Is Bisexuality Really A More Natural Tendency For Women Than Men?
Dr. Justin J. Lehmiller Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 at 6:01AM 
I recently posted an article in which I concluded that “while it is indeed possible for both men and women to be bisexual, evidence from a variety of sources suggests that bisexuality may be a more natural occurrence among women than men” (see here for the complete article). I received a couple of comments on the site as well as a few e-mails that were critical of this conclusion, so I thought it might be useful to do a follow-up post and dig a little deeper into the research in the hope of clearing things up a bit more.
To begin, one reader was concerned that I was simply presenting my own personal opinions on the matter; however, this was definitely not the case. I cited three different pieces of scientific evidence supporting the notion that women have a greater tendency toward bisexuality: (1) women demonstrate arousal to a wider range of sexual targets than men, (2) a “fluid” pattern of sexuality has been found among women but not among men, and (3) men are much more likely to develop fetishes and have very category specific forms of sexuality than are women. This is clearly not an idea I’ve pulled out of thin air—just like all of the other articles posted on this site, my original post was driven by science.
Another criticism I received was that I “cherry-picked” evidence to support my conclusions and ignored research that disconfirmed it. Specifically, a study conducted by Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996)1 was mentioned by a couple of readers as evidence that men also have a natural tendency toward bisexuality, given that a significant number of "heterosexual" men in that study experienced arousal in response to watching gay male porn. However, if you look closely at the Adams study, it really says nothing at all about male bisexuality. As it turns out, almost all of the men in this study who showed significant arousal in response to gay porn were guys who were very homophobic in the first place. Although these guys may have identified themselves as heterosexual to the researchers, it doesn’t mean they actually were. Perhaps these guys were simply repressing or denying their same-sex desires. This alternative explanation makes sense in light of a series of recent research studies finding that a number of homophobic men are secretly gay. Thus, arguing that the Adams study is somehow evidence of men’s inherent bisexuality is rather flimsy in my view because the men who demonstrated arousal in response to gay porn may have been gay themselves.
The other major criticism I received was that sexuality statistics and our knowledge of human history contradict the idea that women have a more natural tendency toward bisexuality than men. The specific arguments were that almost all historical examples of bisexuality dating back to the ancient Greeks and Romans is about men, and contemporary research on sexual orientation finds that female bisexuals don’t typically outnumber male bisexuals. Regarding the historical argument, I don’t dispute that there’s more past evidence of male than female bisexuality. But does that mean that bisexuality was necessarily rarer in women? No. Maybe we just don’t have as many female examples because historians were less likely to write about female sexuality. Also, societies have made a much greater effort for years to control and constrain women’s sexuality than men’s, which may further contribute to the seemingly greater number of male bisexuals.
Regarding contemporary statistics, most of the data I’ve seen actually support the conclusions in my original post. For instance, if you look at all of the major nationally representative sex surveys conducted in the United States in the past decade (i.e., the National Survey of Family Growth, the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, the General Social Survey, etc.), they all consistently show that a higher percentage of women identifies as bisexual than men.2 See for yourself: check out this report from the CDC that summarizes all of the findings from all of these studies (you can find the relevant data in a table on page 32). One other really interesting thing about this report is that it consistently shows that bisexualilty is more common than homosexuality among women, whereas homosexuality is more common thatn bisexuality among men. This fits with the narrative from my earlier post suggesting that women’s sexuality tends to be more situation-dependent, whereas men’s sexuality is more specific to a certain category.
Overall, my take on the research in this area is that bisexuality is something that clearly exists in both men and women—I have never argued and never will argue that it only occurs in women. However, the science is pretty clear that women seem to have a more natural tendency toward bisexuality than men. Does this mean that all women are inherently bisexual? No. Once again, I have never argued that and never will argue that. Sexuality is incredibly complex and there are few (if any) true universals that would apply to everyone in a particular group. The key thing to take away from this is simply that sexuality is sometimes expressed differently in men and women, and bisexuality happens to be one of those cases where the sexes appear to diverge.
Want to learn more about The Psychology of Human Sexuality? Click here for a complete list of articles or like the Facebook page to get articles delivered to your newsfeed.
1Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A., (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 440-445.
2Chandra, A., Mosher, W. D., & Copen, C. (2011). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 36, 1-36.
Image Source: http://gaygirls.spreadshirt.co.uk/caution-goes-both-ways-A14412919
Reader Comments (11)
Just another take on it perhaps: I personally believe that everyone exists on a spectrum of bisexuality, where no one is truly 100% heterosexual or homosexual, but somewhere in between. There is a lot of evidence that would point towards women being more open to identifying as bisexual, a lot of which can be seen in your discussion of sexual fluidity in the past. Perhaps it is more so the openness to bisexuality that causes the trend you pointed out, rather than an actual difference in numbers of bisexuals. I feel as though men would be forced - by social pressure - into picking one or the other, and a lot of the evidence you cite would be skewed by this forced choice.
You're right that social pressure may discourage men from identifying as bisexual, and that could indeed play a role in explaining why sexuality statistics suggest that female bisexuals outnumber male bisexuals. However, it's not as clear to me how that social pressure explanation accounts for the greater prevalence of fetishes among men (which are extremely rare in women) or the sexual arousal studies showing that women experience physiological arousal in response to a wider range of targets than men. I still think you make a great point--but my view is that if you look at all of the evidence together, it suggests that men are more inclined toward specific categories than women.
Social pressure also affords men more opportunity to act on fetishes. Many more men patronize professional fetish and fantasy providers. However, given income disparity and the privileging of male sexuality, I would hesitate to say that this means men have more fetishes across the board. Women, on the other hand, are often socialized to be cooperative and accommodating. Does that translate to fluidity?
Sexuality and sexual taboos are both socially and biologically influenced. Gender and biological sex are both different than sexuality. It's too complicated for me to feel confident saying *anything* is natural except perhaps having a sex drive (and even then there are counter examples). If you said something like, "evidence suggests women are more likely to have sexual responses to a variety of genders and sexes", I would be less inclined to disagree.
OTOH, I'm very interested to hear from people who have experienced both estrogen-dominated and testosterone-dominated physiology about how they've experienced sexuality differently with different hormonal ratios. Do people with more testosterone experience more rigid sexual preferences? Do people with more estrogen experience more fluidity? How does this vary depending on the values someone holds about gender and sexuality? Are there developmental differences? In other words, do people at different points in their lifelong development of their sexuality tend toward more or less fluidity of preference?
Thanks for stimulating interesting thoughts!
You might want to head up to the 15th floor and check out the Banaji lab - one of the RAs, Steve Lehr, is actually running a study showing evidence for male sexual fluidity.
Interesting! Thanks for the heads-up. As I said, I'm not aware of any published research demonstrating male sexual fluidity--but if there's some new work in the pipeline showing it exists, I would love to see it. That would fundamentally change a lot of our current theories about sexuality...
First, I apologize to you Doctor, for my preview comment. I made many unnecessary and personal attacks to your person, so please, forgive me.
Second, as you may know, in America there has been a recent trend, where women kiss in public to attract men (a trend that I personally dislike). And some “Macho Men” who are so narrow minded to understand girls do it to gain attention, now are making claims like “Most women are inherently bisexual” or that we all are potentially bisexual. And I was afraid they used such studies and your personal opinion as reliable sources. But I'm glad you said you weren't argued that.
As for a social argument: As you commented, historically, societies have constrained women, so what do we get? More male bisexuals. Now we are sort of living the opposite phenomenon (at least when it comes to same sex experimentation). Our society has constrained men (they're less likely to talk about it, because there is a big risk of being dump by their partners (as in many cases I’m aware of) among other risks). So, what do we get now? More female bisexuals.
I wonder if all the studies mentioned so far would have taken place in societies like Celtics or Ancient Rome (where MM was normal). Would we get the same results?
If you say “based SOLELY on TODAY’S scientific evidence, it seems women have a more natural tendency to bisexuality” I think I can live with that. Just let’s see if it holds within 10 or 20 years (But if Anon is right, then we may not have to wait too long).
As a final note, some foreign friends told me: “America is not the world” And they’re right. In their countries, all forms of homosexuality and bisexuality are still huge taboos.
I'm deeply TIRED of hearing nonsenses like this recent myth of "the inherent female bisexuality" or the idea that "there are far more bisexual women than men".
Are we going to rewrite the entire human history and reality just because a couple of studies try to prove that this myth is true? There's absolutely NOTHING in real history to support the idea that bisexuality is more common in men than in women. It's precisely the other way around. The accounts of female homosexual behaviour have always been extremly scarce when compared to men's. So what are these researchers trying to prove? That, historically, women have been very, very skillful hiding their homosexual acts, while men have been so clumsy that everyone knew about them? How can such idiocy make even sense?
Also, most statistics (starting with Kinsey) show that the amount of men engaging in same-sex acts is higher than the amount of women, and these findings are the same across diferent countries and times. The ones that show otherwise are the exception (all of them very recent and usually conducted in America, famous for its double-standard on lesbians and gays, that has lead to that trend of the "barsexuals").
You're also wrong when you think that the Adams' study doesn't prove that men are inherently as bisexual as women. The percentage of non-homophobic men that got aroused by gay porn was of 34%, which seems to me a respectable number. Also, the fact that these men were homophobic doesn't mean that they're not straight. Most homophobes ARE straight. And in any case, if one can accuse these men of being closeted gays, then, one can also accuse the women of the Chiver's study of being closeted lesbians. By the way, the Chiver's study is pure bullshit. First of all, the method they used to measure female arousal is highly inaccurate and challenged by many researchers. Second, they used trans-women as control group fr biological women (just suggesting that a surgical vagina has anything to do with a biological one should be enough to kick her out the scientific community). Third, in Chiver's study, only straight women showed weird arousal patterns; lesbians reacted as one would have expected. But, guess what, there's a similar study conducted before this one (and mentioned in Chiver's research paper, for anyone who wants to check it) that showed exactly the opposite result: straight women showed normal arousal patterns, while lesbians didn't. Also, Bailey and Chivers conducted a study on bisexual men that tried to prove that bisexual men don't exist, but, guess what again, they replicated the study later and they found that, yes, bisexual men exist.
All this is enough to prove how higly inaccurate, subjective and biased are these studies, and how researchers manipulate them to show whatever fits their theories. Do you want to prove that homophobes are gay because you want to annoy them? You got it. Do you want to prove that all women are bisexual while no man is, because that will give you the cover of lots of magazines and will make men feel more secure? You got it.
So in the end, no "scientific" study is entitled to reinterpret reality, and what reality tells us, is that men are as inherently bisexual as women (if not more). You have plenty of evidence for this: Greek and Roman history, non-Western cultures in which young men engage in homosexual relationships before marrying (like in some African tribes, or the Muslim world), the usual behaviours in all-men environments like prison, the Army or gender-segregated schools, and so on, and on...
But well, then here come Chivers, Lisa Diamond and R.Lippa (three individuals, no more, from whom ultimately stems all these myths), coupled with a bunch of statistics largely contradicted by the rest, and suddenly, we have to turn history and reality upside down.
I guess that all this is nothing more than a manifestation of that male porn fantasy of "girl on girl is hot". But fantasies are just that, dudes: fantasies.
I suspect that my previous post was censored because of bad language or something like that (I'm not used to American standards in this subject, sorry). So I decided to rewrite it and try not to be offensive to anyone, even when I find the theme of this post quite offensive and demeaning for both straight and lesbian women, in the first place.
I'll make a summary of the arguments:
1) Why the Adams' study is an actual proof of men being sexually flexible:
The percentage of non-homophobic men who got aroused by gay porn was 34%. That's not an irrelevant number.
Also, there's no proof that the homophobic men in this study were closeted gays; they got aroused by straight and lesbian porn as much as non-homophobic ones. And if one can accuse them of being closeted gays, then one can accuse the women of Chivers' study of being closeted bisexuals.
The only reason why the researchers distorted the results, is because their obvious goal was to annoy homophobes and make them look gay.
But how can someone believe that an homophobe who is secretely gay would participate in such a study of his own will? Now, really!?
The original research paper is here, by the way: https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
2) Why the Chivers' study is bad science:
First of all, using transexual women as control group for biological women (suggesting that a surgical vagina is the same as a biological one, but that transexual women's brain is completely male) is bad, BAD science.
Second: Measuring female arousal just by vaginal moisture is inaccurate and unreliable (there's proof of raped women showing vaginal moisture, which suggests that this is an automatic protective effect, rather than a sign of real arousal).
Third: Lesbian women (for no apparent reason) showed more normal patterns of arousal. However, in a previous study conducted by Laan (1996) and cited in Bayley & Chivers' paper, the results were exactly the opposite: straight women = normal patterns, lesbian women = weird patterns (both of them were more aroused by straight porn).
The research paper is here: http://www.goofyfootpress.com/links/pdfs/Bailey.pdf
Fourth: A THIRD of the men in the study (I don't remember if it was in the previous one or in this one: http://files.embedit.in/embeditin/files/45IleOWgm/1/file.pdf) showed NO response to any stimulus. If the researchers were so eager to come up with the ridiculous conclusion that "all women are bisexual", why didn't they jump to the conclusion that "a third of men is asexual"? So much for their honesty...
Fifth: Bayley conducted a similar study in which he tried to prove that bisexual men don't exist. Guess what? The same study was conducted later and showed exactly the opposite. So much for the reliability of these studies...
Sixth (and principal reason): There's absolutely no ground in reality to support Chivers' conclusions. Straight men GET aroused by gay porn in countless occasions. Just google "straight men like gay porn" or whatever other combination in any language, and you'll find lots of personal testimonies about it, and women worrying about the gay magazines they found among the stuff of their husbands (it's quite a cliché).
Also, women don't get equally turned by all sexual stimuli, not in the least. Take a look at the kind of erotical fiction written by women for women, and compare the amount of fiction which portrays gay (male/male) sex, like yaoi and slash, with the amount of fiction which portrays lesbian sex. You'll find that 90% of it is male/male. This is so well known, that some gay pornographic industries are now aiming their products to straight women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_pornography#Audience) and the yaoi subculture is quickly expanding from Japan to the rest of the world.
On the other hand, lesbian porn has its main audience in straight men and some lesbians, but not in straight women.
3) Why history and reality don't support the view that "women are more sexually fluid than men":
-Ancient Greece/Rome.
-Non-Western cultures in which homosexual relationships between unmarried men are or were common (Muslim world, some African tribes...)
-Behaviour in all-male environments: prisons, Army, gender-seggregated schools. Also, the high rate of homosexual abuse conducted by catholic priests on boys because they can't have sex with women (unless you consider that natural-born homosexual pedophiles are very, very interested in Catholicism for no apparent reason).
-Abundant testimonies of straight men who consent to gay sex under special conditions that increase libido, like being drunk or drugged (specially famous is the case of crystal meth). The same result has been observed in animals like fruit flies, whose behaviour when drunk is similar to that of humans.
-Most statistics worlwide and the percetanges of male same-sex experiencies compared to women's.
-The scarce accounts of lesbianism through history, the general ignorance about the subject, and the limited regulations forbidding it (unless you consider that women who commited these "sinful" acts were extremely skilled at hiding it, while women who commited other sins like adultery or prostitution were so clumsy that everybody knew about them).
4) How is it that fetish fixation is a proof of sexual rigidity!?
Fetishes are the product of culture and personal experiences. You don't develop a fetish about lingerie, unless you live in a culture in which women use lingerie (i.e. no Amazonian tribes) and that eroticizes lingerie. So, if anything, developing of fetishes is a proof of permeability towards culture and sexual malleability, not the other way around.
Well, I could go on forever. My main point is: you can't ignore extensive information, the whole human history, lots of personal testimonies, and simple empirical observation, and try to debunk it with a couple of ridiculous studies conducted by a few individuals (Diamond, Chivers, Lippa and not many more), who may have their own agendas and interests behind all this.
Reality doesn't work like that. A laboratory study conducted with a handful of persons can't reshape history to accomodate it to its results. It's the other way around. If the results don't match reality, then research is wrong, biased or distorted.
Just the other day I read an article about a study which showed that cat owners had fewer heart attacks than those who don't have cats. And according to the study, this WAS real. But that doesn't mean that cats really protect you from heart attacks (common sense will tell you that they don't), and the same applies to this subject.
Sorry, but THIS IS A MYTH, PERIOD. A male fantasy that makes men feel more secure of their sexuality, by diverting their sexual insecurities to women, and that gives researchers a lot of press attention (proof that we're here discussing it).
And deep inside, you all know that it's not true.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I welcome different points of view and discussion.
Let me begin by saying that the goal of my post was not to be offensive to women or to perpetuate stereotypes about female sexuality. What I do on this website is present and discuss scientific research published in reputable journals. Sometimes people do not agree with what the science says, and they’re entitled to their opinion. However, I think it’s important to be open to scientific findings that might not necessarily fit with your own personal worldview. It takes us down a very dangerous path to selectively choose which science we want to believe and to claim that anyone’s research that contradicts our worldviews is necessarily biased or politically motivated. It’s also incredibly dangerous to say that we don’t need science when “common sense” can tell us what we need to know. In reality, there’s nothing common about common sense—what is “common sense” can vary widely across persons. And a mountain of research in psychology has shown that common sense often turns out to be wrong (e.g., the idea that “opposites attract” in relationships). This is one of the many reasons why we need science.
That said, I have a few responses to your arguments. First, you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that most of the researchers in this area are saying that “ALL women are bisexual” and that male bisexuality does not exist, and that is absolutely not the case—let’s be clear that this is not what I am saying and it’s not what anyone else is arguing either. Bisexuality exists in both men and women. Period. All that the research is suggesting is that the notion of a “flexible” sexuality is more common among women than it is among men.
Second, with regard to the Adams study, check out the bottom of page 442: “these results indicate that the homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video but that the control men did not.” This study is pretty clear in finding that arousal in response to gay porn was largely (but not exclusively, as you pointed out) on the side of the homophobic men. Can we say with certainty that the homophobic men in this study were secretly gay? No. But I’ve cited research above which has found that many homophobic men actually are gay, which provides a plausible alternative interpretation. No corresponding finding has been found for women, so these results say nothing about Chivers’ research. Also, there’s no evidence that the research I’ve cited has been “distorted” or was politically motivated, so that’s not a productive discussion to have.
Third, with regard to the Chivers’ study, transsexual women were not the “control” group for biological women, and criticizing a study for including transsexuals is odd. We know very little about transsexuality, so I consider it to be a good thing for a study to incorporate transsexual participants—it tells us a heck of a lot more than just incorporating strict biological males and females. In terms of the Laan study showing different results, well, it was a different study using different methods—it was not identical. And the methods used in the Laan study were not as complete and comprehensive as they were in the Chivers study. It is precisely because studies don’t always use the exact same methods over and over that they find different results—case in point: Bailey’s research on male bisexuality. His first and second studies used completely different selection criteria for participants and, as a result, came to very different conclusions.
Fourth, regarding fetishes, it’s important to recognize that people can develop fetishes for virtually anything—not just lingerie. As a result, fetish objects can vary cross-culturally. However, across cultures, men are still more likely to develop fetishes than women, providing more evidence of category specificity in male sexuality.
In closing, let me say that the evidence that women have a more flexible sexuality than men is compelling and cannot simply be dismissed by saying it’s a myth or that the researchers were biased or seeking personal fame and glory. And yes, the history books may have written more about male than female bisexuality, but the history books also wrote a lot more about men in general than they did about women—so what does that really tell us? This is why we need science—we can’t base all of our knowledge of human behavior on what was written in history books and our own personal observations.
It takes us down a very dangerous path to selectively choose which science we want to believe and to claim that anyone’s research that contradicts our worldviews is necessarily biased or politically motivated.
Well, isn't that what these researchers that you mention are doing? Selectively ignoring any piece of research (Kinsey, for example) , historical document, statistic, or cultural study that contradicts their worldview (which, by the way, are most of them)?
I'm not pitting my personal worldview against science. Those researchers are the ones who are opposing empirical reality to defend their personal studies (studies that don't encompass SCIENCE as a whole, but are just a minuscule particle of it, and very much subject to controversy).
And you seem to forget that researchers are also humans, and have their own ideologies, interests, and political views. Science is rarely as pure and neutral as they want to make us believe.
But since everybody seems to love so much these studies, anyway, why don't we talk more about the ones that don't support your worldview?
For example, the study made by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam (the biggest conducted in the area) which explored the erotic preferences of millions of persons (unlike Chivers who studied...hummm...two dozens of people?). The results were compiled in the book "A Billion Wicked Thoughts".
Link to a summary: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/billion-wicked-thoughts
Among the things they found is the fact that women spend a lot of time watching gay male porn (not lesbian, not even straight, GAY porn), and that straight men...guess what, like to watch penises as much as they like watching vaginas.
Well, why isn't anybody claiming that men are more inherently bisexual than women upon finding this results? Results that come, by the way, from a study which is a million times bigger than Chivers', and cross-national.
Oh, well! I forgot our sacred double-standards. When it's about men, we can't say anything which could be offensive; the explanation must be that they're just comparing sizes.
Yeah, sure...
And yes, the history books may have written more about male than female bisexuality, but the history books also wrote a lot more about men in general than they did about women
Yeah, but still everybody knows since ancient times that women could be lustful and adulterous. There's plenty of narratives, stories and mythology about it; it's almost an universal stereotype. But then, if women have always been as incredible flexible as these studies try to make us believe, then why there's no more narratives about lesbians?
We have again the fallacy of "adulterous women didn't know how to hide it, but lesbians knew". I'm not going to accept such an irrational explanation (I doubt that anybody could accept something like that).
This is why we need science—we can’t base all of our knowledge of human behavior on what was written in history books and our own personal observations.
Well, the good part of this, is that sooner or later someone will come up with a study showing the exact opposite of these researchs, and then everybody will have to change their minds overnight.
What they're doing now with this subject is pretty much the same as they did in the XIXth century with nymphomania: pushing a "demeaning" quality in women, to hide how prevalent it's actually in men. And as it happened with nymphomania being a typical female disease, time is going to prove them all wrong.
And if those studies ever pan out and get published, I will be happy to feature them on the blog. The goal of what I do is not to push my personal worldview on people—I simply discuss the latest science that’s published in peer-reviewed journals. I am not wedded to any of these ideas and I’m not trying to push an agenda about women’s sexuality. If new data arrive that challenge the prevailing scientific view or my personal views, I’m OK with that. As scientists, we have to be open to new ideas and be willing to revise our theories.
Just a couple of quick points: the studies that you criticized did not ignore past research (for example, Chivers cited Laan and talked about the limitations of Laan’s research up front), so I don’t think those researchers can be dismissed for not having done their homework. If you read those articles, they clearly situate themselves in the existing literature and have not ignored everything that came before--check it out. Also, I know some of these researchers personally, and I can tell you that their work is not politically motivated. These are some of the most respected researchers in the field and their work has been vetted by outside experts before being published in top journals. If the work was so fundamentally flawed or obviously biased, it would not have been published. And, I'm sorry, but I don't buy that there's a big conspiracy theory in the field of sexuality where everyone is colluding to promote false ideas about women's sexuality--there's just no evidence of it.
With respect to “A Billion Wicked Thoughts,” calling that “research” is a bit of a stretch considering that the work was never presented in any scientific forum (conference or journal) and, as such, was never really vetted before being published. Does it make for an entertaining read? Sure. But there are lots of reasons to approach that book with a healthy dose of skepticism, and I’ll do a whole blog post on it at some point (for now, check out some of the noted problems here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexualitytoday/201105/sexual-science-meets-billion-wicked-thoughts).
And in terms of this research “demeaning” women or being likened to a “disease,” I don’t see it that way at all and that’s certainly not the goal of this research (which, by the way, has largely been conducted by women, such as Meredith Chivers and Lisa Diamond). None of this research has suggested that having a flexible sexuality is pathological, and sex researchers are not ignoring or falsifying what happens in men—there just appears to be a sex difference in this area. And a difference is not necessarily a good or bad thing—it’s just a difference. Some people may not like the difference, and some people are motivated to believe that there are no sex differences at all. But again, my goal here is to discuss the science, not personal opinions.
My final words on this matter are that there is a growing amount of sound research suggesting that women have a more flexible sexuality than men. Again, this is NOT to say that all women are inherently bisexual or that bisexuality doesn’t exist in men. More research on this topic is desperately needed, and it’s entirely possible that our conclusions about male and female sexuality will change as new work comes out. And as more data come in, I will gladly feature and discuss them here and I hope that everyone will approach it with an open mind, no matter what the conclusions are.