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.

[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.

[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).

[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.
:)

[uh-bex.livejournal.com]

probably posted that in the wrong thread.
:)