‘Robust evidence for bisexual orientation among men’: LGBTQ study revision

bisexual pride

In 2005, J. Michael Bailey, a sexuality researcher at Northwestern University, and two colleagues showed men who identify as bisexual brief pornographic clips featuring men or women, while measuring their subjects’ self-reported arousal and change in penis circumference. The results, when compared to men who identified as straight or gay, led them to conclude that the men identifying as bisexual did not actually have “strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli.”

A New York Times headline covering Bailey’s 2005 study on men declared: “Straight, Gay, or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited.”

But the paper also spurred more research into the subject — some of which has now led Bailey to revise his conclusions… Bailey and 12 colleagues reanalyzed data from eight previously published studies of bisexual-identified men, including the 2005 paper. The new review finds that men who reported attraction to both men and women do in fact show genital arousal towards both male and female stimuli. The data, the authors conclude, offers “robust evidence for bisexual orientation among men.”

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

The PNAS study has drawn positive coverage and received praise from some activists, who see it as valuable confirmation for an often-marginalized sexual identity. But it has also received backlash from other scientists and many bisexual people, some of whom argue that in attempting to prove, based on genital arousal, that bisexuality exists, researchers are discounting bisexual people’s lived experiences.

Read the original post

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Picture1
Hiroshima at 81: America’s new nuclear bomb, a buried Iranian target, and a question no one wants to ask
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-10_15_14-AM
Viewpoint—A hard look at the Fauci diaries: Do they change what we know about COVID’s origins?
png livestock cow cattle a
Consumer skepticism about gene-edited milk is neither fixed nor particularly high—and falls even more if it’s priced lower
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-31-2026-07_35_35-AM
Wikipedia has assembled an informative list of fake news websites from across the ideological spectrum
Screenshot-2026-07-31-at-10.52.03-AM
Love sweets and fatty foods? You can blame your genes, but there are ways to quell the obsessions
Screenshot-2026-08-03-at-2.25.49-PM
As measles vaccination rates collapse, scientists push for treatments long considered unnecessary
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-12_42_58-PM
Viewpoint: Fact-checking CNN interview with RFK, Jr. underscores the depth of his disinformation delusions
ChatGPT Image Jul 29, 2026, 09_08_15 AM 2
The retreat of environmental extremism: Why activist NGOs are losing favor
Screenshot-2026-08-03-at-2.15.16-PM
Viewpoint: Trump’s relaxed controls on supplying China with microchips could undermine U.S. AI dominance
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-09_31_50-AM-2
Viewpoint: Could the U.S. become dependent on China to develop critical new genetic and drug therapies?
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-07_52_00-PM
No liability for scientific due diligence: California Supreme Court rejects bizarre lawsuit faulting Gilead for fully evaluating HIV drug before release
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.