That's exactly what I was going to say.

The next time they want to do an asinine study & then news story may I please be given the opportunity to collect the money they plan to spend with one simple answer? "Duh!"

Utter,

Some people don't believe something until they're bashed over their heads with actual data, hence this study. Even then, there are a lot of people who don't want to believe that anyone can be anything other than heterosexual.

Outrageous, I don't think "love" has anything to do with it- Haha Knowing men, it's probably more the physical non-emotional act and convenience of it.

Does anyone really "need" a study to "prove" that they exist? I seriously doubt that this kind of a study will prevent family members or others from asserting that the person is just "confused." The funny thing is that gay men seem to be the worst at accepting bi men. They seem to assert that he just hasn't had enough men or the right one. In other words, they are really gay. On the other hand, the argument for lesbians is that they've just had bad men in their lives, either as fathers or partners, so they choose to be lesbian to avoid them.

I could never figure out what the discrimination against gays and bi's was all about, from the time I was little. And that goes back to before the issues were even really discussed, or when they were, it was never pleasant.

lol, and your scientific evidence for this "polluted" statement is where exactly?

That's right, I didn't think so...

Profession of you sexuality is gratuitous and perhaps malicious when anonymous. What is your purpose? No truth here.

Funny there is no mention of age of the study participants. If they were 18 to 22 arousal at this age in men is immediately available to them by thinking alone, no matter if dogs, cats, dragon fly's, football or cheese burgers are on tv. Watching any type of porn of course increases the chances of a response in a trigger happy young man and really does not prove anything for certain in real life. The "thought police" of course disagree with this.

Actual reality is a real indicator; film which promotes fantasy, can have many diverse nonsensical meanings.

Watch 10 men and one woman or swingers porn and your a group sex person; but in reality its a turn off and you would never do/try these behavior's.

A woman enjoys rape porn; but never would want that treatment in real life. Or a man likes rape porn but would never consider raping a woman.

The same logic can be applied to all types of strange sick porn on the web. Watching it does indicate interest; if nothing more than curiosity, but even if the porn arouses you, it is not proof of your actual reality or intentions.

Morals are a very subjective thing Psha. You however sound very much like the Puritans who came over from England. Very prudish.

That would make it alot easier to get laid...

Your cited studies please, Psha.

Most people are heterosexual.

Some people are homosexual.

Some people are bisexual.

Fewer people are transgendered.

THERE!

Most people don't give a rat's a$$ about who they are and what they do in their private lives.

What people do care about are stupid articles every 5-10 years that just keep contradicting themselves.

LEAVE IT ALONE!

No one cares about statistics. 77% of all statistics are made up anyways (just as this one was).

Now, where do I get my $10 million dollar grant for this study which is just as accurate as any other?

Who in their right mind would have sex with another if they knew they have been with a bi-sexual?

Have sex with another what? Maybe the reason no one answered your question is because it's so vague and poorly worded.

Pick a team.

Sex with the dead. Art or atrocity?

Karen in Los Angeles - Pick a team.

OK, put me on the team without all the ignorant bigots.

@ witchrunner, you left out the bisexual women. Apparently we can't be openly bisexual if we want lesbians to accept us.

Now they just need to publish the following follow-ups. I am bi-sexual, as in if you want to tell me all of those details of your sex lives, you will have to pay me. Oh, and I'm not attracted to every man/woman that I see. In fact, I'm not attracted to the majority of people from either gender. Oh, and female bisexuals exist, too. It's amazing the amount of lesbians who label us as straight or think that we don't exist.

Seriously, now that we've gotten past the point that there is more sexual diversity for men than most would think, let's get past the other challenges.

Hahahaha!!! Northwestern University-- back in March made the news for having sex demonstrations on stage and calling it research....Alfred Kinsey = pedophile.......these are the "people" conducting these studies!! What a bunch of kooks! LMAO!

Sex with the dead. Art or atrocity?

Don't mind me, just cracking open a cold one

As a current bisexual, (I've only had sex with the wife twice in the last six months), I am not shocked to read there are more of my kind out there. And they are correct! It's not a lifestyle choice! The condition's onset usually involves wedding cake.

Twice in six months? Dude, that's not a marriage, that's a roommate you have sex with on Valentine's Day.

Christmas and Valentine's day are too close together if you ask me.

LMAO...

Twice in 6 months? That'd be great! You and I are very similar, sirlafalot.

Sirlafalot, does your wife know you are bi? As a woman, I would want to know if my husband was doing other guys. While I have nothing against gays or bi's. What 2 people do behind closed doors and all that, but at the same time I wouldn't want to be with a guy who does other guys. Sorry.

As the density wave eases up a little, you will find the parenthetical reference explains my own personal version of "bisexual". You could also say I'm a "homo" sexual considering homo means "same". I've been having sex with the "same" woman for many years. See dear? "Bi" meaning twice? Love ya Pumpkin.

"Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process."

— E. B. White

Yep, the frog is screwed. That frog was bi, by the way. Poor thing. What ever frogs do under the lotus blossom really is nobody's business.

Grump, you saved it. That was fantastic. Thank you.

Sirlafalot, your joke was great, I wish I had "got" it before you explained it. I am sad to have missed it...but kudos for effort.

gotta love the "waste of money" comments, even though they have no idea how much $$ was involved in a small study with few participants or even how the study was funded. In my opinion giving GM $50 billion in handouts was a waste of money. A whole lot more money than all of these studies combined. Another waste of money...10 year Iraq war. Another...the trillion dollar HC overhaul. What a waste of money!!

Wonder if I could get a grant to study if babies pee during diaper changes?

I like an explaination I heard once, don't remember where or when. It said sexual orientation was more of a sliding scale rather than completely separate boxes. Some very strongly prefer only the opposite sex, some very strongly prefer only the same sex. Some like both equally. Some mostly prefer one or the other, but may have attractions of a varying degree to the non-preferred sex. I'm happily married and never even experimented with the same sex, but I have on rare occasions found another woman attractive.

The study probably cost more, so I'm going with that.

It's hard to imagine there's such a thing as bisexual men. I always thought either you're gay or not. Anyway, I can't find anything more beautiful than a woman's ass.

Privately funded, so why does it matter if it was a waste of money or not?

Because most people consider waste a bad thing. Period.

Miker - what is a waste for some people isn't a waste for others. How many stupid cars do you have in your driveway... or golf clubs, or... how many hours do you spend in front of the tv or computer? Are you getting the idea?

Next time someone wants to do anything, or spend any money on a pursuit they will check with you and some of the other yeah-hoos on this thread.

@JoMan: Uh, dildo-smack? Did you see me criticizing this as a waste? No. You didn't. I was just clarifying for a previous poster why some people take exception to spending money on something that they perceive as being unproductive. By most people's (including reputable dictionary editors) definition, that is "waste." And, most people consider waste a bad thing. If you've got heartburn with people criticizing this study, take it up with them. Not me.

If you've got heartburn with people criticizing this study, take it up with them. Not me.

I took it up with both as you can see by my ending sentence.

Miker, let's leave the periods out of this.

What about it being an invalid study period. Privately funded or not.

This study proves why Psychology is a BS field.

Plus, these were verbal responses, well people do lie a lot.

At least Masters and Johnson wired them up.

@cathee: Right on!

@SLAL: I suppose I should have said, "Simple as that." But, I was feeling lazy.

As far as how many "stupid cars" I have sitting in my driveway. I've always said that if a Smart Car is really a smart car, then my car is a freaking genius. I get over 42 mpg in the city and I can fit a 16' extension ladder in it!

Wow! Do you drive one of those old Kahn's Weiner Mobiles or something else?

Mike - If you are focusing on cars you are missing my point.

I got your pointless point, JoMan. You're the one who brought up cars.

SLAL: Nope. Geo Metro. Greatest car GM ever sold. (obviously you have to have the ladder retracted. . . ) But, I'd love to have a weiner-mobile. Just saw one this past summer and it was cool!

a Smart Car is really a smart car,

Really? Exactly how smart is it to take a hopped-up golfcart on an interstate full of SUVs and tractor trailers?

Hey FBC! I don't drive it on the Interstate much if ever. Just around town. I'm working on my 4th week of commuting to and from work daily on a single 10 gallon tank of gas. And, unlike my bike-riding friends, I don't get wet when it rains. So, I'm still nominating my Geo for valedictorian.

Miker, is your Geo bi?

Nah. I just got thrown off-subject a little bit. . .

Miker, your Geo goes both ways, doesn't it? Like forwards and backwards? My Ford Ranger does. Her name is Gertrude.

"Hiiiiiiiyooooo Gertrude!!!!! You're gay! kinda

Well, Grump, you got a point there.

This grant money was at least partly from a private foundation. You can find out who else funded by reading the actual paper.

This is the quote from the actual paper regarding funding:

Acknowledgements
We thank John Sylla, Kevin J. Hsu, and Joan Linsenmeier. This work was supported by a grant from the American Institute of Bisexuality.

So there you go, no public funding...happy?

This work was supported by a grant from the American Institute of Bisexuality. So there you go, no public funding...happy?

Also NO chance that this study might be a little biased. . .

Well, that's another issue entirely. However, if there was evidence of bias on the part of the researcher, that is a serious accusation. First, there would have to be a printed retraction in the journal, then there would be an investigation by the university, and the corresponding author (Rosenthal) would be pushed out of the university. The grad student or post doc working in that lab would also have a huge stain on their record which would make them pariahs in the field...

LOL color me greedy

Clearly, you read the article.

Awww, you mad?? Lemme get back to you after I'm done bonin' all your friends.

That's one of my Dad's favorite lines :) I'm straight, we just have very strange conversations :)

I know, I was surprised at how many comments there were already without the "my-sexual-orientation-is-the-right-one-and-yours-is-unnatural" folks showing up.

The "you're-wasting-government-money-on-science" folks are here.

Maybe it'll take a few minutes longer since the homophobes are probably on dial-up...

How does one know which menu item to select for the evening? I would think it would be exasperating to be attracted to both sexes. Junior high was "hard" enough with just the girls!

I think they are all a bit sick and this is NOT science. Who benefited from this stupid study other than the clowns who performed it? And why is it okay to have arachnophobia but not homophobia. I am sure some study could find it a real affliction. I have it and don't want the cure.

I think what happens in our prison system is probably good evidence to support your hypothesis.

I was a teacher in the prison system. I had to teach them about HIV/AIDS. They way convicts make it okay is this: Whoever is putting it in is the man. Whoever is receiving it is the female. And, for the "males" it never happened when they get out. Bet you could apply that research to the GReeks and Spartans while they were out on the battle fields ect.

Yeah I've heard that reasoning before. I've always pointed out though that the man on the "giving" side is the one that is demonstrating same sex attraction. The receiver may or may not actually even want to be there.

Quite true, rconstant. When I pointed out that it didn't matter who was doing what, if the act was between two of the same sex, it was homosexual. They didn't appreciate it at all.

ChrisM702:

Bitter...Party of One..Bitter..Party of One..Wow maybe you should get laid.

Exactly! They have even been caught having sex with furniture. Call me cynical but I am not surprised in the least little bit. Pie, anyone?

Prison rape is state-sanctioned torture, no more "sex" than having a broomstick shoved up you by a NY cop...

Because animals and women don't feel threatened by the label.

Person named x,
I did like some of your earlier comments but. . .

Actually, many women do recieve a label for it. As men are often glorified for their sexual escapades, women are negatively labeled for their's (i.e."slut"), etc.

I agree that it's wrong to label men for bisexuality over women, but everyone pays the same dues on a long enough timeline over varied scenarios involving sex. More often than not, men are the ones doing the judging. It's a matter of perspective, a man who is comfortable with his sexuality doesn't feel threatened by his peers based on his sexual preference.

Calling bikerchick a "stupid b1tch" was hardly a mature way to make a point.

two girls kissing in a bar = applause

two guys kissing in a bar = dead silence or butt kicking

If a guy finds out his girlfriend is open to a threesome with a girl he wants to join

If a girl finds out her boyfriend is open to a threesome to a guy she wants to leave

I'm not saying that what X said was incorrect or invalid, because it really isn't.

I am well aware of the double standard involved, which is exactly what I was talking about.

Men believe it shows weakness to be gay or bisexual, yet find it sexually alluring for a woman to do so. That is, in fact, very hypocrital.

But, personally, I don't know any women who would be opposed to a threesome merely because it contained another guy, but because it was a threesome in general.

Women aren't perfect, either.
But women didn't create the illusion that girl/girl intimacy was sexually appealing on their own, and that is where the double standard comes in.

Thankfully your bizarre cult is irrelevant to science, or we'd still be in the dark ages.

That means absolutely nothing to me....explain please. I'm not saying Christianity should be involved in scientific studies. The Dark Ages huh? The Bible does nothing to denounce agricultural manifestation nor does it shackle the findings in the field of industrial engineering. Though the budgeting of finances is discussed multiple times in scripture, I would doubt that there were any instructive withholdings on commercial gains. So how would we still be in the Dark Ages again?

That means absolutely nothing to me....explain please.

Apparently your concern is how things should be rather than observing how things actually are. You also impute intentionality on things like evolution which, as far as we know, aren't sentient.

Even worse, you think your imaginary friend is real.

My "imaginary" friend is your biggest fear...or maybe you wouldn't feel so moved to have an opinion on him.

Bi-sexuality may be an area in which I have no expertise, if any enlightenment at all, but my God is a being you have no experience with whatsoever. Either you have had experience yet choose to live in denial or you are judging anyones's decision to trust in someone you have never met. Either way, you have no grounds to judge anyone's personal commitment to Christ. In other areas, yes. Christ, no.

Cardinal Nation - My "imaginary" friend is your biggest fear...or maybe you wouldn't feel so moved to have an opinion on him.

Thanks, but I fear the Flying Spaghetti Monster more than I fear your febrile delusions or your imaginary friend.

Either way, you have no grounds to judge anyone's personal commitment to Christ.

????? Where did I "judge anyone's personal commitment to Christ"? All I said is that you confuse the teachings of your cult with reality. Science is concerned with how things actually are, you're concerned with how you think things should be.

And it's a rather pitiful cult whose followers are motivated by fear.

And why are all these studies purely sexual in nature? I thought being homosexual or bisexual was about the inherent ability to LOVE another man or woman

Because we already know people can love people of the same sex. I love my best friend dearly, but I'm straight as they come. This is about attraction, and measuring sexual arousal is the most quantifiable means to measure attraction.

Either way, you have no grounds to judge anyone's personal commitment to Christ. In other areas, yes. Christ, no.

It's very convenient you can judge everyone else on things like sexual orientation, an innate feature, but others cannot judge you on your choice to believe in faerie tales.

I agree with CarinalNation....the problem is, in order for most research to be considered 'valid' you have to narrow the variables you're trying to measure, AND make sure you can measure them. So, I can understand the researchers relying heavily on erections/arousal as a benchmark for attraction, but it falls waaay short of the huge variability in what defines attraction, love, and intimacy. That's too bad, because it reduces 'attraction' to a narrow set of circumstances and makes gay or bisexual attraction a matter of erection or arousal. Suppose a gay or bisexual man could no longer achieve an erection for physiological reasons (e.g. damage to the nerves in that area). Would you no longer consider him to be gay or bisexual? This emphasis on sex is understandable in our society but so very, very limiting.....regardless of whether you are straight, gay, bisexual, or transgendered.

thinkingman-3118694 - I can understand the researchers relying heavily on erections/arousal as a benchmark for attraction, but it falls waaay short of the huge variability in what defines attraction, love, and intimacy.

The study was about physiological sexual orientation (ie, sexual attraction), which is largely involuntary and sometimes contrary to what a person consciously wants. The study wasn't about love or intimacy.

Suppose a gay or bisexual man could no longer achieve an erection for physiological reasons (e.g. damage to the nerves in that area). Would you no longer consider him to be gay or bisexual?

No, he just couldn't be a part of the study.

Skrekk, I totally agree....and as I said, it's unfortunate because as you can see by all of these posts, guys tend to focus on the sex.....so, a study about guys having an erection when they see gay sex only reinforces a stereotype about what guys (whether straight or gay) focus on. It's not that this study is "wrong," it's that the design just feeds into stereotypes.

No. There was no public funding for this research.

I'm not sure that the research says anything about anything being a choice.

no takers huh

I digress, private spending is fine. But still, a waste of money.

I always thought that sexual orientation was about who one feels genuine emotional or romantic attraction to.

I guess you were wrong, eh?

Sexual orientation means exactly what it says - it's who you're sexually attracted to, regardless of whether you're aware of it or even want that attraction. For example, various studies prove that many homophobes are in fact not exactly straight:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

This was privately funded. Not tax dollars used.

Carl

What planet are you from do you think any tax dollars went to Northwestern Univ in any way. What do you smoke not to realize that both Federal and State tax dollars subsidize colleges.

Ron,

At the end of every paper published is the funding information for the study/research presented. At the end of this paper, the only funding listed is from the American Institute for Bisexuality.

Of course Northwestern gets some public funding, but so what? What does that have to do with anything? When you apply for a grant, you have to give an estimate of the costs of doing the research. So, when you get the grant, that money covers the lab or office space used, the salaries of any research technicians, grad students or post docs involved. Why do you think professors in the sciences get tenure? It's because they are able to bring in grant money, which actually makes money for the university.

Carl

Go back to Russia where they could brainwash you. The public money is used in one way or another, to cover costs it does not matter what you call it. If the university makes money then they should not ask for any help from the government. My business makes money and I do not ask for any help from the government, instead they take my money to spend on stupid studies like this. I would like to get paid to look at hot babes, and porn movies to get aroused. You could ask anybody on this planet if there are people that are attracted and aroused by people of the same sex. Why waste any money for such a stupid moronic study.

Ron,

You're not getting this. The study was privately funded. I'm sure that Northwestern does get some tax dollars, but in this case it didn't.

If you want to discuss public support of the university/college system, that's a different topic.

Bottom line: if some private organization wants to fund research, then it shouldn't matter what that research is. Also, what may seem silly to you, isn't silly to everyone.

Carl

Do you believe that the money donated to the organization was a tax deductible item, therefore somebody deducted this donation on their tax return which reduced their taxes. You just do not get it, the public subsidized this one way or another.

Ron-2402090 - Do you believe that the money donated to the organization was a tax deductible item, therefore somebody deducted this donation on their tax return which reduced their taxes.

So what? Individuals alone get to decide where their charitable donations go. That's considered the individual's money which they earned, by the way, not public money.......otherwise we could make a similar complaint about tax-deductible donations to Catholic Social Services, and complain that "public tax money is subsidizing religious organizations."

Skrekk

That is correct we are subsidizing the perverted maggot priests within the Catholic Church. See how fast some of these so called charities will vanish if they were not tax deductible. If you want to give to charity that is up to you but the government should not pay part. Ps I wish I could have been part of this study to watch hot babes and porn movies with hot babes to be turned on. I do not get turned on by guys, I do not go that way.

I'm sorry, but it's driving me absolutely crazy how you keep misspelling Carl's name, Ron. o_<

Ron,

Many things are tax deductible: mortgage interest, donations, moving expenses, etc...

Do you complain about all those things too?

Carl

Sure do, I complain about all the tax deductions. The tax code is not fair to hard working people with no deductions. The only deduction that should be allowed is for alimony, because she earned it.

Ron- how does a woman earn alimony? By having a vagina?

Do men who receive alimony also earn it? Just wondering.

BFD

People have to pay for being screwed. look at prostitutes they earn their money.

Ron,

Everyone gets some sort of deduction, who does your taxes??

Carlmax

My family's CPA does mine. I have a lot of trust money plus my job as income. If you ever looked at a tax return you will see there is something called the standard deduction, which you get just for breathing. That is my deduction, so there.

I've alway taken the standard deduction too, but we just bought a house, so now we'll probably itemize. Plus we have a child, which is a deduction...so many deductions are out there...

From what I understand, your point is that since this American Institute of Bisexuality (probably) accepts donations, and those donations are tax deductible for the donor, then that is less money the federal, state, local governments take in. Therefore that donation is actually taking away from tax revenue, so when a non-profit uses that money, you are considering it a form of public money (that might-have-been). So, then that is a form of public financing of this grant. Is that your argument?

If indeed this is your argument, then all the deductions that we take on our taxes would be a subsidy, and therefore we should have to itemize all that money and make sure that what we spend it on is appropriate? Who decides that? It's a bit of a slippery slope.

If your argument is that we should get rid of all deductions, well, that's a different topic.

Why should we care how the Canadian's conduct their sex lives?

No takers on studying the eh sexuals?

I lol'd.

It wasn't publicly funded. It was funded through a private foundation.

@karlmarx, wrongo bucco! They recieved more than $500M in research grants of which, half was federal and state money.

Where did you read that?

Big,

Did you mean to say $500k? I took a look at the actual paper, and at the end, where the funding information usually is, it just says that funding was from the American Institute of Bisexuality. Says nothing about NIH or NSF, etc...

@ karlmark, you can call the Board and ask, or you can check wikipedia if you trust their research. I do.

Also the figure stated for CY 09-10 is $500 million. I called the school at (847) 467-7273 and verified it.

This does not mean they spent $500M on the study. It means the school is taxpayer-funded for research. This "study" fell into that catagory.

Big,

That's totally different. You're talking about overall funding for Northwestern's research? If that's the case, then how is this relevant? As I explained above to someone else, when you get a grant, that grant covers the cost of the laboratory space used, the salaries of post docs or grad students doing the research. So, when you get a grant through private foundation to do research on a particular proposal, then that money can only be used for that study. So in this case, the grant was privately funded, and no public tax dollars were used to figure out that bisexuals exist.

Yes, and they're all related to him and each other.

They're not called "pussycats" for nothing.

My cat apparently has "pink eye". I see it when she is walking away. I don't find it enticing but I can see your point!

Most PhD's make fun of MD's because they're notoriously dumb when it comes to basic research...

funny story:

My friend was giving a talk on a protein called Rhodopsin, a visual protein found in the eye. Upon light activation, one of the helices of the protein moves about 8 angstroms. My friend described this as a pretty big movement for a protein. One of the MD's in the room raised his hand and said: "If it's such a big movement, why can't we feel it?". It was such a stupid question, that my friend didn't know what to say.

Of course, this is just one example, and MD's are obviously smart people, but oftentimes they don't study the basic research very carefully.

Holy crap! I can't believe anyone who got into undergrad school would ask a question like that! Scary.

I know. Again though, it's a generalization. I'm sure that MD's look down upon PhD's all the time too.

The very best guys I've worked for are MD/PhD's. Those are the real studs.

Actually, I was always most impressed with MD/JDs. Talk about some self-important, arrogant, and generally dislikeable people with God complexes. . . but generally pretty smart. Can't change a tire or their own oil, but smart in an arguably equally useful way.

Karlmarx, I think the kid may have offered a question only a good smartass can pull off. You all believed him, he won! He's a funny boy. Funny like we should FEEL a big movement, or a big bowel movement.

Sir,

true*

*this wasn't a kid though, this was an ophthalmologist at UCLA.

Ouch, gotcha.

I am currently in a PhD science program, and yes, many conversations with the medical students leave us staring at them in disbelief.

I think they started an unfortunate trend by wanting to be called "doctor." It gives off the wrong impression. Not to mention JDs now want it too. So pretty soon if your physician is sued for malpractice, he or she is going to have to phone their doctor to defend them in court.

You think that actual doctors wanting to be called "doctor" is an "unfortunate trend? Or the PhDs? You weren't very clear about who started the "trend," but I tend to find it really bizarre and ego-maniacal for PhDs to insist that people call them "doctor." I have no real problem calling an actual medical doctor "doctor," although I still call personal friends who happen to be actual medical doctors by their first names.

I've been working in various academic research labs for 15 years, and I only know one or two PhD's who insisted on being called doctor.

I'm not really sure why it is that it's proper protocol to call MD's doctor, but not PhD's. I suppose a patient, who would be relatively ignorant when it comes to medicine would view the MD as someone with superior knowledge, hence the deference. Contrast this to PhD's who interact professionally only with peers, or people who are knowledgeable in a specific field, and you quickly drop any formality.

You are correct, I was unclear. I wasn't talking about anyone's ego. PhDs rarely insist on it (because as Karl said, they interact with peers, and there is no sense being so formal). Still, it is the PhD who is the genuine doctor, as the term has been used since antiquity to describe a teacher, church elder, master of a field, or philosopher. Hence PhD = Doctor of Philosophy, whereas only recently (in the past few hundred years) have MDs insisted on the term.

Fun fact: surgeons in the UK thought it was egomaniacal for MDs to want the term that had previously been reserved for teachers, so they refused to use it. So to this day if you have surgeon done in the UK, your physician will be Mr. or Ms. so-and-so. This carries through to a lot of American Universities as well, and when I watched the last graduation, the president of the school introduced only the PhDs and doctors, and the MDs and "professionals."

I actually am getting married to an MD, and we share many friends. There really isn't a lot of disagreement on this one. However, I could see your point if you wanted to say that research scientists shouldn't get to use it, since they aren't technically teachers........perhaps the word has gone through a long history of theft!

What a stupid waste of a post. :)

This study was privately funded, so any work that was done put money into the pockets of the university, the lab PI and the actual researcher doing the work. Why are you complaining?

Big, how many times are you going to post the same lie?

@ karlmark and toasty: you can call the Board and ask, or you can check wikipedia if you trust their research. I do.

Also the figure stated for CY 09-10 is $500 million. I called the school at (847) 467-7273 and verified it.

This does not mean they spent $500M on the study. It means the school is taxpayer-funded for research. This "study" fell into that catagory. There were no private funds used in the study according to Dr Yehiely.

I suspect Bighand knows nothing about direct and indirect costs, cost accounting, or research funding in general.

Big,

You're talking about two very different things here. The amount of money done at a research institution has little to do with this particular story.

I'll link to the actual paper so that you can see at the end where they thank people who helped in the research and name the funding source, where it clearly says funding came from the American Institute of Bisexuality.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051111001785

Not sure you can actually read this paper, sometimes you need to have access, but here is the statement:

Acknowledgements

We thank John Sylla, Kevin J. Hsu, and Joan Linsenmeier. This work was supported by a grant from the American Institute of Bisexuality.

That's not how research funding works. If it said that it was funded by the university, then you could say that it could possibly have used tax dollars. However, this study was funded by the American Institute of Bisexuality (AIB), a private charity. Charities are typically funded using private donations, which, in turn, can be given out in the form of grants. So, usually, the researchers would have supplied the AIB with their proposal, the charity would have agreed to give funding (be the "Sponsor"), and the money would go into a fund at the university's "Grants and Contracts" office, or something similar, that is responsible for distributing research funds. The sponsor would also be responsible for paying any administrative costs such as fees for IRB review and the such. So, as someone else said earlier, the University made money on this study, not the other way around.

Bisexuals can take solice in that obama is "one of them".

Um, no, Obama is biracial. Totally different bi. But, hey, I can see where all those big, four-syllable words might confuse you.

And even that was probably considered an enlightened view, compared to the assumption that everyone is straight and that homosexuals are straights acting badly.