Bisexuality & statistics: Twice as many dates?

[emanix]

I've seen it in all sorts of places, the assumption that bisexuality has to mean that a person is equally attracted to both sexes, not notice the difference between, and so forth... Marcus Morgan has a lovely rebuttal to that one in this article: Bisexuals: putting the B back in LGBT and I also love The Bisexual Index's FAQ: Bisexuals don't have to be equally attracted to men and women.

This isn't the logic fail I'm going to address today though.

The logic fail that bugs me, and keeps on bugging me is this: the idea that if I am exactly equally attracted to both sexes, I will have had exactly the same numbers of male and female partners. Why does it bug me so? It fails to take into account the huge % of population that *aren't* bisexual.

So let's get this erm... 'straight':
even if I am EXACTLY equally attracted to men and women, I have NINE TIMES more chance of finding a compatible opposite-sex partner than a same-sex one*

Let's go through the workings:

I'm not going to hunt down stats and references right now, since the important bit here is the logic, which is flexible to whatever the exact statistics are, but of the research I have seen, the *highest* statistic for members of the general population who are interested in relationships with the same sex is roughly 10%

So working with that maximum statistic let's follow this through to work out my chances of getting a girlfriend, versus the chance of getting a boyfriend as a bisexual woman.

Now, we've been told that 10% of the male population is open to same-sex relationships. With a bit of give and take for bisexual guys, and for those not interested in relationships at all, we can assume that roughly 90% of the male population is interested in relationships with women. So my dating pool of guys is potentially 90% of the entire population of males.

On the other hand, the proportion of females interested in same sex relationships is only 10%, so oh look! -

% of males potentially interested in me: 90%
% of females potentially interested in me: 10%

Assuming roughly equal populations of men and women, and that roughly the same number of men and women share compatible views and interests with me, this means my dating pool for men is nine times larger than my dating pool of women.

So if I really want to date the same number of women as men, looks like I'd have to put nine times the effort into chasing them down - oh wait, wouldn't that necessitate being nine times *more* into women, if I was really willing to put that effort in? Well gee, I think that it would.

(Of course the same logic works perfectly well for bi guys, it was just easier to focus on one person to use as an example, so I picked on me)

This also handily refutes the all too common hypothesis that being bi 'doubles' ones chances of getting a date. Sure, it might increase a little bit - my pool of possible dates goes from 45% of the population overall to oh, about 50% - assuming that nobody is being bigoted or biphobic, of course. But since I have had both straight men and gay women tell me that they wouldn't date me because I'm bi, I suspect that any actual increase in number is cancelled out by the increase in prejudice.

Still, on the positive side of things, while being bi doesn't double my chances of getting a date, it *does* double the number of people I get to appreciate aesthetically - gay guys and straight women included. Since enjoying the eye-candy doesn't require mutual attraction, I guess I can check out twice as many people on the street, as long as it's look but don't touch.

Hey, you monosexuals?

Here's lookin' at you! ;)


___
*yes, yes, I know, this is referring to binary genders in order to keep the statistical workings simple - for the purpose of being inclusive, please assume that when I am talking about same-sex and opposite-sex I mean 'exactly like me' and 'not exactly like me', respectively

Comments

[world-rim-walke.livejournal.com]

People have actually told you that they won't date you because you're bisexual? That is weird.

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Yup, they really have - I guess it makes a change from the cliche 'guy who will only date me because he thinks there might be a chance at a threesome'. I've a post about that brewing to at some point - why exactly is the threesome sold as the holy grail of straight relationships?

[softfruit.livejournal.com]

The Bisexual Recruitment Army press office tell me it's cos no-where sells affordable beds sturdy enough for five :P

[emanix.livejournal.com]

LOL - nice comeback!

(IKEA used to, but they just discontinued it - very sad!)

[softfruit.livejournal.com]

*now* you tell me! :D

[janieluk.livejournal.com]

Was that the somethingvik superkingsize range? I got one of those for an ex a few years back and it was funtimes huge.

[emanix.livejournal.com]

We just call it the Giant Circular Bed of Joy

[awfulhorrid.livejournal.com]

Some of the beds out there are bad enough for three people. Two of my sweeties (a married couple) have one of those "Select Comfort" types of beds where the two sides are individually adjustable. Even if both sides are set to the same number, there's a marked division in the bed that makes it uncomfortable to sleep in the middle. (I put up with it anyway since I do so love to be in the middle!)

[world-rim-walke.livejournal.com]

You make a good point, and some beds just aren't big enough. Three people on a twin bed doesn't work very well, and that was just for cuddling and sleeping.

[baby-rissa-chan.livejournal.com]

Honestly, even TWO people on a twin bed is pushing it unless they're extremely cuddly and don't move a lot.

A few unsupported hypotheses

[world-rim-walke.livejournal.com]

I think that's a dumb reason to date someone, though I suppose there's a difference between finding someone attractive or wanting to sleep with that someone and being willing to date that someone.

Maybe the threesome has something of the "forbidden fruit" allure of cheating, only there's, in theory, no possibility of getting in trouble for it. Or it might be the realisation of one's desire for someone not your significant other but without, in theory, damaging your relationship with your significant other.

I had thought that adding another person makes it more difficult to keep track of what's going on, more stimulation and thereby a, possibly greater, loss of self-control. However, this wouldn't be limited to straight relationships.

[awfulhorrid.livejournal.com]

Specifically: he'll only date you because he thinks there might be a chance at a MFF threesome.

Anyway, I really can't offer any insights into straight relationships except from observation and even then most of the straight people to which I get really close aren't exactly stereotypical. (I'm including monogamous people in this.)

[sunspiral.livejournal.com]

Good essay! As a straight boy I have one objection - I'm perfectly capable of aesthetically appreciating other males even if I'm not sexually attracted to them. Makes people-watching with weegoddess and creating art much more fun.

[softfruit.livejournal.com]

I've done this exact same maths rant and even delivered it (calmly!) in workshops at LGBT spaces.

There is a certain wiggle room in that e.g. if you mostly socialise in gay spaces or have a social network that is not a random cross-section of the wider public, you may increase your girl numbers.

The counterweight to that is the tendency for mixed-sex relationships to be more socially rewarded, which is diminishing but still there.

[softfruit.livejournal.com]

Damnit, there's always "and another thing" with my LJ comments.

Mixed-gender flirting is generally safer than same-sex for boys, while for girls there is often a higher level of acceptable social intimacy leading to "is she just being friendly" questions: both of which make making the first move more tricky and so skew things further toward mixed gender outcomes.

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Yup, not to mentin the 'lesbian sheep' phenomenon, which a friend as pointed out to me may skew the numbers even more for most women (I am a terrible flirt with *everybody*, so I'm probably exempt from this, however) - I may well make a separate journal post about that.

We were JUST talking about this on Wednesday after the poly discussion group..

[zaiah.livejournal.com]

And then there is also the antipathy from the lesbian community towards bisexual women who can/do 'pass' - and have that advantage they have eschewed and think other people should to. or even the rare 'I don't want to be where any man has been' negativity.

Re: We were JUST talking about this on Wednesday after the poly discussion group..

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Hm, yes, that too. My experiences socialising with monosexual lesbian-identified women have not been brilliant so far. Seems veganism, cat-collecting, homeopathy/naturopathy and howling at the moon are non negotiable requirements, at least in London.

Not that I every bother about trying to 'pass' but the mere fact that I'm not going out of my way to look like I'm into women (whatever the hell that looks like anyway) seems to be a problem for certain people. I look too normal or something...

[conflux.livejournal.com]

Yes I was going to make the point that if you hang out in a mostly bi social group of friends then the odds are dramatically improved. Oddly most of the women I have been out with have been bi and this was happening before I started hanging out in a mostly bi social group. Maybe it was something about living in Cambridge and then Oxford?

[joreth]

This is exactly the problem I have with "research" that asks the participants to give their orientation or gender by *identity*, not by practical application, and those that do not make allowances for the differences between desire & practice.

In other words, IMO, a bisexual is someone who is *attracted* to both/all genders to some degree, not necessarily someone who has had sexual relationships with both/all genders. That leaves out all the bisexuals who just haven't had a chance yet, and counts unfairly all the people who have experimented or had other reasons for having a sexual relationship with a gender they ultimately decided was not a gender they were attracted to (i.e. gay men who "pass", particularly in the more fatal years of discrimination).

This was actually the basis of some of my tweets recently about being called "transphobic". I objected to a survey's use of personal identity as the marker for either gender or orientation on the basis that it does not accurately describe what people *really* do or think because there are cultural reasons for choosing labels, including the misunderstanding of what the label means, like the ones you're talking about here.

But suggesting that a survey ask what people *like* rather than what they *do*, and refusing to let them fill in their own identity label instead of describe themselves without an identity label was considered "transphobic" because trans people want to be able to give their own identities and not be forced into boxes by people who don't understand the trans community. Or something.

Wanting accurate results in research instead of catering to personal identity labels that are rife with misunderstandings and that contradict reality apparently makes me insensitive to marginalized people (yes, they said that).

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Ooh that complexity... My answer to this when designing studies is to include both identity/preference and genetics/practice if it's at all relevant, though it's a long time since I last threw one out. Not much use if you're limited on the number of questions, I suppose.
I start to get the feeling lately that I may get drawn into doing research again, whether I like it or not. Hanging out with too many academics to not feel the pull.

By the way was it you that linked to the survey studying bisexual women on surveymonkey? I sent a critique via email and got a really nice reply from the author. Lovely when that happens :)

[joreth]

No, I don't think that was me :-)

I agree, if the study is not limited in some way, having both preference/identity or genetics/practice options would be ideal. It would also highlight the discrepancy between "identity" and practice or genetics. But sometimes researchers have to make choices, and it is my opinion that the choice that more accurately reflects reality is always the better option. Giving people the option to just identify as "lesbian" when they are, in a behavioural and/or attracted-to sense, bisexual, hurts the data and the communities (as one example).

[just-becky.livejournal.com]

An excellent read, and good ammunition for future discussions with "normal people" thank you!

thanks

[uh-bex.livejournal.com]

last saturday my marriage finally had a long-awaited implosion and today i found the word and world 'polyamory'. i've waited 10 years trying and failing to find partners who were ok with what i want, whether it was sleeping with women or men. ten years of being told i live in cloud cuckoo land and feeling i'm a damaging person to be in relationship with, incapable - whether proudly or ashamedly - of monogomy, on a tortuous multicoloured relationship merry-go-round. but who would've thought it - THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE! not just people having a lot of free sex but people who believe that nonmonogomous long-term relationships are not only possible but represent something more beautiful. people who don't want to possess or be possessed, but do want to care about each other. people i won't eventually have to leave or who'll leave me. i feel loads better. thank you for your effort maxine.
:)

Re: thanks

[emanix.livejournal.com]

This... well, frankly this is why I blog. In the hope that I can help folks like me realise that there are others out there, as one or two people did for me.

If you haven't found it already, tacit's writings at http://xeromag.com/fvpoly.html are well worth reading, too.

I wish you well in your new found world, and don't hesitate to ask questions!

(No worries about posting in the wrong thread, comments anywhere are welcome, and will get to me!)

Re: thanks

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Oh, and if you haven't seen it already, my introductory post: Butterfly (http://emanix.livejournal.com/4429.html), which mentions my experience of being shut away in a community that couldn't accept me.

*hugs*

Re: thanks

[uh-bex.livejournal.com]

thanks maxine - i do have a question actually. why do you think society is so anti it? what have you encountered?
if i speak to people on an individual basis they would often agree, jealousy is bad, possessiveness destroys, monogomous relationships don't often last for life and most people "cheat" (or wish to) at some point. but all pervading in western (or british at least?) society is the couple's fidelity paradigm. people accept these problems as existing, but see any purposeful move outside the realm as selfish, ethically barren. why isn't it considered selfish and unethical to capture and monopolise another person's sexuality and life choices, pinning your own happiness on their compliance?
if you debate openly with non poly people, what do they say?
in all the reading i did in the last week, one quote really stuck out: people who live in full polyamory live in the worry that one day the landlord will turn up on the doorstep and evict them because there are one too many adults in the house. that really nutshelled it for me. what exactly is the box that everyone's so determined not to think outside it?
was that a hailstorm of questions - sorry.
i'd also like to know if there's a poly candy bar.
; )

Re: thanks

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Wow, uh... that was a lot of question in one go!

Often folks agree with me, then carry on doing what they were before anyway. It's hard work changing thinking and relating habits, and most people seem to find it too much effort. I haven't met a whole lot of outright hostility, but I've been out a relatively short time in comparison with a lot of folks, so we'll see.

And of course, all candy bars are poly! You just break them up into as many pieces as you have (ahem) sweeties. Other kinds of candy though are trickier - sometimes you have to count them to make sure you brought enough for everybody. :)

[uh-bex.livejournal.com]

probably posted that in the wrong thread.
:)