Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
DOI 10.1007/s10508-011-9881-7
OR IGINAL PAPER
The Male Bisexuality Debate Revisited: Some Bisexual Men Have
Bisexual Arousal Patterns
A. M. Rosenthal • David Sylva • Adam Safron •
J. Michael Bailey
Published online: 23 December 2011
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract Self-identified bisexual men report high sexual
arousal to both male and female stimuli, but no study to date has
compellingly demonstrated that such men have a bisexual pattern
of genital arousal. We examined sexual arousal patterns among
bisexual men recruited using stringent criteria designed to
exclude those who were less likely to have sexual interest in both
sexes. Furthermore, we included a bisexual stimulus depicting
a man engaged in sex simultaneously with another man and a
woman. On average, the bisexual men showed a bisexual arousal
pattern, with respect to both self-reported and genital arousal.
Additionally, the bisexual men were more aroused by the bisex-
ual stimulus compared with the homosexual and heterosexual
men. Some bisexual-identifi men have bisexual genital arousal
patterns, although it remains unclear how common they are.
Keywords Male bisexuality · Sexual arousal patterns ·
Sexual orientation · Penile plethysmography · Monosexual
Introduction
Are bisexual-identified men strongly sexually attracted to both
men and women or does their bisexual identity derive from
other, possibly nonsexual, motives? This question has been
scientifi controversial (Cerny & Janssen, 2011; Rieger,
Chivers, & Bailey, 2005) and has generated considerable
commentary from organizations such as the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force (2005). The heated nature of the con-
troversy is understandable considering that it is, in part, about
the validity of some bisexual men’s self-construal. We have
A. M. Rosenthal (&) · D. Sylva · A. Safron · J. M. Bailey
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University,
2029 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208, USA
e-mail: rosenthal@northwestern.edu
two primary goals for this article. First, we clarify several
issues related to the general question of what motivates bisex-
ual behavior and identification in men. In particular, we argue
for the importance of using men’s sexual arousal patterns to
elucidate their sexual motivations. Second, we report the results
of an empirical study comparing the sexual arousal patterns of
bisexual men with those of monosexual men (i.e., heterosexual
and homosexual men).
Is Male Bisexuality Motivated by Sexual Attraction
to Both Sexes?
The most obvious reason why a man might choose to identify as
bisexual, and have sex with both men and women, is that he finds
both sexually attractive. Indeed, men who identify as bisexual
tend to report smaller differences between their attractions to
men and women, compared with monosexual men (Laumann,
Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). One way to measure self-
reported bisexual attraction is through the Kinsey scale, a 7-point
scale of relative sexual attraction to men versus women. The
range of scores 2–4 within the Kinsey scale indicate‘‘more than
incidental’’attraction to both sexes (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin,
1948, p. 641). The fact that some bisexual-identifimen indi-
cate they have sexual attraction to both sexes suggests male
bisexuality may be sexually motivated (Laumann et al., 1994).
Sexual attraction to men and women, however, is not the only
conceivable motivation for bisexual identifi and behavior.
For example, many homosexual men identify as bisexual prior to
adopting a gay identity (Lever, 1994). This may be because doing
so facilitates self-acceptance of their sexual orientation (Stokes,
Damon, & McKirnan, 1997). Bisexuality involves having heter-
osexual attractions, so some homosexual men may initially iden-
tify as bisexual because they believe its intermediacy between
heterosexuality and homosexuality makes it more normal or
socially acceptable. It is also possible that some homosexual men
13
2 Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
may identify as bisexual because of negative attitudes they or
others have about homosexuality or effeminacy (Troiden, 1989).
Another reason some men may identify as bisexual is because it
may increase their sexual appeal to some partners. Most homo-
sexual men prefer masculine partners (Bailey, Kim, Hills, &
Linsenmeier, 1997) and they may perceive bisexual men as more
masculine because bisexual men, like heterosexual men, are
attracted to women. Thus, some homosexual men may intention-
ally misrepresent themselves as bisexual to increase their sexual
appeal to potential sexual partners.
Other men may experiment sexually with members of both
sexes because they are more open-minded or less inhibited,
even if they experience much less sexual excitement to mem-
bers of one sex than the other. Such men may be more likely to
identify as bisexual because of their open-mindedness or behav-
ioral experiences, rather than substantial sexual attraction to
both men and women. We suspect that men whose bisexuality
results from these various pathways are likely to be quite dif-
ferent from each other and from men who have strong sexual
attraction to both men and women.
Skepticism that bisexual identity and behavior are motivated
by sexual attraction to both sexes has long existed, both among
researchers and laypersons. For example, Hirschfeld (1914/
2001, pp. 197–215) believed that most bisexual-identifi men
were attracted to men, or women, but not both. The historian
Norton (2008) asserted:‘‘Show me a man who…‘aims for bisex-
uality’–as D. H. Lawrence is said to have done–and I will show
you a tormented man who is unable to admit his homosexuality
to himself.’’The assertion by monosexual people that true bisex-
uality (that is, attraction to both sexes) does not exist has been
termed bisexual erasure (Yoshino, 2000). One reason that has
been offered why monosexual people deny that valid bisexual
people (particularly bisexual men) exist is the interest of the
former in exaggerating the stability of sexual orientation (Yosh-
ino, 2000). By denying the existence of bisexuality, monosexual
people may not have to consider the possibility that their own
sexual attractions may vary in a bisexual fashion over time.
These opinions do not provide strong evidence about whether
men who identify as bisexual, and behave bisexually, are moti-
vated by attraction to both sexes. However, they do raise the ques-
tion of what scientifi evidence exists on either side of the issue.
Is Male Bisexuality a Sexual Orientation? The Centrality
of Sexual Arousal
Bailey (2009) argued that, for men (but not women), a sexual
orientation is equivalent to a sexual arousal pattern. Indeed,
homosexual men exhibit substantial sexual arousal to attractive
men and little, if any, sexual arousal to attractive women; the
opposite pattern occurs for heterosexual men (Chivers, Rieger,
Latty, & Bailey, 2004; Chivers, Seto, & Blanchard, 2007;
13
Freund, 1963, 1967, 1974; Freund, Langevin, Cibiri, & Zajac,
1973; Sakheim, Barlow, Beck, & Abrahamson, 1985). To the
extent that bisexual men’s sexual behavior and identity are
determined by their feelings of sexual attraction and arousal,
they have a bisexual orientation, analogous to heterosexual and
homosexual orientation. This conception of sexual orientation is
distinguished from sexual identity (which refl how a man
conceives his sexuality or how he wishes others to conceive it)
and sexual behavior, both of which may be infl nced by factors
others than sexual arousal. Bailey argued that sexual arousal
patterns are the fundamental sexual motivation that can infl
ence other components of sexuality, such as sexual identity and
behavior. Other infl ences on these components, such as con-
straints on the availability of desired partners (as in prison) or
concerns about stigma on sexual identity, do not refl sexual
motivation.
Although Bailey’s (2009) argument was conceptual rather
than practical, sexual arousal has the scientific advantage that
it can be measured objectively, if not perfectly. This contrasts
with other relevant feelings, such as attraction, love, and attach-
ment, which currently must be measured via self-report and thus
may be confounded by factors such as impression management.
Recent fi dings that bisexual men have a bisexual pattern of
viewing time of male versus female erotic images (Ebsworth &
Lalumiere, in press; Lippa, 2011) are somewhat more impressive
than mere self-report. However, it is possible to imagine alterna-
tives to the interpretation that men with bisexual viewing patterns
have bisexual orientation (e.g., viewing time could refl ct aes-
thetic interest). Direct measures of sexual arousal do not have this
limitation.
Men’s sexual arousal is measured in the laboratory via their
penile erections to different kinds of erotic stimuli. In order to
measure sexual arousal to one sex or the other unambiguously,
the erotic stimuli must contain actors of only one sex. These
might include, for example, fi depicting either two men or two
women having sex or pictures of nude individuals. Male sexual
orientation can then be estimated by observing which stimuli are
associated with the highest degree of genital sexual arousal.
Heterosexual men generally have far greater genital arousal to
female than to male stimuli and homosexual men show the oppo-
site pattern (Sakheim et al., 1985). Genital assessment of sexual
arousal and orientation is imperfect, both because sexual arousal
is not always accompanied by erection, and because measure-
ment error may be induced by a variety of factors, such as move-
ment, attention, anxiety, and age. But when erections of suffi-
cient magnitude occur to support a clear repeatable pattern of
genital arousal, genital assessment is suffi ly accurate that it
arguably trumps self-report. A man who identifi as heterosex-
ual but who has much larger erections to male than female erotic
stimuli is likely to have a homosexual orientation, regardless of
his sexual identity. Considering that the present debate concern-
ing male bisexuality concerns whether bisexual men’s self-
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
reported sexual feelings match their true sexual feelings, objec-
tive measures of sexual arousal are potentially useful in resolving
the question.
Defining Bisexual Arousal
If some men have a bisexual orientation, this should be
reflected in their pattern of sexual arousal to menandwomenor
to male and female erotic stimuli. The strongest definition of a
bisexual arousal pattern would require equal arousal to both
sexes, but this may be unnecessarily stringent. A man may be
sexually attracted to (and substantially aroused by) both men
and women while still having some preference for one sex.
A more liberal defi ition of bisexual arousal is one in which
there is any sexual arousal to both male and female erotic stimuli.
By this understanding, for example, a man has a bisexual arousal
pattern if he has a detectable increase in erection to both male and
female stimuli, even if his erections to male stimuli are much
greater. This defi on has at least three limitations. First, low
levels of arousal elicited by an erotic stimulus might refl factors
other than a participant’s sexual interest in the actors in the
stimulus. For example, a participant may conceivably become
aroused by the situation of having his sexual arousal assessed.
Second, low levels of erectile responding—even those that sur-
pass so-called non-responder thresholds—are measured less accu-
rately, thereby increasing the incidence of false positives (Kuban,
Barbaree, & Blanchard, 1999). Third, low levels of arousal are
arguably not consistent with the Kinseyian understanding of
bisexual arousal as more than incidental arousal to both sexes
(Kinsey et al., 1948).
A better way to defi bisexual arousal may be as follows: a
man’s arousal pattern is relatively bisexual if he is more aroused
by male stimuli than are heterosexual men and more aroused by
female stimuli than are homosexual men. This defi is use-
ful, in part, because it compares bisexual men’s arousal with the
arousal of heterosexual and homosexual men. That is, bisexual
arousal is not defi ed in a vacuum that ignores self-reported sex-
ual identity, but relative to the arousal patterns of other men.
To operationalize this defi it helps to introduce the idea
of minimum arousal, which is the lesser of each man’s arousal to
either male or female stimuli, regardless of his self-reported
sexual identity (Rieger et al., 2005). Men with greater mini-
mum arousal (i.e., greater arousal to their less arousing sex) have
arousal patterns that are more bisexual. We reported an analysis
of the minimum arousal data from the present study elsewhere
(Rosenthal, Sylva, Safron, & Bailey, 2011). An alternative, but
not statistically independent, defi of bisexual arousal con-
cerns the difference between one’s minimum arousal subtracted
from one’s maximum arousal (the greater of each man’s arousal
to either male or female stimuli). We will refer to this difference
as the Arousal Difference Score. Relatively small Arousal Dif-
ference Scores are relatively bisexual.
137
Testing Whether Bisexual Men Have (Relatively)
Bisexual Arousal
To test whether bisexual men tend to have bisexual arousal
patterns, participants’ Arousal Difference Scores (y-axis) can be
regressed onto their Kinsey scores (x-axis). If men with bisexual
Kinsey scores tend to have a bisexual arousal patterns, then this
regression will show a positive quadratic effect (a U-shaped
curve), with smaller Arousal Difference Scores for participants
with bisexual Kinsey scores (i.e., those toward the middle of the
range), and larger Arousal Difference Scores for participants
with monosexual Kinsey scores (i.e., those toward the ends of
the range).
What would a failure to fi this effect mean? It would be
consistent with the possibility that self-reported bisexual feel-
ings in men are not accompanied by an increased likelihood of
showing a bisexual arousal pattern. It would not imply that bisex-
ual arousal patterns do not exist, even in the sample analyzed.
It would only imply that bisexual arousal patterns are no more
common among self-identifi bisexual men than among self-
identifi heterosexual or homosexual men.
Previous Research on Bisexual Men’s Arousal Patterns
Tollison, Adams, and Tollison (1979) measured the genital and
subjective (self-reported) arousal of 10 self-identified bisexual,
10 homosexual, and 10 heterosexual male college students.
Participants were shown photos of nude male and female indi-
viduals and one film each of male–male oral sex and male–
female vaginal sex while their genital arousal was measured.
They also reported their subjective arousal to each stimulus.
Bisexual participants reported being highly aroused by both
male and female stimuli, but this was not corroborated by the
genital measure. Bisexual participants had genital arousal pat-
terns that were indistinguishable from the homosexual partic-
ipants, with much greater arousal to male stimuli than to female
stimuli (or stimuli containing both sexes). Because the bisexual
participants in this study were college-aged, it is possible that
some of them had temporarily adopted a bisexual identity on
the way to coming out as homosexual (Stokes et al., 1997).
McConaghy and Blaszczynski (1991) assessed the sexual
arousal patterns of 20 men seeking psychiatric treatment for
unwanted sexual urges, including ‘‘compulsive’’ homosexu-
ality, exhibitionism, voyeurism, pedophilia, fetishism, sadism,
and masochism. Participants were not asked to report their
sexual identity. Instead, they rated the percentages of their
current attractions and fantasies that were homosexual versus
heterosexual in nature. Their genital arousal was measured as
they were shown a 20-min neutral landscape film in which ten
10-s films each of a nude male or female individual were
inserted at 1-min intervals. It was concluded that the data sup-
ported Kinsey et al.’s (1948) assertion that male sexual ori-
13
4 Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
entation was distributed dimensionally. However, this conclu-
sion was made in the absence of any compelling statistical tests.
In addition, penile nonresponders were not eliminated from the
sample. In fact, two participants who had decreased penile
volume (relative to baseline) in response to both male and
female stimuli were counted among those classifi as showing
a bisexual arousal pattern. Further, the generalizability of these
fi dings is questionable because the sample was comprised of
men with atypical sexual preoccupations for which they were
seeking psychiatric treatment. Finally, because participants’
self-reported sexual identity was not assessed, the men whose
arousal patterns were classifi as bisexual may not have iden-
tifi as bisexual.
More recently, Rieger et al. (2005) recruited 33 self-iden-
tified bisexual, 38 homosexual, and 30 heterosexual men, pri-
marily through advertisements in local general interest mag-
azines as well as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT)-oriented magazine called Gay Chicago. Participants
watched several erotic films, including male and female stim-
uli, while their genital arousal was measured. Rieger et al.
examined whether bisexual-identified men had higher mini-
mum arousal compared with monosexual men. Specifically,
they tested for a negative quadratic effect in the regression of
minimum arousal onto participants’ Kinsey scores. (A positive
finding here would mean that participants in the bisexual range
of the Kinsey scale were more aroused by their less arousing
sex—whichever one that was—than participants in the het-
erosexual and homosexual ranges of the Kinsey scale.) The
regression was significant for subjective arousal to the stimuli,
but not for genital arousal. That is, the bisexual men reported
being more aroused by their less arousing sex than did the
monosexual men, but they did not tend to be more genitally
aroused by it. Subsequent regression analyses supported the
hypothesis that bisexual men’s genital arousal patterns tended
to be homosexual rather than heterosexual.
Critics of Rieger et al. (2005) have raised several methodo-
logical criticisms (e.g., NGLTF, 2005). For example, they noted
the high percentage (33%) of men who were classifi as non-
responders (and thus excluded from analyses) due to insuffi t
genital response to any of the erotic stimuli (NGLTF, 2005).
However, that percentage is not especially high for such studies
(Kuban et al., 1999). Nor did the rate of nonresponding sub-
stantially differ between bisexual and monosexual participants
(33.3 and 32.4%, respectively). As nonresponders were fairly
evenly distributed among groups, their exclusion was unlikely to
have biased the results.
A second criticism was that Rieger et al. (2005) failed to
recruit a representative sample of bisexual men (NGLTF, 2005).
Instead, critics allege, they disproportionately recruited bisexual
men who were likely to have a homosexual arousal pattern.
Although it is unclear whether Rieger et al.’s sample was rep-
resentative of bisexual-identified men, it is just as unclear how
one might assemble such a representative sample. Conducting a
13
national probability survey and asking about sexual identity
could provide the data necessary to construct a representative
sample; however, the practical constraints involved with assem-
bling such a sample and then bringing them to a lab for genital
arousal assessment would be virtually insurmountable. Further,
it is unclear that Rieger et al.’s recruitment strategy was biased at
all. Though some of their ads for bisexual participants were
placed in LGBT-oriented magazines, other ads for bisexual
participants were placed in magazines marketed to the general
public. Thus, although they may not have used every possible
way to recruit bisexual participants, Rieger et al. certainly cast a
wide net. Critics also complained that the sample size was small.
However, the sample size was on par with community-based
studies of sexual arousal. Further, at the time of its publication,
Rieger et al. had the largest sample of bisexual men of any pre-
viously published study of men’s sexual arousal patterns.
The precedence that Rieger et al. (2005) gave to genital
arousal patterns in understanding men’s sexual orientation has
been criticized (Robinson, 2009). A comprehensive justifi
tion of this priority can be found in Bailey (2009). It is sufficient
here to acknowledge that even if male sexual orientation encom-
passes not only sexual arousal but also feelings of sexual attrac-
tion and romantic attachment, among others, surely the study of
sexual arousal patterns is important to furthering our under-
standing of sexual orientation for the reasons discussed above.
Critics had a point on one fi matter related to public dis-
cussion of the article (NGLTF, 2005). The assertion that men are
‘‘straight, gay or lying’’(Carey, 2005) wrongly implies that men
who do not have monosexual identities are lying. Even bisexual
men who lack bisexual genital arousal patterns are unlikely to be
lying about their sexuality. Rather, these men may be emphasiz-
ing aspects oftheir sexuality other than sexual arousal. For exam-
ple, a man who identifi as bisexual may experience substantial
sexual arousal only to members of one sex, but may have had one
or more satisfying romantic relationships with members of the
other sex. Or, his sexual identity may refl the fact that neither
sex with men nor sex with women seems aversive to him; thus, it
is not arousal to both sexes, but lack of aversion to sex with either,
that leads to thinking of himself as bisexual.
In the most recent study of bisexual men’s arousal patterns,
Cerny and Janssen (2011) recruited 13 self-identifi bisexual,
19 homosexual, and 27 heterosexual men and assessed their
self-reported and genital arousal as they watched 4-min fi of
neutral and erotic stimuli, including male and female stimuli.
Analyses of participants’ responses to these stimuli found that,
on average, the bisexual men showed arousal to both kinds of
stimuli, whereas the monosexual men did not. Furthermore, the
bisexual men did not differ from homosexual men in their arou-
sal to male stimuli or from heterosexual men in their arousal to
female stimuli.
This analysis, however, may be misleading. If bisexual-iden-
tifi men comprise a mixture of men with different kinds of
arousal patterns, including heterosexual and homosexual arousal
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
patterns, averaging the group’s arousal patterns would result in a
pattern that looked bisexual (Bailey, Rieger, & Rosenthal, 2011).
This would be true even if none oftheir participants had a bisexual
arousal pattern. Indeed, when Cerny and Janssen (2011) analyzed
their data as in Rieger et al. (2005), they found the same pattern as
did Rieger et al.: evidence that bisexual men self-report sub-
stantial sexual arousal to both male and female stimuli, but no
evidence that they have a bisexual pattern of genital arousal.
A second analysis in Cerny and Janssen (2011) was more
promising in establishing that there is something unique about
bisexual men’s arousal patterns. Their study included what they
called a‘‘bisexual stimulus’’: a film of a man simultaneously hav-
ing sex with a woman and another man. Bisexual men’s arousal to
this stimulus exceeded that of monosexual men. This finding
cannot be due to an artifact of averaging together different types
of bisexual-identifi men. At worst, this artifact could make
bisexual men appear to be intermediate between heterosexual and
homosexual men; it could not produce findings in which bisexual
men spuriously appear to be more aroused than both homosexual
and heterosexual men in response to a certain stimulus. However,
in light of this study’s failure to fi a bisexual pattern of arousal
using single-sex stimuli that are highly effective at inducing arou-
sal in monosexual men, it remains unclear what bisexual men’s
relatively increased responsiveness to the bisexual stimulus
means.
In sum, prior studies have found little compelling evidence
that bisexual men have a bisexual pattern of genital arousal.
The generalizability of these findings, however, is uncertain.
Perhaps there are different routes to bisexual identity and bisex-
ual-identified men with a bisexual arousal pattern have not yet
been sampled in sufficient numbers.
The Present Study
The present study employed a method similar to that of Rieger
et al. (2005), with several important modifi First, a more
stringent screening process was used to increase the chance that
the bisexual participants had sexual interest in both men and
women. Second, several inclusion and exclusion criteria were
implemented to decrease the rate of penile nonresponding. Third,
following Cerny and Janssen (2011), we included abisexual stim-
ulus among our sexual stimuli. Finally, we included several ques-
tionnaires to illuminate differences between bisexual and mono-
sexual men, as well as variation among bisexual men.
Method
Participants
Participants included 30 self-identified bisexual men, 27 homo-
sexual men, and 28 heterosexual men. The mean age was
34.7 years (SD = 7.3). The sample was ethnically and racially
139
diverse; percentages of Caucasian, African American, Latino,
and Asian American participants were 71.3, 11.7, 9.6, and 6.3,
respectively. Race/ethnicity did not differ signifi across
groups, v2(2,N = 85) = 0.78, p = 0.67.
Recruitment
Prior to recruitment, our method and recruitment strategy were
approved by the Northwestern University Internal Review
Board. We advertised in the personal advertisements lists of
the classifi website Craigslist (www.craigslist.org) soliciting
homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual men for a paid study of
sexual arousal and orientation. Interested potential participants
completed an online eligibility questionnaire. The questionnaire
included items pertaining to their sexual identity and history as
well as their personality. Homosexual men were recruited by
advertisements placed in the m4m personal advertisements list,
a list of ads placed by men seeking male sexual or romantic part-
ners. Similarly, heterosexual men were recruited by advertise-
ments in the w4m list, a list of ads placed by women seeking male
sexual or romantic partners. Bisexual participants were recruited
via the mw4m list, a list of ads placed by heterosexual couples
seeking single male partners for a casual sexual encounter. Cou-
ples placing these advertisements offered sex with a man and a
woman, so these advertisements seemed especially likely to
attract men with sexual interest in both sexes.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
A substantial proportion of men who currently identify as homo-
sexual identified as bisexual atan earlier time in their lives (Lever,
1994). The majority of these men identify as homosexual by early
adulthood (Cass, 1979; Lever, 1994; Stokes et al., 1997). In order
to reduce the likelihood of including such men in the bisexual
sample, potential participants under age 25 years were excluded.
Participants provided a Kinsey rating of their sexual feelings
during the past year. Participants also provided the number of
male and female romantic and sexual partners they had had in
their lives, and described their sexual identity as heterosexual/
straight, bisexual or homosexual/gay. To be included in the study,
men who identifi as heterosexual had to have past-year Kinsey
scores of 0 or 1; men who identifi as bisexual had to have past-
year Kinsey scores of 2–4; and men who identifi as homosexual
had to have past-year Kinsey scores of 5 or 6. Our inclusion
criteria guaranteed that sexual identity and past-year Kinsey score
corresponded. However, these two variables were strongly cor-
related among all of the potential participants (eligible and inel-
igible) that approached us, r(522) = .89. Eligible participants
were later given a second Kinsey scale, asking about their feelings
during adulthood (since age 18). The two Kinsey ratings were
averaged and this average was used for all subsequent analyses.
In an attempt to ensure that our bisexual participants had
sexual interest in both men and women, we employed inclusion
13
140
criteria pertaining to sexual and romantic behavior. Bisexual
participants were required to have had at least two sexual part-
ners of each sex and a romantic relationship of at least 3 months
duration with at least one member of each sex. Additionally, in
order to ensure that our monosexual participants had sexual and
romantic experience that were representative of monosexual
men, heterosexual men were required to have had at least two
female sexual partners, no more than one male sexual partner,
and no male romantic partners. Homosexual men were required
to have had at least two male sexual partners. Homosexual men
who had romantic or sexual experience with women were not
excluded, because many homosexual men have heterosexual
experience prior to coming out (Cass, 1979). Eighteen of our
homosexual participants had prior sexual experience with
women; 14 had prior romantic experience with women.
In order to reduce the number of participants who did not have
suffi penile responses, we included three additional criteria.
The prevalence of erectile dysfunction increases rapidly after age
50 (Johannes et al., 2000), so potential participants were required
to be less than 51 years old. Additionally, only potential partic-
ipants who indicated that they were‘‘always’’or‘‘usually’’able to
achieve and maintain a firm erection were included. Finally, only
potential participants who indicated that they at least somewhat
liked viewing pornography were included in the study.
Measures
Questionnaires
Sexual Orientation Participants provided information about
their sexual orientation in multiple ways. They reported their
sexual identity label (heterosexual/straight, bisexual, homo-
sexual/gay) and gave two Kinsey ratings of their sexual feelings
during adulthood andthelast year (Kinsey et al., 1948). Finally,
bisexual and homosexual participants rated how open they
were about their sexual orientation in three different contexts:
at home, at work, and with their families. They did so using
a 5-point scale ranging from ‘‘very secretive’’ to ‘‘very open.’’
Ratings for these three contexts were averaged together to form
a composite measure of openness about one’s orientation.
Sexual/Romantic History Participants reported the total num-
bers of men and women with whom they had had sex. A sexual
partner was defi as someone with whom the participant had
had oral, anal, or vaginal sex. Participants also reported the total
numbers of men and women with whom they had been roman-
tically involved for 3 months or longer.
Openness The openness to experience portion of the Big
Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) is a 10-item measure
of participants’ disposition to have greater intellectual curi-
osity and preference for variety. Example items include:‘‘I see
myself as someone who is curious about many different
13
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
things’’ and ‘‘I see myself as someone who has few artistic
interests’’ (reverse scored).
Sexual Openness Three measures were used to assess sexual
openness. The Sexual Opinion Survey, Short Form (SOS-SF;
Fisher, Byrne, White, & Kelley, 1988) is a 5-item measure of
participants’ disposition to respond to sexual cues in a negative
or positive way, a construct referred to as erotophobia-eroto-
philia. Example items include:‘‘masturbation can be an excit-
ing experience’’and‘‘almost all pornographic material is nau-
seating’’(reverse scored). Higher scores indicate more positive
responses to sexual cues (erotophilia).
The Sexual Excitation Scale (SES; Janssen, Vorst, Finn, &
Bancroft, 2002) is a 20-item measure of participants’ likelihood
of becoming sexually aroused in a variety of contexts. Example
items include:‘‘When I think of a very attractive person, I easily
become sexually aroused’’ and ‘‘When I see others engaged in
sexual activities, I feel like having sex myself.’’ The Sexual
Inhibition Scale-2 (SIS2; Janssen et al., 2002) is an 11-item
measure of participants’ likelihood of experiencing sexual
inhibition when considering potential negative consequences
associated with sex. Example items include:‘‘If I realize there is
a risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease, I am unlikely to
stay sexually aroused’’ and ‘‘If I can be seen by others while
having sex, I amunlikely to stay sexually aroused.’’The SES and
SIS2 differ from the SOS-SF because they focus on patterns of
sexual responses rather than sexual attitudes, values or behavior
(Janssen et al., 2002). We did not administer the SIS1 because its
items involve sexual inhibition associated with sexual perfor-
mance problems (e.g., inability to maintain erection or sexually
satisfy one’s partner). We had no reason to think that our par-
ticipant groups would differ on this scale.
Sex Drive The Sex Drive Questionnaire (SDQ; Ostovich &
Sabini, 2004) is a 4-item measure of the frequency of sexual
desire, masturbation, and orgasm, as well as how one thinks
one’s sex drive compares to that of the average person of their
age and sex. Due to scaling differences, we converted scores on
these items into z scores.
Childhood Gender Nonconformity The Childhood Gender
Nonconformity scale (CGN; Bailey, Finkel, Blackwelder, &
Bailey, 1995) is a 7-item measure of participants’ retrospective
conceptions of their childhood self as masculine or feminine. It
also includes items pertaining to cross-gender behavior. Exam-
ple items include:‘‘As a child, I sometimes wore feminine cloth-
ing (such as dresses), makeup, or jewelry’’and‘‘As a child, I was
called a sissy by my peers.’’
Internalized Homophobia/Biphobia Homosexual and bisex-
ual participants completed a modifi version of the Internal-
ized Homophobia scale (IHP; Meyer, 1995). The IHP is a 9-item
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
scale based upon the diagnostic criteria for ego-dystonic homo-
sexuality, a disorder that was in the third edition of the Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation (1980). Example items include: ‘‘I wish I weren’t gay’’
and ‘‘If someone offered me the chance to be completely het-
erosexual, I would accept.’’ We added ‘‘bisexual’’ to items that
contained the word ‘‘gay,’’to make them applicable to bisexual
participants. For example, the item ‘‘I wish I weren’t gay’’ was
changed to ‘‘I wish I weren’t gay or bisexual.’’
Stimuli
The stimuli included seven 3-min films, including two neutral
fi and five sexual fi . The neutral films featured nature
scenery accompanied by soothing music. They were included to
provide a nonsexual comparison for responses to the sexual
stimuli. The sexual stimuli included two male–male and two
female–female films and one bisexual film featuring male–
male–female sex. In addition to the bisexual fi each partic-
ipant saw fi featuring male–male penetration (penile-anal),
male–male fellatio, female–female penetration (with fi or
a dildo), and female–female cunnilingus. All sexual stimuli
were high quality, digital media, and had been produced within
the past 5 years.
Psychophysiological Assessment
Psychophysiological data were continuously recorded using
an MP100 data acquisition unit with AcqKnowledge software,
Version 3.7.3 (BIOPAC Systems Inc., Goleta, CA, 2007).
Genital arousal was assessed using an indium/gallium strain
gauge that measured changes in the circumference of the penis.
In order to reduce movement-related noise in the signal, the
readings were low-pass fi to 0.5 Hz. The gauge was cali-
brated to a range of 30 mm.
Subjective Arousal
Participants provided handwritten ratings of subjective sexual
arousal at the end of every stimulus. The rating scale ranged
from 0 (‘‘no sexual arousal at all’’) to 10 (‘‘extremely sexually
aroused’’).
Procedure
After providing written informed consent, participants were
taken into a private, dimly lit room and seated approximately 5
feet away from a 32-inch screen television. They were reminded
about the types of stimuli they would be viewing and were then
told how to place the strain gauge on their penis. After the exper-
imenter had left the room, they placed the gauge on themselves
in private. For the duration of the sexual arousal assessment, the
141
experimenter and participant communicated via a wireless inter-
com system. Participants viewed a neutral stimulus, followed by
the five sexual stimuli presented in random order, and then
another neutral stimulus.
When a sexual stimulus did not elicit marked genital arousal,
the interstimulus interval was 10 s. When a stimulus elicited a
2 mm or greater increase in penile circumference, the next stim-
ulus was not presented until penile circumference had returned to
baseline (the average reading during the fi neutral stimulus). In
the interim, participants completed distraction tasks (such as count-
ing backwards) and deep breathing. A few participants’ penile
circumference did not return to baseline even after several min-
utes of doing distraction tasks and deep breathing. In those cases,
the next stimulus was presented once their penile circumference
had returned to within 5 mm of baseline. Upon the completion of
the sexual arousal assessment, participants were compensated
$50.
Data Reduction
For each participant, the genital arousal data were averaged
within each trial and then within each stimulus category (as there
were two stimuli for each stimulus category except the bisexual
stimulus). This produced estimates of each participant’s average
raw genital response to each type of stimulus. These estimates
were then ipsatized (standardized within participants), to reduce
the effect of between-participant variation in responsiveness.
The subjective data were also averaged within each stimulus
category and then ipsatized. Although we present results below
using these ipsatized data, the pattern of results (including sta-
tistical significance) was identical for unstandardized data.
Genital and subjective arousal to male stimuli were calculated as
the difference between the mean response to the male–male
stimuli and the mean response to the neutral stimuli. Analogous
calculations were computed for the other categories of sexual
stimuli.
Responding Criteria
Not all participants became discernibly sexually aroused during
the sexual arousal assessment. Participants were excluded if the
difference between their average raw genital response to the neu-
tral stimuli and their average raw genital response to either the
male–male or female–female stimuli (whichever was higher)
did not exceed 2 mm. Additionally, participants were excluded
if the ipsatized mean (subjective or genital) arousal to either the
male–male or female–female stimuli (whichever was higher)
did not exceed the ipsatized mean arousal to the neutral stimuli
by at least 0.5 standard deviations. These criteria eliminated four
bisexual, three homosexual, and fi heterosexual men, result-
ing in a fi sample of 85 participants. Analyses that included
nonresponders did not differ substantially in the direction or
signifi ce of any of the results. Our 13% nonresponder rate
13
142
was notably lower than the 33% rate typically observed in com-
munity-based studies of male sexual arousal (Kuban et al.,
1999).
Results
Do Bisexual Men Have Bisexual Arousal Patterns?
Our first analysis was the crucial test of whether bisexual men
tend to have smaller Arousal Difference Scores than do mono-
sexual men. Each participant’s Arousal Difference Score rep-
resented the difference between his maximum and minimum
arousal. We tested the hypothesis that bisexual men are espe-
cially likely to have a bisexual arousal pattern by regressing
participants’ Arousal Difference Scores onto their Kinsey scores.
If bisexual men tend to have smaller Arousal Difference Scores,
there should be a positive quadratic relation (a U-shaped curve)
between Arousal Difference Scores and participants’ Kinsey
scores, with smaller Arousal Difference Scores for participants
with Kinsey scores in the bisexual range (2–4) and larger Arousal
Difference Scores for participants with Kinsey scores in the
heterosexual and homosexual ranges. The quadratic term was
signifi and positive for both subjective arousal, p\.0001,
b = 0.64, DR2 = 0.41, and genital arousal, p\.0001, b = 0.47,
DR2 = 0.22 (Fig. 1; bs indicate standardized regression coeffi-
cients).
Do Bisexual Men Tend to Have Homosexual Arousal
Patterns?
Because Rieger et al. (2005) found that bisexual men tended to
have arousal patterns similar to those of homosexual men, we
examined whether the bisexual men in our sample tended to be
more aroused by male stimuli than by female stimuli. A male–
female contrast was calculated for each participant by subtracting
Fig. 1 Sexual Arousal Difference Score as a function of Kinsey score.
Arousal Difference Scores indicate arousal to one’s more arousing sex
minus arousal to one’s less arousing sex. Smaller Arousal Difference
Scores indicate relatively bisexual arousal. Dashed lines represent 95%
13
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
arousal to the female stimuli from arousal to the male stimuli.
Thus, positive male–female contrasts indicate greater arousal to
male stimuli whereas negative male–female contrasts indicate
greater arousal to female stimuli. If bisexual men tend to be
especially aroused by male stimuli, there should be a curvilinear
relation between participants’ male–female contrasts and their
Kinsey scores. Specifically, heterosexual participants would
tend to have negative male–female contrasts, but both bisexual
and heterosexual men would tend to have positive male–female
contrasts. We regressed participants’ genital and subjective
male–female contrasts onto their Kinsey scores (Fig. 2). For
subjective arousal, the regression showed curvilinearity; the qua-
dratic term was signifi t and negative, though small in mag-
nitude, p = .003, b = -0.14, DR2 = 0.02. For genital arousal, the
quadratic term was non-signifi negative, and small in mag-
nitude, p = .08, b = -0.09, DR2 = 0.01.
Are Bisexual Men Especially Aroused by Bisexual
Stimuli?
We next examined whether bisexual men were especially
aroused by the bisexual stimulus. To test this, we regressed genital
and subjective arousal to the bisexual stimulus onto participants’
Kinsey scores. If bisexual men are more aroused by the bisexual
stimulus than monosexual men, there should be a negative qua-
dratic relation (an inverted U-shaped curve) between arousal to
the bisexual stimulus and participants’ Kinsey scores, with
greater arousal for participants with Kinsey scores in the bisexual
range (2–4) and smaller arousal for participants with Kinsey
scores in the heterosexual and homosexual ranges. The predicted
negative curvilinear effect occurred for both subjective arousal,
p\.0001, b = -0.51, DR2 = 0.26, and genital arousal, p = .001,
b = -0.36, DR2 = 0.13 (Fig. 3). Thus, bisexual men were more
genitally aroused by the bisexual stimulus and reported feeling
more aroused by it compared with monosexual men.
confidence intervals. Dependent variable units are within-participants
standard deviations. Points represent data from individual participants;
only penile responders are graphed
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147 143

Fig. 2 Male–female arousal

contrast as a function of Kinsey
score. This contrast indicates
one’s arousal to male stimuli
minus one’s arousal to female
stimuli. Dashed lines represent
95% confidence intervals.
Dependent variable units are
within-participants standard
deviations. Points represent data
from individual participants;
only penile responders are
graphed

Compared to monosexual men, bisexual men tended to
have smaller Arousal Difference Scores and greater arousal
to the bisexual stimulus. Among all participants, these two
arousal indices were correlated with each other, both subjec-
tively, p\.0001, r = -.56 and genitally, p\.0001, r = -.52.
Thus, participants who were more aroused by the bisexual
stimulus tended to have less differentiation between their
maximum and minimum arousal (i.e., arousal to male and
female stimuli). An identical pattern of results was found when
the same analyses were conducted using only data from the
bisexual participants.
Arousal Variation Among Bisexual Men
On average, bisexual men had arousal patterns that were more
bisexual than those of monosexual men. There was variation
in the arousal patterns of the bisexual sample, however, with
some bisexual men showing more arousal to men and others
showing more arousal to women. In an attempt to understand
this variation, we focused on the bisexual men in our sample,
and tried to predict which would be more by aroused one sex
than the other. Relevant predictors included several self-report
measures: the Kinsey scale, CGN, and sexual and romantic
experience with men versus women.
Higher Kinsey scores indicate a greater relative self-repor-
ted attraction to men rather than women. Among the bisexual
men, higher Kinsey scores predicted greater arousal to men,
both subjectively, p\.01, r = .48, and genitally, p\.001, r =
.62.
We next examined whether bisexual participants who were
more sex atypical as children would show more arousal tomale
versus female stimuli. Because homosexual men tend to be
more sex atypical than heterosexual men as children (Bailey &
Zucker, 1995), we predicted that bisexual participants who
recall more CGN would be relatively more aroused by male
stimuli. There was a marginally significant trend in this
direction, p = .08, r = .32.
We also hypothesized that bisexual participants’ sexual and
romantic experience with men and women might refl a pref-
erence for one sex over the other and that this preference may
sometimes be due to a pattern of sexual arousal. However, nei-
ther lifetime male or female sexual or romantic partner numbers
predicted the subjective or genital male–female contrasts. Log-
transforming the highly skewed partner numbers failed to yield
statistically significant correlations (all rs\.21; all ps[.27).
Thus, bisexual participants’ sexual and romantic experience did
not predict their relative arousal to male versus female sexual
stimuli.
Do Bisexual Men’s Personalities Differ from Those
of Monosexual Men?
We also examined whether bisexual men differed from mono-
sexual men with respect to several personality variables. Table 1

Fig. 3 Sexual arousal to the

bisexual stimulus as a function of
Kinsey score. Dashed lines
represent 95% confidence
intervals. Dependent variable
units are within-participants
standard deviations. Points
represent data from individual
participants; only penile
responders are graphed

13
144 Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147

presents descriptive statistics and results of inferential tests. In Discussion

general, the participant groups were similar to each other. We
had predicted that bisexual men would be more sexually open,
sexually excitable, sexually uninhibited, and open in general
than monosexual men. Only the first prediction was supported
(Table 1). Planned contrasts indicated that, as predicted, sexual
openness (SOS-SF) scores for bisexual men were higher than
those of heterosexual men, p = .03; however, contrary to our
prediction, bisexual men were not signifi higher on sexual
openness than homosexual men, p = .13.
We also predicted that bisexual men would be higher on
CGN compared with heterosexual men, but lower compared
with homosexual men. A one-way (heterosexual, bisexual,
homosexual) analysis of variance indicated that CGN varied
according to sexual identity (Table 1). Planned contrasts indi-
cated that, as predicted, scores for homosexual men were higher
than those of bisexual and heterosexual men, ps\.01; however,
contrary to our prediction, scores for bisexual men were not
significantly higher than those of heterosexual men, p = .15.
Finally, we predicted that bisexual men would be less open
with others about their sexual identity and have higher levels of
internalized homophobia/biphobia compared with homosex-
ual men. These predictions were upheld (Table 1). Bisexual
men were less open about their sexual identity with others than
homosexual men, t(55) = 4.73, p\.0001. They also scored
higher on our measure of internalized homophobia/biphobia
than homosexual men, t(55) = 2.75, p\.01.
The bisexual men in the present study tended to have bisexual
arousal patterns. That is, they had lower Arousal Difference
Scores than monosexual men, suggesting a more similar reac-
tion to male and female erotic stimuli. They also experienced
greater arousal to the bisexual stimulus than did monosexual
men. The bisexual men in our sample varied, with some expe-
riencing somewhat greater arousal to male stimuli, and others
experiencing somewhat greater arousal to female stimuli.
Bisexual men with higher Kinsey scores (and higher levels of
recalled gender atypicality) tended to exhibit greater arousal to
male stimuli. Overall, bisexual men reported being less gender
atypical as children than did homosexual men.
In our sample, bisexual men were especially likely to have
bisexual arousal patterns. As reported elsewhere, they also had
higher levels of minimum arousal (or arousal to their less arous-
ing sex) than did monosexual men (Rosenthal et al., 2011).
These results contrast with those of Rieger et al. (2005) and
Cerny and Janssen (2011), whose minimum arousal regressions
failed to demonstrate that bisexual men were especially likely to
have bisexual genital arousal patterns.
One reason why previous studies may have failed to find
these patterns concerns our recruitment method. Our bisexual
participants were recruited from a list on Craigslist intended for
men who wanted to have sex with both members of a hetero-
sexual couple. It is unclear whether typical bisexual-identifi

Table 1 Descriptive statistics from self-report measures

2
Measure Heterosexual men (n = 28) Bisexual men (n = 30) Homosexual men (n = 27) Range F(2, 82) gp
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

Kinsey score 0.34 (0.45) 3.10 (0.94) 5.67 (0.43) 0–6 – –

Sexual/romantic partners
Male sexual 2.39 (9.45)a 61.10 (108.76)b 84.63 (92.01)b 0–421 7.27*** 0.15
Male romantic 0.07 (0.37)a 2.90 (1.86)b 3.89 (2.33)b 0–9 36.56*** 0.47
Female sexual 24.86 (27.45)a 21.52 (18.02)a 1.85 (2.69)b 0–115 11.59*** 0.22
Female romantic 7.61 (9.20)a 4.66 (5.70) 0.93 (1.24)b 0–50 7.71*** 0.16
Openness/sexual openness
OTE 4.10 (0.50) 4.20 (0.47) 4.26 (0.51) 2.8–5 \1 0.01
a
SOS-SF 5.75 (0.97)a 6.34 (0.67)b 5.89 (0.89) 3–7 3.72 0.08
SESb 3.01 (0.43) 2.92 (0.36) 3.02 (0.47) 2–4 \1 0.01
SIS2b 2.50 (0.34) 2.46 (0.41) 2.61 (0.44) 1.6–3.7 \1 0.02
SDQa -0.06 (0.14) -0.06 (0.14) 0.23 (0.14) -1.65–1.49 1.45 0.03
CGNa 2.27 (1.07)a 2.93 (1.43)a 4.18 (1.55)b 1–6.1 13.95*** 0.26
*** p\.001
OTE openness to experience, SOS-SF Sexual Opinion Survey, Short Form, SES Sexual Excitability Scale, SIS2 Sexual Inhibition Scale-2, SDQ Sex
Drive Questionnaire, CGN Childhood Gender Nonconformity. F values are for omnibus ANOVAs. Differing subscripts within a row indicate
significant differences (all ps\.01) between means. F and effect size values are not reported for Kinsey score because our inclusion criteria ensured
that our groups differed on this measure
a
Measures with 7-point Likert-type scales
b
Measures with 5-point Likert-type scales

13
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
men would have any interest in frequenting that sort of list. Thus,
our sample may have been unrepresentative. The samples of
other studies may have been unrepresentative due to inadvertent
selection biases. For example, Tollison et al. (1979) recruited
their bisexual sample from a gay student union. Rieger et al.
(2005) recruited some of their bisexual participants through
advertisements placed in the Gay Chicago magazine. It is
unclear whether typical bisexual-identifi men belong to gay
student unions when they are in college and read magazines
intended for the LGBT community.
Our study also differed from others in terms of the stringent
inclusion and exclusion criteria we employed. To screen out
men who might have adopted a bisexual identity for reasons
other than attraction and arousal to both sexes, our bisexual
participants had to have had at least two sex partners of each sex
and one romantic partner of each sex. Over half (53%) of the
bisexual-identifi men who contacted us failed to meet those
minimum standards. Previous studies have been more liberal in
screening potential bisexual participants. For example, Rieger
et al. (2005) included any bisexual-identified participant whose
Kinsey score was in the bisexual range, regardless of whether
the participant had had romantic and sexual experience with
both sexes. Had we used the same inclusion criteria as Rieger
et al., we would have rejected only 20% of the bisexual-iden-
tifi d men who contacted us. Thus, the results of Rieger et al.
might be more representative of contemporary bisexual-iden-
tifi d men, although this is ultimately an empirical question.
Further, our results may primarily apply to the subset of bisex-
ual-identified men who have had more than incidental sexual
and romantic involvement with both sexes. However, because
no genital arousal study to date has recruited a representative
sample of the male bisexual population (and the present study
used a relatively unusual recruitment method), we cannot draw
fi conclusions about the proportion of bisexual-identifi
men who show bisexual arousal patterns.
Although the bisexual men in our study tended to have bisex-
ual arousal patterns, their arousal patterns were not undiffer-
entiated. Among the bisexual men, their genital and subjective
arousal to their less arousing sex (minimum arousal) averaged
half of their genital and subjective arousal to their more arousing
sex (maximum arousal). Analogous ratios among the monosex-
ual men were markedly more pronounced. The ratio of mini-
mum to maximum arousal among the heterosexual sample was
approximately 0.20; for the homosexual sample, it was approxi-
mately 0.10. As a group, however, bisexual men did not tend to
have an average preference for men or for women. This fi ding
contrasts with earlier work, which suggested that bisexual
men’s most arousing sex is usually men (Rieger et al., 2005;
Tollison et al., 1979). For example, 73% of bisexual participants
in Rieger et al. (2005) were more aroused by men than women.
Not only did the bisexual men in our study show smaller
Arousal Difference Scores than monosexual men, they were also
more aroused by the bisexual stimulus. Because the bisexual
145
stimulus contained both men and women interacting sexually
with a man, it is not surprising that bisexual men would find it
arousing. It is noteworthy, in contrast, that the monosexual men
did not show equivalent arousal. The bisexual stimulus featured
actors engaging in sex acts that, in isolation, would have been
arousing to monosexual men. Homosexual men could have been
aroused by the male–male interaction, while heterosexual men
could have been aroused by the simultaneous male–female inter-
action. The fact that monosexual participants were not highly
aroused by the bisexual stimulus suggests they may have experi-
enced inhibition upon seeing the combination of a sex act they
liked with one that they did not (Bailey et al., 2011). We cannot
be sure whether this is what happened, however, as we did not
collect subjective ratings of disgust (or other inhibitory factors)
during the sexual arousal assessment.
To the extent that bisexual stimuli are actually bisexual in
nature, we would expect men with greater arousal to the bisex-
ual stimulus to have less differentiated arousal between their
more and less arousing sexes. This is exactly what we found.
There are, however, alternative explanations that future work
must rule out to further increase the validity of bisexual stimuli
as a measure of bisexual arousal. Future studies should include
a bisexual stimulus featuring a woman simultaneously having
sex with another woman and a man. This will help establish
whether bisexual men respond to bisexual acts per se or only to
stimuli depicting a man behaving bisexually.
Among the bisexual men, participants’ Kinsey scores pre-
dicted both subjective and genital arousal to male relative to
female stimuli. That is, bisexual men with higher Kinsey scores
(indicating more attraction to men relative to women) were
more aroused by male stimuli than bisexual men with lower
Kinsey scores (indicating more attraction to women relative to
men). This finding is important because it suggests that varia-
tion within the bisexual range of the Kinsey scale is predictive
of actual sexual arousal. Had this not been the case, it would
have implied that the men with scores within the bisexual range
of the Kinsey scale were relatively homogeneous, rather than
comprising men with distinctly different patterns of sexual
attraction.
Bisexual men’s sexual and romantic experience with men
(versus women) was not related to their relative arousal tomale
versus female stimuli. This was surprising, as we expected
bisexual men who reported being more sexually aroused by
one sex to more frequently seek out people of that sex as sexual
and romantic partners. Yet, this is not what we found. It is pos-
sible that comparing numbers of male and female partners may
be misleading due to the sex difference in availability of sex
partners. For example, men are much more likely to desire and
engage in casual sex than women (Symons, 1981). Thus, it is
possible that even if a bisexual man had a preference for female
sexual partners, the relative ease of securing a male sexual
partner would result in greater numbers of male partners over
time.
13
146
Bisexual men scored marginally higher than monosexuals on
the Sexual Openness Scale (the SOS-SF). However, considering
that they did not differ from monosexual participants on other,
related measures of sexual openness, it is unlikely that the bisex-
ual sample in our study comprised men whose bisexual behavior
(and identity) was primarily related to being open-minded about
novel sexual experiences or novel experiences in general. Bisex-
ual men also reported being more secretive with others about
their sexual identity, and had higher levels of internalized
homophobia/biphobia than homosexual men. One explanation
for these fi is that bisexual men are more secretive and
uneasy about their sexual identity than homosexual men because
they may experience discrimination and prejudice from both the
heterosexual and gay communities. However, bisexual men’s
average score on both measures corresponded to the option denot-
ing‘‘somewhat disagree.’’Thus, although they scored higher than
homosexual men, even bisexual men, for the most part, did not
endorse items pertaining to being uneasy or unaccepting of their
sexual orientation.
Conclusions
Bailey (2009) argued that men’s sexual orientation can be
defi in terms of their arousal patterns. Because some bisexual
men have bisexual arousal patterns, we conclude that some men
have a bisexual orientation. Kinsey asserted that the world was
‘‘not to be divided into sheep and goats,’’meaning heterosexuals
and homosexuals (Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 639). Although most
men may be sufficiently divided into sheep or goats, at least
some are neither. It remains to be seen, however, how common
bisexual arousal patterns are among bisexual-identifi men.
Men may come to a bisexual identity through many different
paths, only some of which involve substantial attraction to both
sexes. There are a myriad of reasons to identify as bisexual. As a
result, bisexual men may constitute a more heterogeneous group
than monosexual men. Indeed, it is unclear how many different
kinds of bisexual men exist, and which ones are most common.
Future studies should explore these questions.
Acknowledgments We thank Kevin Hsu and our many other research
assistants for their help with this project and we thank John Sylla for his
support and advice. This research was supported by a grant from the
American Institute of Bisexuality. A version of this article was presented
at the University of Lethbridge Workshop, The Puzzle of Sexual Ori-
entation: What Is It and How Does It Work?, Lethbridge, Alberta,
Canada, June 2010.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bailey, J. M. (2009). What is sexual orientation and do women have one?
In D. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and
bisexual identities (pp. 43–63). New York: Springer Science.
13
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
Bailey, J. M., Finkel, E. J., Blackwelder, K., & Bailey, T. (1995). Mas-
culinity, femininity, and sexual orientation. Unpublished manu-
script.
Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997).
Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men
and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
960–973. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.5.960.
Bailey, J. M., Rieger, G., & Rosenthal, A. M. (2011). Still in search of
bisexual arousal: Comment on Cerny and Janssen (2011). Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1293–1295. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-97
78-5.
Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and
sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.31.
1.43.
BIOPAC Systems, Inc. (2007). AcqKnowledge (Version 3.7.3) [Com-
puter software]. Goleta, CA: Author.
Carey, B. (2005, July 5). Straight, gay or lying? Bisexuality revisited.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model.
Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235. doi:10.1300/J082v04n03_
01.
Cerny, J. A., & Janssen, E. (2011). Patterns of sexual arousal in
homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 687–697. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9746-0.
Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E. M., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex
difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Sci-
ence, 15, 736–744. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00750.x.
Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Gender and sexual
orientation differences in sexual response to the sexual activities
versus the gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 93, 1108–1121. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
93.6.1108.
Ebsworth, M., & Lalumiere, M. L. (in press). Viewing time as a measure
of bisexual sexual interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Eroto-
phobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex
Research, 25, 123–151. doi:10.1080/00224498809551448.
Freund, K. (1963). A laboratory method for diagnosing predominance of
homo- or heteroerotic interest in the male. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1, 85–93.
Freund, K. (1967). Diagnosing homo- or heterosexuality and erotic age-
preference by means of a psychophysiological test. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 5, 209–228. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(67)
90036-8.
Freund, K. (1974). Male homosexuality: An analysis of the pattern. In J.
A. Loraine (Ed.), Understanding homosexuality: Its biological and
psychological bases (pp. 25–81). New York: Elsevier.
Freund, K., Langevin, R., Cibiri, S., & Zajac, Y. (1973). Heterosexual
aversion in homosexual males. British Journal of Psychiatry, 122,
163–169. doi:10.1192/bjp.122.2.163.
Hirschfeld, M. (2001). Die homosexualita¨t des mannes und des weibes.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. (Original work published 1914).
Janssen, E., Vorst, H., Finn, P., & Bancroft, J. (2002). The Sexual
Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: Measuring
sexual inhibition and excitation proneness in men. Journal of Sex
Research, 39, 114–126. doi:10.1080/00224490209552130.
Johannes, C. B., Araujo, A. B., Feldman, H. A., Derby, C. A., Kleinman,
K. P., & McKinlay, J. B. (2000). Incidence of erectile dysfunction
in men 40 to 60 years old: Longitudinal results from the Massa-
chusetts male aging study. Journal of Urology, 163, 460–463.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy:
History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin
& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.
Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:135–147
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior
in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Kuban, M., Barbaree, H. E., & Blanchard, R. (1999). A comparison of
volume and circumference phallometry: Response magnitude and
method agreement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 345–359.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994).
The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United
States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lever, J. (1994, August 23). Sexual revelations: The 1994 Advocate sur-
vey of sexuality and relationships: The men. The Advocate, 18–24.
Lippa, R. A. (2011, submitted). Men and women with bisexual identities
show bisexual patterns of sexual attraction to male and female
‘‘swimsuit models.’’
McConaghy, N., & Blaszczynski, A. (1991). Initial stages of validation
by penile volume assessment that sexual orientation is distributed
dimensionally. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 32, 52–58. doi:10.1016/
0010-440X(91)90069-O.
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Jour-
nal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56. doi:10.2307/2137
286.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2005). The problems with
‘‘Straight, Gay or Lying?’’ Retrieved from http://www.thetask
force.org/files/NYTBisexualityFactSheet.pdf.
Norton, R. (2008). A critique of social constructionism and postmodern
queer theory: Bisexuality. Retrieved from http://www.rictornorton.co.
uk/social12.htm.
Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive,
and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1255–1266.
147
Rieger, G., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). Sexual arousal pat-
terns of bisexual men. Psychological Science, 16, 579–584. doi:
10.2307/2137286.
Robinson, R. K. (2009). Racing the closet. Stanford Law Review, 61,
1463–1533.
Rosenthal, A. M., Sylva, D., Safron, A., & Bailey, J. M. (2011). Sexual
arousal patterns of bisexual men revisited. Biological Psychology,
88, 112–115. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.06.015.
Sakheim, D. K., Barlow, D. H., Beck, J. G., & Abrahamson, D. J. (1985).
A comparison of male heterosexual and male homosexual patterns
of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 21, 183–198. doi:10.1080/
00224498509551257.
Stokes, J. P., Damon, W., & McKirnan, D. J. (1997). Predictors of move-
ment toward homosexuality: A longitudinal study of bisexual men.
Journal of Sex Research, 34, 304–312. doi:10.1080/0022449970
9551896.
Symons, D. (1981). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tollison, C. D., Adams, H. E., & Tollison, J. W. (1979). Cognitive and
physiological indices of sexual arousal in homosexual, bisexual,
and heterosexual males. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 1, 305–
314. doi:10.1007/BF01321372.
Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal
of Homosexuality, 17, 43–73.
Yoshino, K. (2000). The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure. Stan-
ford Law Review, 52, 353–461. doi:10.1016/0010-440X(91)900
69-O.
13