David_Gerard comments on Procedural Knowledge Gaps - Less Wrong

126 Post author: Alicorn 08 February 2011 03:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1477)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: David_Gerard 08 February 2011 09:04:31PM 2 points [-]

Beware that if you manage to become bisexual somehow, this can significantly damage a man's prospects with many women. For a huge percentage of women, bisexual men are not as attractive (manly) as strictly heterosexual men.

I've found that just meeting more people solves this one nicely. The percentage difference is not overwhelming, and you really won't want those people anyway.

Comment author: lukeprog 08 February 2011 09:18:46PM 6 points [-]

I disagree with the "you really won't want those people anyway." I suspect the loss of attraction many women feel if they hear a guy has been with another guy has marginal 'conscious choice' in it.

But anyway, I've followed this thread too long. I don't really have any expertise on bisexuality - I've just heard lots of straight women tell me it turns them off.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 February 2011 09:42:59PM 8 points [-]

I think the reason for that is that so many gay men go through a phase, as part of their coming out, where they claim bisexuality for a while. This, combined with the fact that there seem to be relatively few numbers of truly bisexual men, means that a significant percentage of the pool of men presenting as bisexual are actually gay. So going out with a bisexual guy is really risky from the woman's point of view.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 08 February 2011 11:32:06PM 1 point [-]

I'll admit, when I run into people who talk like this, I generally assume that they are weighting the costs of a relationship ending badly due to a boyfriend turning out gay significantly higher than the costs of a relationship ending badly for other reasons.

But perhaps that's unfair of me; perhaps, as you suggest, it's really just about probability estimates.

Would you mind putting some numbers around "really risky"?

That is... if S is the chance of a relationship ending badly with a partner who identifies as straight, and B is the chance of it ending badly with a partner who identifies as bi, what's your estimate and confidence level for (B-S)?

Comment author: [deleted] 08 February 2011 11:58:10PM 0 points [-]

That is... if S is the chance of a relationship ending badly with a partner who identifies as straight, and B is the chance of it ending badly with a partner who identifies as bi, what's your estimate and confidence level for (B-S)?

Well, my numbers would be a bit skewed by the fact that I quite happily date bisexual women (I am one myself). Should I put the non-straight women in S or B? Or make a third category L?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 09 February 2011 12:12:18AM -1 points [-]

Your skew is fine... I'm just interested in clarification of your original claim, however skewed it may be, that going out with a bisexual guy is really risky because a significant percentage of the pool of men presenting as bisexual are actually gay.

That said, given that your original claim was about men, I should have said if S is the chance of a relationship ending badly with a male partner who identifies as straight, and B is the chance of it ending badly with a male partner who identifies as bi. Point taken.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 February 2011 02:11:22AM 1 point [-]

Well, for S, most relationships end "badly" (in a breakup, at least), so I guess I'll ballpark that at 90 percent.

For B, I estimate that 34 percent of men presenting as bi are actually gay (going from this study.) I'll assume that a relationship with the other 66 percent of bi guys would have the same 90 percent failure rate as the S group, but that a relationship with one of the 34 would have a 100 percent failure rate. So B overall is 93.4.

It's only a few percentage points higher, yes, but the fact that S is already high doesn't do much to change the fact that if you have one (small) dating pool where fully a third of the dudes are essentially just looking for beards, a straight woman loses little by excluding that pool, and improves her prospects overall.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 09 February 2011 06:15:38AM *  0 points [-]

For a more extreme position, Rieger, Chivers, and Bailey (ETA: here) find that 75% of self-identified bi men get erections from gay porn, 25% from straight porn, though reported arousal is bisexual.

ETA: that is a quote from press coverage. It pushes a bit farther than the paper and does not match the data. The direct quotes in the press coverage suggest to me that the fault is the authors, not the reporters. The text of the paper is more cautious, but I think also misleading.

Eyeballing the data, I would say that 1/2 of bis respond only to gay porn, 1/4 only to straight porn, and 1/4 uniformly. Also, 1/4 of straights and gays respond uniformly. (this is after removing 1/3 of all orientations that have no genital response)

What is more interesting is that reported arousal to the porn fits self-identification pretty well. It would be interesting to how the gap between genital and reported arousal varies across individuals. Some patterns would suggest that people are lying to themselves while others that the gap is due to sexuality being complicated. I was amused that straights admitted to being aroused by gay porn, while gays did not admit to being aroused by straight porn; but I suspect that the sample of straights was pretty biased.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 09 February 2011 01:52:06PM 0 points [-]

One of the things that amused me about that report when I read it was realizing that while I am often aroused by actual women, most mainstream straight porn does nothing for me.

I can only assume that many straight men find porn more arousing than actual women, since the whole point of porn is to be a superstimulus, so there seems to be a difference there.

Comment author: Blueberry 10 February 2011 10:06:36PM 0 points [-]

while I am often aroused by actual women, most mainstream straight porn does nothing for me.

One of the numerous problems with that study. I consider it completely worthless.

I can only assume that many straight men find porn more arousing than actual women, since the whole point of porn is to be a superstimulus

Wait, what? No! Not at all! The point of porn is to help you when you don't have an actual woman to have sex with. It's never as arousing as an actual woman. It's like a microwave dinner when you're hungry but don't have the time or money to cook or go to a restaurant.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 09 February 2011 04:20:51PM *  0 points [-]

In the study, 1/3 of the men, uniformly across all orientations, had no genital response. Also, 1/3 had no subjective response, though I don't see any indication in the paper whether they were the same people.

Comment author: wnoise 09 February 2011 08:30:14AM -1 points [-]

Are those sets disjoint?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 09 February 2011 02:43:16AM 0 points [-]

Agreed.

Comment author: David_Gerard 08 February 2011 09:32:42PM 1 point [-]

I would say, speaking from other bisexual men I know as well as myself, that if bisexuality turned someone off that would in fact reduce their attractiveness, in the general case.

But yeah, we both only have anecdotes at this stage :-)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 08 February 2011 09:41:58PM 0 points [-]

I'm reminded of coming out as bi to a high-school friend of mine, who allowed after some consideration that he was pretty squicked by the notion, but he saw no particular reason why either one of us should pay much attention to that reaction.

Which I can respect, actually.

Though admittedly it would turn me off in a prospective partner.