THE LATEST STUDIES

I’ve been asked several times for my opinion about the latest J. Michael Bailey-Northwestern University study on bisexual male existence and the New York Times/Dan Savage reporting of it, but I’ve deferred until now for a number of reasons: The study was funded in part (or in full) by an organization whose leaders I know, I’ve dealt with the various writers/reporters of both the most recent NYT report and the initial report from several years ago, I’m close to a number of the activists on all sides of this issue, I’m not a scientist or scholar, and as a journalist I know all about the machinations and decisionmaking efforts (or lack thereof) that go into the report, editing, and eventual publishing/broadcasting (or not) of various stories, so I can see why and where things can go awry or work out. As far as I can tell, the original study and this follow-up are flawed in numerous ways, not the least of which are its apparent suppositions about what non-visually impaired American males find visually arousing, that sexually can be reduced to visually based arousal, and that sexuality can be separated from emotion, romance, and so much more. However, as has also been pointed out, it was never intended to be an all-encompassing study, and so perhaps it is enough (at least on a political basis) that the follow-up study confirms to some doubters that indeed people such as myself really do exist and reall do have the sexuality we claim to have. I am happy for my friends who backed this study, I am happy that there is healthy skepticism on the part of others, I am satisfied to know that this study will eventually be seen as a small part of a greater scientific effort to further understand human sexuality in all its diversity, and that perhaps the studies’ flaws and virtues will prompt more studies and refinements and spur more students into the sciences.