memevector: (Default)
[personal profile] memevector
Been pondering the politics of so-called "bisexual health", and looking at relevant research (such as it is, which isn't a lot when you come to specifically bi stuff).

1. a) It seems to me the short summary of current bi health, in terms of measurable outcomes, is "Very similar to lesbians and gay men in equivalent cultural/circumstantial situations, with a few differences in degree".

(E.g. referring to populations rather than individuals, the Mind report shows that LGB people have worse mental health results than straight people, and bi people's results are broadly similar to L/G people with some better scores and some worse. What I'm suggesting is that, for example, we're unlikely to find an area where behaviourally bisexual people as a group are healthier in some way than straight people, while gay people are less healthy.)

b) And the short summary of bi health needs is "Everything that (some) lesbians, gay men + straight people need, but without the biphobia and monosexism, please".

c) What do you think of this hypothesis, peeps?

2. How many behaviourally bisexual people might we estimate there are in the UK and based upon what evidence? esp. yer actual scientifically valid & preferably peer-reviewed & published type stuff. (And not simply reliant on Kinsey, who didn't start with a representative sample even of US people.)

Thanks in advance for comments on all of this, which would be most useful just at the moment.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-12 07:34 am (UTC)
cryx: Me, infront of a wall, with surprisingly dark hair (biicon)
From: [personal profile] cryx
I think the hypothesis is a valid one to test, and I'm afraid I can't help on 2..

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-12 07:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hamsterine.livejournal.com
c) Agree totally with a & b, and am impressed with the clear way you have said it.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-13 01:50 pm (UTC)
ext_40378: (Default)
From: [identity profile] skibbley.livejournal.com
This Australian site links to a few talks and papers
http://www.glhv.org.au/?q=taxonomy/term/7&from=30
including:

Bisexuality and Health Psychology – Strange Bedfellows?
(An Australian study)
http://www.glhv.org.au/files/bisexuality_health_psych.pdf

and:

Improving the Access and Quality of Public Health Services for Bisexuals (Canada)
Health Psychology Update, Vol. 14, Issue 2, 2005.
http://www.glhv.org.au/files/bisexual_health_canada.pdf

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-14 11:39 am (UTC)
lovingboth: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lovingboth
1. It's the invisibility issue that pisses me off the most, even if there are understandable reasons for it.

2. NATSAL is the nearest to that. You want the second one, because the figures are higher methodology is better.

Summary at http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm and most of them will be bi, not lesbian/gay.

The authors (all of the ones I've met are lovely and at least one of them is bisexual) reckon these are minimum figures, not least because these questions get higher non-response rates.

That HEA/Sigma report I should be able to get my hands on on Monday had to stop advertising for BB men because they were swamped.

k

Date: 2007-06-17 09:30 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)

. Much respect!





Profile

memevector: (Default)
memevector

June 2008

S M T W T F S
1234567
8910 11121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 06:59 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios