What do you think?
Rate this book
Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality
For the past two generations, extensive research has been conducted on the determinants of homosexuality. But, until now, scant attention has been paid to what is perhaps the most mysterious--and potentially illuminating--variation of human sexual expression, bisexuality. Today, as ignorance and fear of AIDS makes greater awareness of all forms of sexual behavior an urgent matter of private and public consequence, leading sex researchers Martin Weinberg, Colin Williams, and Douglas Pryor provide us with the first major study of bisexuality.
Weinberg, Williams, and Pryor explore the riddle of dual attraction in their study of 800 residents of San Francisco. Fieldwork, intensive interviews, and surveys provided a wealth of data about the nature of bisexual attraction, the steps that lead people to become bisexual, and how sexual preference can change over time. They found that heterosexuals, more often than homosexuals, become bisexual; that bisexual men and women differ markedly in their sexual behavior and romantic feelings; that most bisexuals ultimately settle into long-term relationships while continuing sexual activity outside those relationships; and they also explain why transsexuals often become bisexual. Moreover, the authors discovered that as the AIDS crisis unfolded, many bisexual men entered into monogamous relationships with women, and bisexual women into more lesbian relationships.
Recent media accounts attest that a growing number of researchers and writers are narrowing the fundamental cause of sexual preference to a single factor, biology. But if, as this study shows, learning plays a significant part in helping people traverse the boundaries of gender, if past and present intimate relationships influence their changing preferences, and if bisexual activity is inseparable from a social environment which provides distinctive sexual opportunities, then a mosaic of factors far more complex than those previously considered must be entertained in explaining the fuller spectrum of sexual preferences. Dual Attraction is one of the most significant contributions to our understanding of sexuality since the original Kinsey reports and Bell and Weinberg's 1978 international bestseller, Homosexualities . It is must reading for all those interested in the study of sexual behavior--especially now, since the onset of AIDS.
Weinberg, Williams, and Pryor explore the riddle of dual attraction in their study of 800 residents of San Francisco. Fieldwork, intensive interviews, and surveys provided a wealth of data about the nature of bisexual attraction, the steps that lead people to become bisexual, and how sexual preference can change over time. They found that heterosexuals, more often than homosexuals, become bisexual; that bisexual men and women differ markedly in their sexual behavior and romantic feelings; that most bisexuals ultimately settle into long-term relationships while continuing sexual activity outside those relationships; and they also explain why transsexuals often become bisexual. Moreover, the authors discovered that as the AIDS crisis unfolded, many bisexual men entered into monogamous relationships with women, and bisexual women into more lesbian relationships.
Recent media accounts attest that a growing number of researchers and writers are narrowing the fundamental cause of sexual preference to a single factor, biology. But if, as this study shows, learning plays a significant part in helping people traverse the boundaries of gender, if past and present intimate relationships influence their changing preferences, and if bisexual activity is inseparable from a social environment which provides distinctive sexual opportunities, then a mosaic of factors far more complex than those previously considered must be entertained in explaining the fuller spectrum of sexual preferences. Dual Attraction is one of the most significant contributions to our understanding of sexuality since the original Kinsey reports and Bell and Weinberg's 1978 international bestseller, Homosexualities . It is must reading for all those interested in the study of sexual behavior--especially now, since the onset of AIDS.
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
3 people are currently reading
183 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 29, 2022
the way this book is put together and the approach to sexuality just don’t work for me.
content/trigger warnings; biphobia, homophobia, lesbophobia, mspecphobia, queerphobia, binary language, f slur, transphobia, hiv/aids, stds, death, grief, sex, kink/fetish, divorce, coming out, gender essentialism,
my preferred type of bi nonfiction is bi anthologies of theories/ideas/conversations (over personal histories) about bisexuality by bi authors, and this book is definitely not that. this is one of many bi nonfiction books where bi people’s personal histories are shared through a non-bi sexologist/sociologist’s analysis. and it’s from the ‘90s (the study detailed in the book was conducted in the ‘80s), which means it has a lot of outdated language and ideas.
my first criticism is of the choice to use “sexual preference” over any other term, such as sexuality, sexual attraction, sexual identity, and sexual orientation. it’s argued that orientation “suggests” it’s “established at birth and fixed thereafter”, but i don’t see it that way at all. but even if that were the case, preference still would not be my choice. i think it muddles things to use the word preference, which means a greater liking for one thing over another or others, when discussing sexuality.
a woman only attracted to women does not prefer women over other genders, as that implies she’s also attracted to other genders and just has a greater/stronger liking for women. unless you’re literally talking about someone being attracted to multiple genders but preferring to be with one or having stronger attraction to one, preference is not the word to use.
saying so isn’t denying that some people “take an active part in constructing their sexuality” or that you believe sexuality is established and fixed at birth. i use “sexuality” and “identity” more than i ever use “orientation”, but i don’t have anything against the term (especially considering with the split attraction model, people use “romantic orientation” quite often), and i sure as fuck don’t have a “born this way always and forever” mindset. attraction is what it is when it is it, period.
my next criticism is the authors saying bisexuality is made up of “sexual feelings, sexual behaviors, and romantic feelings, each directed to some degree toward partners of both sexes”. you don’t have to have any sexual behavior with anyone to be bisexual. including that as a requirement of bisexuality erases a lot of bisexual people. if an individual doesn’t want to use a certain label because they haven’t had a certain experience they feel would “justify” using the label, fine. but generally speaking, sexuality is about sexual attraction, regardless of what your romantic attraction is or your sexual behavior.
and this ties right into why i can’t stand the kinsey scale (which is the basis for the study in the book) and klein grid. if you’ve read any of my reviews on these types of books, you’ll know i’m all about self-identification. i literally do not give a fuck about anything else. people are what they say they are, no proof needed. to me, giving people a label based on how you interpret their combination of sexual feelings, romantic feelings, and sexual behavior, regardless of what they call themselves is queerphobic.
obviously, everyone is somewhere on the spectrums of sexual feelings, romantic feelings, sexual behavior, romantic behavior, preferences, etc. but there is no way for others to look at where someone is on those and determine what they are. researchers rely so much on the idea that there is something universal or innate about various kinds of queerness, so they can look at people and box them into neat categories that make sense to them, everything else damned. and i’m really, really not about that.
the authors for someone reason decide that sexual attraction can’t be separated from relationships because it’s “through relationships that sexual feelings/behaviors are realized and sexual identity is maintained” but like....you can maintain a bisexual identity while dating and fucking no one. attraction can absolutely be separated from relationships, because, once again, attraction does not equal behavior.
it’s noted that a study found “self-identification was the best predictor of a group of seven dimensions of sexuality though such labeling was by no means always congruent with each of the individual scores on the seven dimensions” as well as other studies that show sexual behavior to be the most important factor and no correlation at all between a pattern of sexual behavior and adopting a sexual identity. it’s almost like everyone is different and there aren’t any specific experiences innate to any specific labels and therefore how people conceptualize their identity and what facets of it are the most important or defining are different and you can’t categorize people based on some long-outdated scale and disregard how they categorize themselves!!!!!! imagine that!!!!!
and lastly, there came a point where i was just like, “who the fuck cares?”. when you’re asking questions like “how is sex among bi men different from or similar to sex among gay men?” and “which sexual group has more sex?” and “is sexuality biological or a choice?” and “does bisexuality guarantee a successful sexual and emotional life?” and “can bisexuals truly be committed?” and “under what circumstance can marriage and bisexuality exist?” i’m going to zone out because i could not care less.
people of all sexualities engage in all different kinds of things and feel all different kinds of ways, and i just don’t see why examining or comparing that truly matters. it’s almost like people need to proof that queer people are a complex, varied group of people. maybe some of these things were hot topics of debate in the ‘90s, but i just don’t see it. i can’t get beyond wondering why it matters.
and in some cases, like trying to figure out what makes someone bisexual and how bisexual identity is created or formed and how it differs from gay or lesbian or straight identity, it becomes too pigeonholed, too restrictive, too exclusive. it’s fine to just want to learn about and document bisexual experiences, but when you try to turn those into some idealized or universalized or innate or unique experience it becomes an issue.
other notes: overall, the book is incredibly dated and feels super repetitive. some “everyone is potentially bisexual” nonsense. equating pronouns to gender. loads of “men are big and strong and detached, women are small and soft and emotional” gender essentialism. it makes me wonder what the authors truly think bisexuality is when they say the aids crisis is why monogamy is no longer “inherently at odds with” bisexuality. i feel like the authors give credibility to biphobic misconceptions, which speaks to the book being more for non-bisexuals than bisexuals.
acknowledging that not everyone attracted to more than one gender identifies as bisexual, but using “behaviorally bisexual” as a work around to calling them bisexual anyways. the authors excluded any bisexuals who didn’t have “significant” (whatever the fuck that means) sexual feelings for and behaviors with both sexes....talk about non-bisexuals gatekeeping bisexuals from a book about bisexuality. some weird shit about how bisexuality won’t become narrow like homosexuality, because there are bisexuals escaping gender/sex norms, like swingers and trans folks, and it makes me wonder if these authors think all swingers and trans people are bisexual lmfao.
and i kind of roll my eyes whenever i see talk about the “uniqueness” of bisexuality, because of the biphobia from both straight and gay people. every queer person experiences queerphobia from in and out of the community, there are plenty of other marginalized people who experience the duality of being rejected by both their marginalized group and the majority group, and there are people who experience the intersection of multiple marginalized identities. sorry, but bisexuals, in this regard, are not in a unique position of “double marginality”.
content/trigger warnings; biphobia, homophobia, lesbophobia, mspecphobia, queerphobia, binary language, f slur, transphobia, hiv/aids, stds, death, grief, sex, kink/fetish, divorce, coming out, gender essentialism,
my preferred type of bi nonfiction is bi anthologies of theories/ideas/conversations (over personal histories) about bisexuality by bi authors, and this book is definitely not that. this is one of many bi nonfiction books where bi people’s personal histories are shared through a non-bi sexologist/sociologist’s analysis. and it’s from the ‘90s (the study detailed in the book was conducted in the ‘80s), which means it has a lot of outdated language and ideas.
my first criticism is of the choice to use “sexual preference” over any other term, such as sexuality, sexual attraction, sexual identity, and sexual orientation. it’s argued that orientation “suggests” it’s “established at birth and fixed thereafter”, but i don’t see it that way at all. but even if that were the case, preference still would not be my choice. i think it muddles things to use the word preference, which means a greater liking for one thing over another or others, when discussing sexuality.
a woman only attracted to women does not prefer women over other genders, as that implies she’s also attracted to other genders and just has a greater/stronger liking for women. unless you’re literally talking about someone being attracted to multiple genders but preferring to be with one or having stronger attraction to one, preference is not the word to use.
saying so isn’t denying that some people “take an active part in constructing their sexuality” or that you believe sexuality is established and fixed at birth. i use “sexuality” and “identity” more than i ever use “orientation”, but i don’t have anything against the term (especially considering with the split attraction model, people use “romantic orientation” quite often), and i sure as fuck don’t have a “born this way always and forever” mindset. attraction is what it is when it is it, period.
my next criticism is the authors saying bisexuality is made up of “sexual feelings, sexual behaviors, and romantic feelings, each directed to some degree toward partners of both sexes”. you don’t have to have any sexual behavior with anyone to be bisexual. including that as a requirement of bisexuality erases a lot of bisexual people. if an individual doesn’t want to use a certain label because they haven’t had a certain experience they feel would “justify” using the label, fine. but generally speaking, sexuality is about sexual attraction, regardless of what your romantic attraction is or your sexual behavior.
and this ties right into why i can’t stand the kinsey scale (which is the basis for the study in the book) and klein grid. if you’ve read any of my reviews on these types of books, you’ll know i’m all about self-identification. i literally do not give a fuck about anything else. people are what they say they are, no proof needed. to me, giving people a label based on how you interpret their combination of sexual feelings, romantic feelings, and sexual behavior, regardless of what they call themselves is queerphobic.
obviously, everyone is somewhere on the spectrums of sexual feelings, romantic feelings, sexual behavior, romantic behavior, preferences, etc. but there is no way for others to look at where someone is on those and determine what they are. researchers rely so much on the idea that there is something universal or innate about various kinds of queerness, so they can look at people and box them into neat categories that make sense to them, everything else damned. and i’m really, really not about that.
the authors for someone reason decide that sexual attraction can’t be separated from relationships because it’s “through relationships that sexual feelings/behaviors are realized and sexual identity is maintained” but like....you can maintain a bisexual identity while dating and fucking no one. attraction can absolutely be separated from relationships, because, once again, attraction does not equal behavior.
it’s noted that a study found “self-identification was the best predictor of a group of seven dimensions of sexuality though such labeling was by no means always congruent with each of the individual scores on the seven dimensions” as well as other studies that show sexual behavior to be the most important factor and no correlation at all between a pattern of sexual behavior and adopting a sexual identity. it’s almost like everyone is different and there aren’t any specific experiences innate to any specific labels and therefore how people conceptualize their identity and what facets of it are the most important or defining are different and you can’t categorize people based on some long-outdated scale and disregard how they categorize themselves!!!!!! imagine that!!!!!
and lastly, there came a point where i was just like, “who the fuck cares?”. when you’re asking questions like “how is sex among bi men different from or similar to sex among gay men?” and “which sexual group has more sex?” and “is sexuality biological or a choice?” and “does bisexuality guarantee a successful sexual and emotional life?” and “can bisexuals truly be committed?” and “under what circumstance can marriage and bisexuality exist?” i’m going to zone out because i could not care less.
people of all sexualities engage in all different kinds of things and feel all different kinds of ways, and i just don’t see why examining or comparing that truly matters. it’s almost like people need to proof that queer people are a complex, varied group of people. maybe some of these things were hot topics of debate in the ‘90s, but i just don’t see it. i can’t get beyond wondering why it matters.
and in some cases, like trying to figure out what makes someone bisexual and how bisexual identity is created or formed and how it differs from gay or lesbian or straight identity, it becomes too pigeonholed, too restrictive, too exclusive. it’s fine to just want to learn about and document bisexual experiences, but when you try to turn those into some idealized or universalized or innate or unique experience it becomes an issue.
other notes: overall, the book is incredibly dated and feels super repetitive. some “everyone is potentially bisexual” nonsense. equating pronouns to gender. loads of “men are big and strong and detached, women are small and soft and emotional” gender essentialism. it makes me wonder what the authors truly think bisexuality is when they say the aids crisis is why monogamy is no longer “inherently at odds with” bisexuality. i feel like the authors give credibility to biphobic misconceptions, which speaks to the book being more for non-bisexuals than bisexuals.
acknowledging that not everyone attracted to more than one gender identifies as bisexual, but using “behaviorally bisexual” as a work around to calling them bisexual anyways. the authors excluded any bisexuals who didn’t have “significant” (whatever the fuck that means) sexual feelings for and behaviors with both sexes....talk about non-bisexuals gatekeeping bisexuals from a book about bisexuality. some weird shit about how bisexuality won’t become narrow like homosexuality, because there are bisexuals escaping gender/sex norms, like swingers and trans folks, and it makes me wonder if these authors think all swingers and trans people are bisexual lmfao.
and i kind of roll my eyes whenever i see talk about the “uniqueness” of bisexuality, because of the biphobia from both straight and gay people. every queer person experiences queerphobia from in and out of the community, there are plenty of other marginalized people who experience the duality of being rejected by both their marginalized group and the majority group, and there are people who experience the intersection of multiple marginalized identities. sorry, but bisexuals, in this regard, are not in a unique position of “double marginality”.
December 21, 2023
Infelizmente não consegui passar da página 70.
Repetitivo e completamente falho de interesse.
Lamento.
Repetitivo e completamente falho de interesse.
Lamento.
June 22, 2007
This was the very first book I ever read about bisexuality, after I first had sexual contact with a woman and wondered why I wasn't disgusted. This book was the beginning of finding myself some answers.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews