Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Even Dr. Ruth Has Her Doubts About the Existance Of Bisexuality

Dr. Ruth is telling bisexuals to choose their sexual orientation, since there is no such thing, in her opinion, as a "Bisexual Person".

Dr. Ruth is telling it like it is. I applaud the noted sex therapist for taking such a stand.

She makes this simple observation, that "everyone is either straight or gay."

She was responding to a male letter writer who indicated he was becoming more attracted to men, although he had a "steady girlfriend".

"Everyone is either straight or gay.", she wrote. "Some people go throug an in-between stage where they are perhaps not sure, but eventually tahey fall into one caategory or the other, so that there really is no such thing as being bisexual." Bravo, Dr. Ruth.

But the bisexual community were quick to respond to last month's article. Female bisexuals were particularly offended. They did not like Dr. Ruth saying that her opinion was based on scientific research. She quoted, Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psych professor, who reported that bisexuality in men did not exist. He has been blasted for using flawed methodology. I refered to his experiment using subjects and erotic videos in an earlier blog.

Others like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, GLAAD, also criticized Dr Ruth's advice on bisexuality. A spokesperson for the group chided Dr. Ruth for "perpetuating myths about the lives of bisexual people-in essence rendering them invisible."

I think Dr. Ruth took a courageous stand. She addressed the male writer and her advice was correct, in my opinion. Maybe the terminology is wrong. Say this guy butt fucks his "girlfriend" and she likes it. And he's also attracted to men for the same reason. Maybe the terminology is all wrong. He should be labeled a "buttfucker", meaning a guy who loves to fuck butt regardless if the butt belongs to a male or female. That certainly would clarify the issue.

This controversy will linger on for a long time. You guys know how I feel. While I do believe in the "in between stage", I don't believe that a male can truly be bisexual. He's as gay as you and I. For some reason, he just can't face the fact that he's gay. He's not true to himself and not true to his male partners. Any gay male who finds himself in a relationship with a bisexual male is in for a long and bumpy ride.


cola boy said...

I love Dr. Ruth! That's one little old lady with balls! LOL! Thanks for another great article, Buff.

Teddy Pig said...

Oops, now I'm gonna disagree with a Top in public. There goes my bottom card.

Anyway, here go some really twisted thoughts...

First off if Dr Ruth read the entire report of that same study it plainly shows women are likely to be truly bisexual. So there is evidence that real bisexuality exists even in that study. So the all or nothing argument is out the window right there.

I keep saying with men though that you have to separate bisexual sex and bisexual emotions. Bisexual sex happens all the time. Teens experiment, guys in jail get horny, and then there's the old military stories etc etc etc. That's normal "man I was sooo drunk last night" behavior, right guys?

Now can some poor guy love both men and women? Well, we ourselves have evidence pointing to that. How many guys have turned gay only after they had been married with several kids? Are you saying they did not have sex with their wife and love her enough to get married and have kids?

I would never step on shaky ground and say every case like that was an act or a result of society pressures. I won't even question the motives of the poor child support payin guy. There is allot of guys that say their interest changed with time and they one day figured out they wanted to get it on with other guys.

In this case we are clearly defining serial bisexuality with a preference change. So ya just can't put people into plainly labled little boxes especially when it comes to sex.

On the flipside I totally agree with the argument Sir, that allot of professed bisexual men are running around using that as an excuse before having the balls to fully accept their homosexuality.

Spider said...

I am afraid I have to go with randomkill on this one...

I have always viewed sexuality as a sliding scale with total homosexuality on one end and total hetrosexuality on the other, and everyone falls somewhere in between - while there are a few at each extreme, the vast majority fall somewhere inbetween - and often your place on the scale slides back and forth... it is all a matter of degrees - at least that is what I think so I can sleep at night...

AC said...

After thinking about some, I think Dr. Ruth is right on!

Orientation, to me, is more about who I can love than who I can fuck. Sure, I've seen hot women and have even considered sex with one or two at different times. So, if you follow my logic, a bi man who truly loves a woman but has sex with men is just a horny straight guy. My own personal observatiosn of the myriad of bi people I have known, male and female, is that they almost always tend to prefer a gender for dating and love and then are able to have sex with another gender. That's my $0.02.

Anonymous said...

I think that in terms of innate animal sexuality everyone is bisexual, but not in an either-or continuum. Ie how attracted you are to one gender has no relationship with how attracted you are to the other gender. But that doesn't stop me from calling myself gay, because "gay" and "straight" are mere social identifiers. There is no bisexual society. And sexuality is too complex to ever be represented by a single word.

I would never tell someone who thinks they are bisexual that they are mistaken in the same way I would never accept a straight person trying to tell me that I must be mistaken about my gayness.

I've ranted about the bisexuality study before over a couple of posts so I won't go into detail here but everyone should know the main author is also an advocate of homosexual eugenics (ie breeding us out of existence) and has been forced to resign for academic misconduct.

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify - I don't mean Dr Ruth is into eugenics. I mean J Michael Bailey.