avoid. Should I use the first source (the link) to back up this statement? Your second source? Or both? Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Change claimed to said, then. You can get the direct quote from the film, a clip of which appears at bibrain.org. The clip also says "Bisexuals advised on and funded the new study" at 3:00 in. Jokestress (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it this way, using both sources (though I wasn't sure the best way to cite Bi the Way), and I included the pdf just to be on the safe side. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Jokestress (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for the "funding from bisexuals" assertion, other than the brief at the end of the video? The "claimed he regretted ... after receiving funding" has a wp:synth implying, and not a nice one.Diego Moya (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Diego Moya. I didn't add the word "claimed," per above. And I also felt that "after receiving funding from bisexuals" could be seen as though he only stated his regret because he had funding from bisexuals. But then again, I felt that it (Bailey receiving funding from bisexuals) could also be seen as simply a fact...if true. Jokestress has admitted that she does not think fondly of Bailey and his team, so maybe there was a bit of bias in there -- her not believing he actually regrets his conclusion after the 2005 study -- but I think she was coming from a good place, regardless, in wanting the information about "his regret" relayed. You removed it/added relevant information, though. And I tweaked it. It seems completely fine to me now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The information is certainly interesting and relevant, but I find its placement in the article odd. On the one hand, it seems that the controversy over labeling—or at least the discussion of heterosexism and monosexism—should come after the section that describes what bisexuality is. You need to define the terms before you point out the problems, misconceptions, etc. On the other hand, when I was looking for the material on Bailey, I assumed it would be in the section on studies and theories--why would the controversy not be placed there instead? Just a thought. Placing it so high in the article gives the controversy over Bailey's study perhaps too much weight, even if it addresses a real phenomenon. (And it needs to be made really clear that the Bailey example has been discredited and is being used simply as an example of the prevalence of his viewpoint.) The article should move from more general, widely-accepted information, to the more specific and/or more controversial aspects of the topic. Just my thoughts. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean about the placement. And don't mind it being placed after the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section. It was placed where it is now before I started tweaking it and other parts of the article months ago, and has been there for years I think (ever since I started reverting vandalism or other contested things on the article). I feel that it was placed so high due to what I stated above -- so many people believe that bisexuality is not really a valid sexual orientation and that you must be equally sexually attracted to both sexes in order to be bisexual. Because of this, I feel it should be tackled early on, and certainly not buried in a section about studies and theories. That said, I suppose the Bailey study made more sense to be placed in a section where the other studies and theories are before, but now I have expanded the Label accuracy section a bit to include all other discriminatory beliefs about bisexuality. So maybe the Bailey material should stay there as well? Either it was put so high because of what I stated above, or because someone felt the study is too "fringe"/too contested to be placed in the section where the other studies and theories are. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the sections around. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to think more about the best ways to have this information anywhere on Wikipedia but Bailey has been discredited time after time and FAIR's synopsis echoes my concern. I see Bailey's own article is one giant promo piece for his views so maybe all of this can be sent there as well? At this point Wikipedia should not talk extensively about these controversial views as endorsement and then belatedly mention they are discredited almost universally. I removed the whole section about Bailey because frankly these are fringe views that have not held up to independent and impartial peers at all (as far as I'm aware). If they are we should be looking to what they state. As this is one of the top if not the top hit on Google for this subject I don't want to have any part in spreading misinformation about sexuality and desires. We have too many doing that already. I still feel this is a minority (fringe) idea that Wikipedia is endorsing by having them here. Until there is agreement that these disputed views are actually supported by the mainstream of researchers in this field i think it should stay out. I'll think more on it but it does bother me that we would be essentially endorsing these ideas as plausible. Especially when Bailey has ben garnering headlines for his shaky research in the past. Wookiebookie (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that the article talks extensively about it, Wookiebookie. But as for mentioning controversies, Wikipedia does that all time. The same for mentioning misconceptions and then discrediting them, such as the myth that anal sex is usually only engaged in by gay men or that serial killers are always white. This bisexuality study was a pretty big controversy and is still being used by some people to discredit bisexuality today. Because of that alone, I feel that it should be noted in this article. There is no spreading misinformation here, since it is quite clear from the section that this study was harshly criticized as inaccurate, etc. As I stated above, it is not just Bailey's view that one must be equally sexually attracted to both sexes in order to be bisexual. His study may be "fringe." But the belief is not. I have added other information/sources which show the same thing, taken from the Biphobia article. I have heard this belief, that bisexuality doesn't exist or that one has to be equally sexually attracted to both sexes in order to be bisexual, plenty of times in general society, and even in the LGBT community. See Bisexual erasure, for example. I'm surprised you've never experienced this belief as thoroughly as I have if you haven't; I mean, it's quite rampant. See Lesbian until graduation even. The FAIR synopsis you cite shows some of the same. And of course this information is already in Bailey's article. Basically, I don't feel that including information on this belief is any more endorsement than having articles on other controversial and discredited topics and beliefs...such as Lesbian bed death (though I did feel that was sending the wrong message until I fixed it up), Sociobiological theories of rape, Holocaust denial, etc., etc., etc. Of course controversial topics are going to be included on Wikipedia. As long as it is made clear that they are controversial/contested beliefs or have been discredited, I don't see the problem. Letting people continue to think that one must be equally sexually attracted to both sexes in order to be bisexual or that bisexuality does not exist is what is considered a problem. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made things even clearer about the discrimination against bisexuality and that Bailey's view is disputed by various researchers (showing that it is likely a minority, unless there are more researchers out there somewhere supporting that idea). And, of course, as seen from higher in this discussion, the statement that Bailey regrets concluding that bisexuality does not exist in men is also there. Needless to say, I really don't see anything wrong with the section as it is (except that two sources -- lesbilicious.co.uk. and pinknews.co.uk -- may not be viewed as appropriate for the material). I feel that the Bailey information is best tackled there, with all the other views that are considered offensive to bisexuality. No need to have it stuck in the section about theories and studies, when it isn't even considered a valid study to begin with, at least to so many people it isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bowie Photo and Caption
I think that having an individual as the first photo is not a good idea. I also think that the caption is overly negative about bisexuality, and it appears to be a warning against people in the US coming out. I don't think that is appropriate. I do not have a different photograph to suggest but I will try to change the caption. Alwimo (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The photo was recently added by an editor. So, really, the article has largely been without a main image or any at all. What is your alternate suggestion for the main image, Alwimo? Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote that I do not have a suggestion for an alternative, but I suppose that the bisexual flag could also do. Or perhaps just the box of links could be in that position. My position is just that I don't think that having a photo of a person is the best way to illustrate bisexuality. Alwimo (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I read your statement wrong. Sorry about that. And I understand what you mean. Really, I don't feel that a main image is needed at all, just like there currently aren't any main images for Heterosexuality or Homosexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)