I should like to offer an alternative perspective on a subset of those men and women who describe themselves as bisexual, an alternative to the unflattering view that they are all lying, deceiving themselves, or “transitioning” to homosexuality.
That sounds a lot like he's disagreeing with the view that bis are lying etc, not that he's agreeing with the "unflattering view". Granted, he does go on to state that he believes many self-described bisexuals are predominantly gay/straight. But, the reasoning he presents ---however suspect it may be--- does match many of the stories I've heard from friends over the years about their own lives and trying to understand whatever their sexuality is. It's certainly not the lived experience of all bisexuals, but it does capture something about many people who identify thus.
It's well documented (to the extent that any research on sexuality can be trusted) that there is a discrepancy between those who identify as bisexual and their self-reports of how attracted they are to each sex and what sorts of relationships they've been in. The conventional analysis of this discrepancy is the "unflattering view", which I think is completely wrong as well as grossly insulting. However, the discrepancy remains. The idea that romantic and sexual drives are essentially distinct matches my own experience as well as those of many of my friends, and it does offer a non-insulting explanation for the discrepancy. Thus, the blurb seems fairly reasonable to me. I don't see him assuming that only gay and straight orientations exist, so much as assuming that self-reports of attraction and behavior come out as mostly heterosexual or homosexual.
Granted, toward the end where Bem starts hypothesizing about differences in men vs women re these drives, that part is hokum trying to justify the cis-patriarchal ideology of men vs women. But still the whole thing still reads to me like he's arguing against the "unflattering view" and positing a framework which seems to match the lived experiences I've been privy to.
Yeah, linking to it from his homepage is a bit peculiar.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2010-11-14 12:04 am (UTC)From:I should like to offer an alternative perspective on a subset of those men and women who describe themselves as bisexual, an alternative to the unflattering view that they are all lying, deceiving themselves, or “transitioning” to homosexuality.
That sounds a lot like he's disagreeing with the view that bis are lying etc, not that he's agreeing with the "unflattering view". Granted, he does go on to state that he believes many self-described bisexuals are predominantly gay/straight. But, the reasoning he presents ---however suspect it may be--- does match many of the stories I've heard from friends over the years about their own lives and trying to understand whatever their sexuality is. It's certainly not the lived experience of all bisexuals, but it does capture something about many people who identify thus.
It's well documented (to the extent that any research on sexuality can be trusted) that there is a discrepancy between those who identify as bisexual and their self-reports of how attracted they are to each sex and what sorts of relationships they've been in. The conventional analysis of this discrepancy is the "unflattering view", which I think is completely wrong as well as grossly insulting. However, the discrepancy remains. The idea that romantic and sexual drives are essentially distinct matches my own experience as well as those of many of my friends, and it does offer a non-insulting explanation for the discrepancy. Thus, the blurb seems fairly reasonable to me. I don't see him assuming that only gay and straight orientations exist, so much as assuming that self-reports of attraction and behavior come out as mostly heterosexual or homosexual.
Granted, toward the end where Bem starts hypothesizing about differences in men vs women re these drives, that part is hokum trying to justify the cis-patriarchal ideology of men vs women. But still the whole thing still reads to me like he's arguing against the "unflattering view" and positing a framework which seems to match the lived experiences I've been privy to.
Yeah, linking to it from his homepage is a bit peculiar.