queerbychoice (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2005-07-18 11:27 pm
queerbychoice) wrote2005-07-18 11:27 pm
Entry tags:
Stupid Heterosexual Pseudoscientist Tricks!
You know that horrible study that came out recently that claimed to have proven that bisexuals don't exist? The study conducted by the homophobic biphobic transphobic sanityphobic pseudoscientific creep known as J. Michael Bailey?
Well, this is not a journal entry about that study. (If you want to read journal entries that are about that study, though, I recommend charliegrrrl's and laurenhat's and princesswitch's.) This is a journal entry about some other information that I just came across, but the place I came across it happened to be in an article about that study, even though the information I want to write about here does not come from that study.
Now that we've established that . . . there are two pieces of information I learned from that article that I did not know before. First, "A report from the Centers for Disease Control notes that 13 percent of white men who reported sex with other men also had sex with women. Among black men it was 34 percent, and among Hispanic men, 26 percent." This is interesting because sexual preferences are hardly ever discussed in a context that acknowledges them to be a race-influenced phenomenon, yet they clearly are a race-influenced phenomenon. (No, discussing the influence of race upon the "down-low" or other ways of communicating or not communicating one's sexual preference does not count. I'm talking about acknowledging the influence of race upon what sexual preference you have in the first place, not upon how you react to it once you have it.) (Also, are there no data on any other racial/cultural groups than those three? Why not?)
Second, the reason that J. Michael Bailey and his pseudoscientist colleagues showed the men in their study gay male porn films and lesbian porn films, rather than gay male porn films and heterosexual porn films, was that "previous research showed it is more exciting to heterosexual men than male-female pornography." Unfortunately the article does not cite a particular source for that research finding, so I have no way of examining whether that research was conducted in just as pseudoscientific a manner as J. Michael Bailey's. But regardless of whether it was an accurate finding or not, the fact that it got accepted and used as a (no, as the) defining criterion of heterosexuality in J. Michael Bailey's study makes it worthy of thinking further about.
Heterosexuality is now being formally defined by scientists as the state of being turned on by watching queers of the other gender have sex with each other. The diagnostic criterion that scientists use to diagnose heterosexuality is that the form of sex that turns a person on most must be a form of sex which the person is physically incapable of participating in themself.
By contrast, being queer is now defined as being a person who's actually most turned on by a form of sex that one can actually participate in instead of just watching it on a TV screen.
Maybe the real reason that heterosexuals hate queers so much is that queers are the only ones on the planet who actually enjoy having sex, instead of just watching sex.
Well, this is not a journal entry about that study. (If you want to read journal entries that are about that study, though, I recommend charliegrrrl's and laurenhat's and princesswitch's.) This is a journal entry about some other information that I just came across, but the place I came across it happened to be in an article about that study, even though the information I want to write about here does not come from that study.
Now that we've established that . . . there are two pieces of information I learned from that article that I did not know before. First, "A report from the Centers for Disease Control notes that 13 percent of white men who reported sex with other men also had sex with women. Among black men it was 34 percent, and among Hispanic men, 26 percent." This is interesting because sexual preferences are hardly ever discussed in a context that acknowledges them to be a race-influenced phenomenon, yet they clearly are a race-influenced phenomenon. (No, discussing the influence of race upon the "down-low" or other ways of communicating or not communicating one's sexual preference does not count. I'm talking about acknowledging the influence of race upon what sexual preference you have in the first place, not upon how you react to it once you have it.) (Also, are there no data on any other racial/cultural groups than those three? Why not?)
Second, the reason that J. Michael Bailey and his pseudoscientist colleagues showed the men in their study gay male porn films and lesbian porn films, rather than gay male porn films and heterosexual porn films, was that "previous research showed it is more exciting to heterosexual men than male-female pornography." Unfortunately the article does not cite a particular source for that research finding, so I have no way of examining whether that research was conducted in just as pseudoscientific a manner as J. Michael Bailey's. But regardless of whether it was an accurate finding or not, the fact that it got accepted and used as a (no, as the) defining criterion of heterosexuality in J. Michael Bailey's study makes it worthy of thinking further about.
Heterosexuality is now being formally defined by scientists as the state of being turned on by watching queers of the other gender have sex with each other. The diagnostic criterion that scientists use to diagnose heterosexuality is that the form of sex that turns a person on most must be a form of sex which the person is physically incapable of participating in themself.
By contrast, being queer is now defined as being a person who's actually most turned on by a form of sex that one can actually participate in instead of just watching it on a TV screen.
Maybe the real reason that heterosexuals hate queers so much is that queers are the only ones on the planet who actually enjoy having sex, instead of just watching sex.
no subject
Hey, did you hear about this other study (someone told me about it, so I have no idea who the researcher was) where they took a bunch of straight dudes and asked them how much gay dudes grossed them out, and then showed them gay porn with one of those how hard are you machines? Supposedly there was a correlation between how hard your dick got and how much you said gay stuff grossed you out. It's supposed to be support for that old bit of wisdom about homophobes really being gay themselves. I laughed about it at the time, but now I'm thinking it's a bit of bad science too. Especially if the sample size was as small as it was in this Bailey study.
no subject
"Hey, did you hear about this other study (someone told me about it, so I have no idea who the researcher was) where they took a bunch of straight dudes and asked them how much gay dudes grossed them out, and then showed them gay porn with one of those how hard are you machines?"
I'm pretty sure there've been several studies like that, but I don't remember who the researchers were either. I don't know whether the underlying idea that the study was trying (probably badly) to prove is right or wrong, but even if it is right, I always wonder whether it's really beneficial to use our own queerness as an insult to throw at homophobes anyway. I mean, there are some theoretical advantages to it, but I have very mixed feelings about it.
no subject
no subject
I have heard of research showing that men are turned on by lesbian porn more than straight porn. One theory is that, of course, lesbian porn does not contain penises that may cause the male discomfort (worrying about being attracted to it, etc.) I cannot help but feel that it is a big fad too.
no subject
no subject
hehe!