An Interview With Dr. Lisa Diamond

The following was posted in the "Huffington Post in May. Though it speaks about bisexuality as it applies to women, I felt it was well worth reprinting in this blog. Dr. Diamond certainly has the credentials to speak on bisexuality. She says that her next project is to devote her time to studying male bisexuality. I can hardly wait to read her conclusions. I suspect that many of the things she says about bisexuality in the post below will pertain to men. Some of the things she points out for female bisexuals will pertain more to men in my opinion. In the interview below I have added emphasis by adding red and blue font. I also added the illustrations.

The Doctor Is Out... And Outspoken: An Interview With Dr. Lisa Diamond

Amy Andre

Co-author, 'Bisexual Health: An Introduction'; speaker on bisexual health and LGBT issue

Posted: 05/15/2012 4:04 pm

When Dr. Lisa Diamond gave a keynote speech at the recent BECAUSE conference, I just had to sit up and listen. As whipsmart as she is unapologetically outspoken, this University of Utah psychology professorhas her finger on the pulse of human sexuality research -- and the attention of homophobic and biphobic conservatives who try to twist her findings to further their own agenda. She's the last person who's going to take that lying down.

Dr. Diamond isn't just the author of the groundbreaking book Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire. She's also a lesbian, a self-identified ally to the bi community, and a social scientist who declares that bisexuals "represent the vast majority of individuals with same-sex attractions" and are the norm in the LGB (lesbian, gay, bi) population!

In this two-part interview I got a chance to learn more about Dr. Diamond's research, her precedent-setting commitment to the truth about bisexual lives and lesbian desires, and how she stands up to bigots at the federal level. Here is part one:

In your keynote speech at BECAUSE, you mentioned that many of the bisexual women and women with fluid sexual identities and behaviors in your longitudinal study (for the bookSexual Fluidity) said things like, "You shouldn't include me; my story is too unusual; I'll skew your data," even though their experiences are actually more common than those of lesbian-identified women who have a very fixed/static sexual history. How did you respond to these women when they said things like that?

I found it really heartbreaking when women would say that, because it demonstrated just how influential our "wacked" scientific models of sexuality really were. Our false, overly deterministic, incorrect understandings of "normal" same-sex sexuality were contributing to these women's distress. That really sensitized me to the fact that, as a scientist, I had an obligation to disseminate my findings to the broader queer community, so that women like this would no longer feel so "different."

In your speech at BECAUSE, I heard you identify as an ally to the bisexual community. Tell me what inspired you to become a bi ally.

You know it's honestly never something that I consciously thought about or ever made a decision about; for me it's just a natural outgrowth of two different things.

First, my long-standing involvement in the queer community, stretching back to my college days, and my awareness of how many people have been chronically underrepresented and marginalized in that community (most notably ethnic minorities, bisexuals, and trans individuals).

But second, and perhaps more importantly, has been my own research on sexual identity and orientation over the past 15 years. I have become increasingly amazed and outraged at the degree to which bisexuals (and I am using that term broadly here to include individuals who identify as bisexual as well as individuals who might not identify as bisexual, but who experience sexual attractions to both men and women) have been utterly ignored by social scientists, despite the fact that they represent the vast majority of individuals with same-sex attractions.

I still don't quite understand why other scientists aren't as disturbed by this as I am.

I guess it's a testament to the pernicious and pervasive influence of biphobia in our culture. So my experiences as a scientist have made me more aware of, and concerned about, the marginalization of bisexuality more generally. And over the years, as I have taught various courses on sexuality and spoken about sexuality at conferences and various settings, I have spoken to so many women and men who confess to me that they feel different and weird and abnormal because of their bisexual attractions. These are individuals who feel just as marginalized by the queer community as they do by the straight community, and that literally breaks my heart.

I feel that psychologists have a duty to get the message out there, to these individuals and to the teachers and therapists and educators who might encounter them, that bisexual patterns of attraction are absolutely normal and, in fact, common!

In your many years of research on women's sexuality, what has come as the biggest surprise?

I suppose it would have to be the transformative impact of specific relationships. Early on, when I first started my research, some of the women that I interviewed would say things like, "Oh, I never knew that I was really attracted to women until I became close friends with one particular woman, and I fell in love with her..." In my naïveté, I sort of discounted these stories as evidence of repression (which was pretty common at that time).

As the years went by and I would re-interview these women, and as I would talk to lesbian-identified women who would say things like, "Wow, I was never really attracted to men, but now I sort of feel sexually attracted to my best male friend!" I began to realize that there was something really profound going on within these relationships, and that deep emotional attachments had the power to really change one's entire way of experiencing desire.

It took me a while to really come to grips with this, scientifically; I kept rereading the interview transcripts, trying to interpret them within the conventional models of sexuality that were available at that time, and it just didn't work. I remember that there was a particular day... actually, I was on an airplane with a stack of transcripts, struggling to make sense of them, and I just put down my pen and said, "OK, I need to throw out everything I think I 'know' and just start again, and reread everything, from the beginning. And really listen this time."

The hard truth is that life is a lot more complicated than scientific models present it as being.

In your speech at the BECAUSE conference, you talked about anti-gay people from the far right using your data to argue that LBQ women shouldn't have rights related to sexual identity, because of the fluidity you've documented. What is your response?

This has been so frustrating for me, partly because I am aware that no matter how many times I endeavor to clarify what fluidity means, and what my research shows, it doesn't seem to matter: Those who are motivated to misuse my research will do so, regardless of what I say. For example, after I filed an affidavit in several of the court cases challenging DOMA, to clarify that the anti-gay marriage folks were misusing and misinterpreting my findings, the anti-gay-marriage folks filed a response to the affidavit, stating, "Dr. Diamond does not get to determine what her findings mean." I remember reading and thinking, "Huh?" On days like that I have to take a deep breath and just keep talking, keep sounding the alarm, keep standing up for scientific integrity and for basic sexual freedom.

Where do you see the future of our collective understanding of women's sexuality? As a society, are we moving forward or backward (or sideways, perhaps)?

On some days I feel that we are moving forward, on some days sideways. I am certainly delighted to see more and more visibility of same-sex sexuality in the media, more discussion of these issues, etc. At the same time my sense is that the models that are presented of sexuality continue to be unbelievably reductionistic; they are models that are decades old, and they don't reflect what we now know about the true diversity of sexual experience and expression over the life course.

I get particularly frustrated by television shows that have "bisexual episodes" in which one of the female characters ends up having some sort of sexual contact with another woman, and it's typically portrayed as being very titillating and exciting, but then the character not only goes back to men but makes some sort of declaration about how she now knows that she's really heterosexual because, hey, she tried the other side, and she still prefers men! So she's "uber-het" or something. That frustrates me because although it's certainly bringing visibility to issues of same-sex sexuality, it does so in the service ofconventional and traditional norms about heterosexuality. But in the broad sweep of things, I suppose you could argue that the net gain of such visibility is positive, and that the more we talk about same-sex sexuality, the better off we are as a culture, because we're getting further and further away from the "old days" in which individuals couldn't even encounter such ideas or individuals.

So it's a mixed bag. We're definitely making progress, but I think it's important for all of us not to treat all forms of visibility as equivalent, and we need to remain critical of the fact that in some cases visibility of same-sex sexuality is motivated not by progressivism but by the desire to make money off of providing titillating images to viewers.


What's next on the horizon for Lisa Diamond, in terms of your research?

More research on men! For years folks have been saying to me, "Wow, I wonder if there is as much fluidity among men as among women, and we simply haven't done enough research to know." And I have always said, "That's a great question! Someone needs to find out!" I assumed, early on, that someone would seize the day and start really investigating fluidity among men, but that hasn't really happened. So although the first part of my career was really focused on the distinctiveness of women's experiences, the next chapter will involve greater attention to men, and to figuring out just where the similarities and differences between women and men really are, and where they come from.

Finally, what message would you like to get out there to other bi allies and bi-allies-to-be about how to be a good ally to us bi folk?

I guess my message would be this: It is simply ridiculous, in 2012, for there to be as much marginalization of bisexuality as there continues to be, both at a mainstream community level and also at the level of scientific inquiry.

We need to wake up: Bisexuals are not the exception; they are the norm! Study after study has shown this to be the case. How much more evidence do we need?

If we really want a powerful, cohesive, empowering queer community, then every single individual who cares about sexual freedom and self-determination -- regardless of how they personally identify -- has an obligation to speak out against the pernicious biphobia that continues to distort our science and our politics. Integrity demands no less.

**************

Jack Scott

A Complex Reality

Having been aware of my own sexuality from my earliest childhood memories, I have long recognized first my own sexuality and then human sexuality itself as a complex reality.

As I have related elsewhere in this blog, I became sexually active with other boys at age 6. It really wasn't a big deal because in the small Texas town where I was raised it was something that almost all boys were into.

I began to be sexually curious about girls around age 12. By age 14 I was actively exploring that curiosity. My frequent encounters with males continued through my 17th year. At age 18, I was married. The marriage was a good one, and it has endured for many years.

It was not until a few years after my marriage that I began to realize just how complex my sexuality was. The realization begin to take hold as the desire to return to male/male sexual activity began to grow in me in spite of the fact that I was enjoying a fantastic sex life with my wife.

For years, I tried to resist the male/male desires as also chronicled elsewhere in this blog. They simply got stronger.

As a Christian, I felt a huge amount of guilt because of my desires. The guilt began to turn into self hate and loathing as I felt I was the only married man in the world to have the thoughts and desires I had.

I was very much aware of homosexuality, but I knew I was not a homosexual because I had a strong desire for heterosexual relations with my wife. I just couldn't shake the feeling that my sexual activity with her was not enough. I knew nothing, at all about bisexuality.

In spite of my demons, I lived a great life. My wife and I raised a family. We both had very successful careers. We moved into our dream home and then a few years later, as our dreams grew, custom built another home that provided us a great deal of comfort and satisfaction. With success and age, life began to slow down a little bit and I began to study religion and human sexuality on my own.

I suppose over the years, I have probably achieved the equivalent of an advanced degree in religious studies and human sexuality. There has not only been the self-study, but I have fostered contacts with other guys similar to myself and have learned a great deal from the personal stories of others. Far from being the only man in the world with desires like mine, I found there are millions of us.

Several years ago I started a Yahoo Group to help guys like myself avoid some of the guilt and pain I had endured. In 2010 I began this blog. Both the group and the blog  have been a real blessing to me. I've learned much, and I've been able to help a few others along the way. A steady stream of email from guys who have benefited from my writing means the world to me. If I could have helped just one guy to avoid the pain and guilt, it would have been worth all the effort; but to have been able to help many has really been satisfying.

However, it has never been lost on me that, while I'm educated, I don't have any credentials in religion or human sexuality. All I have is what I've discovered along the way, my personal opinions and what I've learned from the school of hard knocks.

Blogging has been a very good thing for me. Not only has it allowed me to reach out to others, but it has allowed others to reach out to me. I spend a lot of time clicking through the links of blogs that are linked to mine and then on to the blogs that I find in those outlying blogs. Last week, I was doing just that and struck gold.

I ran into the web site of a man who has a Doctorate of Divinity as well as other credentials. I'm a member of the United Methodist Church. J. Benjamin Roe is a United Methodist Minister.

I spent an afternoon reading through several of his essays. It is a wonderful thing to read an affirmation of what I have written by someone with credentials to back them up.

Reading what Dr. Roe has written was like reading my own thoughts. I have posted one of his essays below. Some of the bold italic emphasis is mine. I tried to use the emphasis sparingly, because in reality, there is not much in the article I didn't want to add emphasis to.

Jack Scott

Sexual Orientation and Bisexuality: A Complex Reality

J. Benjamin Roe, D.Min.

"Bisexuality doesn't exist," said someone to me a number of years ago. I have heard other statements, too: Bisexuals just can't have stable relationships. Bisexuals live in a "no one's land." Bisexuals are really gay people who just haven't come all the way out of the closet. Bisexuals are really confused about their identity. Bisexuals are indiscriminate in their sexual partners. The only way to be "truly" bi is to be active sexually with partners of both sexes equally. Bisexuals are incapable of monogamy. Bisexuality "doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night."

Perhaps some of these statements are familiar to you. The reality of bisexuality is often denied by gay, lesbian, and heterosexual communities alike. And yet, to understand bisexuality and the complexity of sexual orientation might help make sense out of some of the claims of the "transforming" or "exodus" ministries.

My purpose in this article is to encourage a broader understanding of the complexity of sexual orientation, particularly as it is seen in bisexuality, and to encourage theological reflection which includes the experience of the range of sexual orientation.

Myths and stereotypes, like the ones listed above, are a problem for bisexual folk, just as they are for gay/lesbian people. Individual bisexual persons may fit or believe one or more of these myths and stereotypes. But just as there is not just one homosexual lifestyle, there is not just one bisexual lifestyle, but a whole range of possibilities from which each individual makes her or his own choices and decisions.

Looked at in the context of the whole of what we know about human sexuality, sexual orientation is much more complex than simply the two commonly used heterosexual-homosexual categories. It is even more complex than adding a third category of "bisexual;" yet, to talk about certain realities, labels sometimes make things a bit clearer.

Defining just what is meant by the word "bisexuality" is not easy. A definition that I like is, bisexuality is the presence of significant degrees of erotic attractions, erotic fantasies, and emotional preferences for members of both genders, with some recognition of their significance. Note that behavior is not a necessary part of the definition, and that recognition, or self-identification, is important. This is not a precise definition (if one were even possible), but it will do for the purpose of this article. It is important to note that bisexuality is not a discrete category, but roughly fits the middle range of scales that measure sexual orientation, such as the Kinsey scale and the Klein Grid.

The Kinsey scale is a zero to six continuum which was designed by the Kinsey researchers in the 1940's to describe the reality they were discovering, that there were not just "two kinds of people" (heterosexual and homosexual), but in fact a whole range of behaviors and "psychologic reactions" from homosexual to heterosexual and all points in between. The scale runs from zero, exclusively heterosexual, to six, exclusively homosexual, with three being equal components of both.

An affirmative approach to research on bisexuality or bisexual persons has been a recent development. Ron Fox has an excellent review of this research in an article in the exceptional text, Bisexuality; The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority.[1] One early study not in his review I find particularly interesting. This study pointed out some of the ways bisexual persons are different from heterosexual and homosexual persons. Pat Saliba had self-identified heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual persons rank themselves on three separate Kinsey scales: physical sexual activity, affectionate relationships, and erotic fantasy. Saliba sums up her research: "Sexual orientation is complex, not simple."[2] She found that people almost never rated themselves at the same point on all three scales. Within each self-identified group, there is diversity of ratings: all the homosexual persons and all the heterosexual persons weren't exclusively so, and all the bisexual persons weren't perfectly equal in gender preference.

She found that, among the bisexual group, affectionate relationships and erotic fantasies were "almost as important as sexual activity in their decision to self-identify as bisexual." This group also was quite diverse in the combinations of ratings among the three scales: some had only incidental sexual activity with persons of the same sex, some had only incidental sexual activity with persons of the other sex. While affectionate relationships were frequently ranked equally, "erotic fantasies were as diverse as those for sexual activity."

Saliba found "tremendous variability, in all areas" among all groups, "And yet the bisexuals are much more like one another than they are either the heterosexual or homosexual groups, and the same is true for each group." She also found that the way sex and affection are dealt with is more related to whether one is male or female. "Sexual orientation is not only much more than who you sleep with . . . but it is also where your affections lie, and even more importantly, how you integrate those affections into your sexual identity."

There are different kinds of bisexuality, as well. One typology, identified by Fritz Klein[3] identified transitional, historical, sequential, and concurrent types. Transitional bisexuality can be understood as a stage in coming out homosexual, and is primarily a behavioral reality, though attractions and fantasies can shift. Historical bisexuality is seen in the long sweep of a person's life, with greater or lesser mixes of heterosexual and homosexual components. Sequential bisexuality is also seen over a period of time, with relationships being first with one and then with the other gender. Concurrent bisexuality is the maintenance of relationships with persons of both genders at the same time.

In my experience and that of others who self-identify as bi, bisexual persons often feel some confusion at sometimes being attracted to one and then the other gender. The either-or myth contributes greatly to this confusion. Sometimes the confusion is simply the changeability of their attractions from day to day, or week to week.

It is the homosexual part of being bi that usually gives the most difficulty, so bisexual people usually need the support of gay/lesbian people, and so often are reluctant to identify as bi in gay/lesbian circles. This seems to be changing somewhat, at least in some gay groups, but homophobia will continue to make it difficult to "come out" bi in the general society, and biphobia will make it difficult to come out in both groups.

Bi people are often particularly sensitive to the importance of self-identification, growing out of the common experience of others denying their existence or defining sexuality for them. Bisexuals may come for counseling to be more comfortable with a wide range of sexual options. They may want to be more comfortable in fantasy or behavior or both, with men and women. They may want to be monogamous. They may want to be nonmonogamous and still have a viable primary relationship with either a woman or a man. They may want to be comfortable with multiple relationships (and practice safer sex). They may want to be more comfortable defining their own sexual options, apart from partner, peer, or society pressure. They may want to be comfortable not being sexually active with both sexes, and have feelings and fantasies about both.

Bisexual persons are often more concerned about relationships than gender. The daughter of a friend of ours said she couldn't imagine using the shape of a person's genitals to decide whether to have a relationship with the person. This expresses well the perspective of bi people I have known.

Bi folks are concerned, too, with the capacity to express relationships genitally if it is fitting, desired, and mutual. Bi persons are also often concerned about managing these relationships not only in caring ways for their partners, but also in ways that honor their own self-understanding.

Bisexuality is a complex reality, and highlights the complexity of sexual orientation itself. In my opinion, the experience of bisexual persons helps illumine the wide range of the gift of sexuality, and will continue to challenge our understandings and assumptions about sexuality.

Christian faith communities and theological traditions, with a few exceptions have been ambivalent about affirming that sexuality is a good gift of God. Even while affirming its goodness, they have usually attempted to silence the testimonies of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Christians. And they have largely ignored emerging scientific consensus in their theological and ethical reflections.

If people of faith were to commit to hearing the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Christians, and to honor insights and understandings of scientific research, what would be some useful possibilities for Christian theological reflection? There are some really fine treatments along these lines which often focus only on gay/lesbian voices and experience. When the reality of bisexual and transgendered people is included, the picture of human sexuality immediately becomes more complex. What resources are there for this kind of breadth in theological reflection?

There are a number of publications that could be useful for theological reflection from a perspective that includes the reality of bisexual and transgendered persons. Some of these references are listed in the bibliography.

One approach to reflecting theologically on bisexuality could be to focus on the community of the church, the silencing, the judgments, the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, and the call for just and humble actions, such as Marilyn Alexander and James Preston do in their book We Were Baptized Too.[4] The emphasis of this approach is God's inclusive grace, known through creation (the image of God),[5] welcome of the stranger,[6] and the sacraments of baptism and holy communion.[7]

Another approach is in James Nelson's landmark book, Embodiment. It is to do "sexual theology," that is, a two-directional movement that takes seriously the embodied human experience, that recognizes the religious dimension of sexual questions and the sexual dimension of religious questions.[8] This approach emphasizes the constellations of meaning around sexuality rather than the acts, the wholeness of human embodied selfhood, rather than the dichotomous spiritual and sexist dualisms.[9]

A third approach is to use a central concept of theology such as the imago Dei, the "image of God." As an illustration of this approach, I have chosen a recent work that focuses on lesbian and gay persons.

I am unaware of a book that deals with bisexual persons that is comparable to Larry Graham's Discovering Images of God.[10]Though there is bisexual experience related in some of the interviews, there is no awareness (except in one important parenthetical remark[11]) of anything but a dichotomous view of sexual orientation in the book, due largely, I suspect, to his ethical accountability to those he interviewed who had this view. However, his discussion of the theological issues can be very helpful in theological reflection from a broader perspective. Out of many rich interviews and experiences, he concludes:

We have seen how the intensity of erotic love in relationships of mutual sharing and commitment have healed deep wounds and opened hearts in gratitude to God for such a wonderful gift of life.[12]

Further, he saw something that could be said of the experience of some bisexual Christians:

A sense of God's gracious participation in life has emerged through involvement in novel forms of partnerships and families that in turn have contributed to fuller personal experiences and to richer communities.[13]

Graham suggests that the doctrine of the imago Dei (the image of God) is "central to developing a theological foundation for positive care with lesbian and gay persons." He brings considerable insight to a position which he says "appears to represent the current prevailing position of American Protestantism toward lesbian and gay persons."[14] The main point of this position is that the image of God is heterosexuality, even as it also affirms the key place of relationships of mutuality and intimacy.[15]

His critique of this tradition is extensive and convincing. He notes the exclusion from consideration of "Christian tradition beyond the Bible" as well as "the concrete experiences of lesbian and gay persons,"[16] to say nothing of scientific research.

He outlines five inadequacies of this statement of the "current prevailing position":

First, it assumes that the materials from the tradition are given rather than creatively constructed by the best (and worst) judgments of human individuals and communities over time. Second, it assumes that its interpretations of the biblical texts are unassailable and accurately represent the self-understanding of the original writers. Third, it assumes that the church has always held the position they represent, rather than offering diverse interpretations of the same materials they so confidently draw on. Fourth, it assumes that the contemporary experiences of real persons cannot challenge, correct, and expand inherited traditions. Finally, it tends to "proof text" specific biblical passages for its authority, rather than placing the discussion within a larger theological horizon or context of meaning within the Bible and beyond.[17]

Graham discusses four additional "plausible alternative interpretations of the imago Dei." These include the image of God as "an asexual disembodied status," an embodied male/female existence with the male dominant, a sexless spiritual existence of male/female equality with male-dominance, and "an egalitarian partnership and fellowship" based on Phyllis Bird's thought.[18]

None of these, he says, fits directly the experience of the people whom he interviewed. Instead, the work of John Douglass Hall provided the most attractive and appropriate understanding. Hall found "a subordinated strand of reflection . . . that sees theimago Dei as a quality of relationship instead of an essential human trait or characteristic."[19] He goes on, using this part of Hall's work:

To be in the imago Dei means to be fully ourselves--rather than living according to something externally imposed--in relationships characterized by God-like involvement in all the dimensions of our relational web: with God, our ground and source, with our fellow humans, and with the natural order. Full, authentic humanity in the imago Dei means to be with, for, and together in communion with all of these dimensions of our relatedness.[20]

Graham concludes with this summary:

to be in the image of God is ultimately about the qualities of loving communion that come into being in the universe . . . When reflective of the imago Dei love is . . . embodied, sensual, mutual, unifying, wholistic. . . The imago Dei is characterized by creative and just relationality in a context of accountability and mutual concern.[21]

It seems to me that these insights apply as well to the experience of bisexual people of faith who, perhaps more than others, may be able to love fully without regard to gender. Contrary to the stereotype that bisexual people cannot commit to relationships, there are many who have the kinds of relationships Graham says are "reflective of the imago Dei." There are marriages and extended marriage-like relationships in which at least one of the partners is bi. And there are intimate friendships where these qualities exist.

Just as the experience of gay and lesbian people is calling the church and culture to broaden understanding of sexuality, so too is the experience of bisexual and transgendered people calling for a similar enhancement of understanding of God's gift of human sexuality.

(An earlier version of this article was originally published in The New Voice of Nebraska, Vol 4, No. 3, May 10, 1987.)

This article was published in the Summer 1998 Issue of Open Hands, Resources for Ministries Affirming the Diversity of Human Sexuality

_____________________________________

©1998 J. Benjamin Roe. Permission is hereby granted to reprint for non-commercial use (including education) provided this notice is included. You may also cite this work with attribution, of course. I would love to hear how this paper is used: please send me an e-mail (ben at tde.com) and let me know.

Original publication note: Ben Roe has been married for 29 years and has self-identified as bi for 20 years. He does computer programming and maintains the World Wide Web site for the Reconciling Congregation Program (now Reconciling Ministries Network). He is active in the Reconciling/Welcoming Church movement, Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns, and Warren United Methodist Church, a small inner-city church in Denver.