On the Nature of Bisexuality
How do most people view bisexuals? Marjorie Garber summed up the most common bisexual stereotypes as:
Straight people may stereotype bisexuals as closeted men who deceive their wives with a series of randomly chosen male sex partners, spreading AIDS to an 'innocent' heterosexual population, including unborn children. Some gays and lesbians also stereotype bisexuals as self-indulgent, undecided, 'fence-sitters' who dally with the affections of same-sex partners, breaking their hearts when they move on to heterosexual relationships.
It seems that many people would categorise bisexuals as selfish, hedonistic and sexually insatiable, eager to antagonise both heterosexuals and homosexuals with a refusal to stick to sexual relations with only one gender, or even to only one partner. Furthermore, bisexuals are seen as disease-spreaders with little consideration for the people they needlessly infect.
I recently analysed contemporary copies of Diva and Gay Times to see how they were representing bisexuals and bisexuality. Diva is a magazine which sometimes purports to be for “lesbians and bisexual women”, and sometimes just for lesbians, something which doesn't bode well for a positive bisexual representation. On the whole I would say that this is carried over into their writing. Naturally there's no overt examples of biphobia (“Biphobia is the denigration of bisexuality as a valid life choice.” is perhaps the best definition) but there are several instances where lesbians are mentioned in a capacity which could also include bisexuals, but they are omitted from the story. If the magazine really is meant to be read by bisexual women as well as lesbians, then surely these women should be acknowledged?
Gay Times differs from Diva in that it clearly only intends for itself to be read by a gay audience. A scan through the personals adverts however reveals that bisexual men do indeed read it. Of almost 400 personal ads that month, 73 said the advertiser was bisexual or “bi-curious” and some adverts even specifically asked for only bisexual men to respond. If no bisexual men read this magazine then what would be the point in stipulating such a condition? These adverts totalled almost all the representation of bisexuality within the magazine. Like Diva, there were several instances where it would be appropriate to mention bisexual men alongside homosexual ones, but such chances were not taken. The only mention of bisexuality by the writers was in a small section reminding the reader of moments from gay history, and recalls the Right Said Fred singer Richard Fairbrass coming out as bisexual on The Word.
It can be seen then that bisexuals are mostly represented in such magazines through their notable absence. However it could be argued that this is perfectly justified, as bisexuality is itself largely invisible in society as a whole. How does one spot a bisexual in the street? Even if a woman was walking hand in hand with both a man and a woman, it could easily be assumed that one was her boyfriend and the other a close platonic friend. “Nothing short of a large sign with 'BI' inscribed on it in block letters” could improve “visi-BI-lity” writes Rachel Cohen.
Why is bisexuality so invisible and elusive then? What is it that makes it so difficult to represent? Perhaps it is because bisexuality discards all conventional models of sexuality and forges its own path. Our traditional view of sexuality as a continuum is heavily influenced by the famous studies of Alfred Kinsey et al in the 1940s and '50s. Kinsey and his colleagues identified seven different stages of sexual attraction, ranging from “exclusively heterosexual” to “exclusively homosexual”, with a half way point of “equally heterosexual and homosexual”. Many bisexuals identify as being on that half way position, but in reality this model ignores any mode of sexuality which isn't straight or gay. “It flattens all sexual encounters (or emotional relationships) into two dimensions,” argues Marjorie Garber. As Kathleen Bennett has commented, it works on a principle of opposites and duality, of either/or, when bisexuality can instead be seen as being mostly concerned with both/and.
Bisexuality allows for a fluidity in sexuality, there is room for change and movement, for an alteration in gender preference. If a self-identified straight or gay person suddenly changes behaviour and has a relationship with a person of their lesser-favoured gender, they are commonly perceived as 'going over to the other side'. They can no longer hold the sexual identity they once had. Where bisexuality differs is that it acknowledges that sexuality does change, that people can feel differing levels of attraction to members of a specific gender over their lives, and, crucially, that this is not a bad thing or something to be ashamed of. I believe that it is this point which worries some gay men and lesbians, and to a lesser extent, heterosexuals, about bisexuality so much: to acknowledge the validity of a bisexual identity would mean that they would to have to have to acknowledge that sexuality is not fixed, that their own sexuality could change and thus that they may one day find themselves attracted to someone they previously would have had an aversion to because of the organs they have in their underwear.
If these people are so happy and confident in their sexuality, why then do they feel so threatened by the idea of someone else enjoying things they don't wish to themselves? As far as I can see, it can only be a symptom of defensiveness brought about by fear of what may happen should they consider options they have so fervently closed off to themselves. And surely life is about enjoying all that the world can offer us, of not arbitrarily restricting the experiences available to us, and about learning as much as we can do in the short time allotted to us? After all, if it's not about that, then what use is life itself?
