Marseille 2007
| Abstract #512 - Homosexual and Bisexual Labels and Behaviors among Men: The Need for Clear Conceptualizations, Accurate Operationalizations, and Appropriate Methodological Designs | ||||
|
Session: 16.4: Methodology Matters (Parallel) on Monday @ 14.00-16.00 in 5 Chaired by Graham Hart, Dominique Costagliola Authors: Presenting Author: Dr Theo Sandfort - Columbia University, United States |
||||
| Additional Authors: | ||||
| Aim: The HIV/AIDS epidemic forced us to understand that a substantial proportion of homosexual sex is not practiced by self-identified gay men. Research has clearly demonstrated the limited usefulness of sexual self-identification. Comparisons over time could also have alerted us to the instability of sexual categories. In order to sufficiently understand epidemiological developments it is critical to rethink our categories and develop methodological guidelines for the design of future studies. | ||||
| Method / Issue: This presentation is based on an analysis of empirical studies that included or specifically addressed homosexual diversity and male bisexuality, combined with data from a qualitative study with 30 bisexually behaving men. | ||||
| Results / Comments: The concept of men who have sex with men (MSM) has been introduced to create an all-encompassing category. Although widely applied, this umbrella term also has received criticism: it lacks explanatory power and depoliticizes the gay-category. Although gay culture seems to globalize, the meaning attached to the label gay is not necessarily identical between but also not within cultures; self-identified gayness exists alongside homosexuality practiced by straight-identified individuals in developing but also in industrialized countries. Several studies acknowledge by their title the inclusion of bisexual men; their specific situation is, however, seldom explicitly addressed. Bisexual men that are included in studies are often present more or less by accident; they are rarely specifically sampled, limiting the generalizability of the studies findings. Some studies categorize men as homosexual based on lifetime same-sex sexual practices, regardless of current sexual self-identification or sexual practices. Other studies that compare homosexual and heterosexual persons lump bisexual men with homosexual menusually for reasons of small sample size. Our study among bisexually behaving men showed that these men adopt a variety of labels, including gay to describe how they see themselves as well as how they present themselves to their social world. Furthermore, for some men, sexual self-identification is not based on intrapsychic factors but on practical circumstances: when the circumstances change, these men adopt another label. Findings from existing research are hard to integrate due to the diversity in conceptualizations and operationalizations of sexual behaviors and meanings. Current research practice does not only make male bisexuality invisible, it also obscures the meaning of the studies findings for the gay or homosexual men. | ||||
| Discussion: To gain a better understanding of homosexual and bisexual practices, both in terms of behaviors and personal and social meanings, clear conceptual definitions are needed. Doing justice to the diversity of sexual practices also requires social scientific research to adopt various methodological guidelines. | ||||
| Go Back | ||||
