Author’s note: In this article you will find very few references to academic so called “bisexual theory”. The intent was not to erase the work some bisexuals folks (mainly women) did to theorise bisexuality, but to try myself starting from “zero”.
Why hasn’t bisexuality been taken seriously in sexuality and queer studies? Why have the Kinsey reports (that were surely written under the influence of Kinsey’s own bisexuality) remains a central scientific foundation of bi theory?
Bisexuality has been made invisible by a set of assumptions (i.e. that bisexuality is just a phase) and some strategies of identification that the gay and lesbian movements historically deployed. In fact one can only wonder how Greek pederasty¹ came to be identified with the gay male aesthetics when in reality, pederasty coincided with non-monosexual practices. We could sum up this inquiry by asking: why has no one wondered “how to do the History of Bisexuality”²?
If we are to take bisexuality seriously, we have to define the specificity (or specificities) of bisexuality, what makes it a peculiar sexual identity.
One striking fact is the double positioning of bisexuality, it is at the same time:
- a part of the LGBTQ+ communities, bisexuals have been involved in leading queer activism. Weren’t indeed Donaldson and Martha Shelley leading figures of the Gay Lib?
- but the identity is also marginalised inside these same communities.
The internal/external, inside/outside positionings of bisexuality, are not exactly specific to it in so far as trans and other gender non-conforming folks also were in the front lines and still are marginalised. But that bisexual marginalisation is a marginalisation on sexual and not gender identity.
These ambivalent experiences can give rise to an ambivalent consciousness³ that would give rise to specific understanding of (mono-)sexuality, as well as, for example, a critique of the common understanding of the Closet (what is the closet for bi-folks that are in a relationship with gender conforming partners of another gender?)
Theorists have been arguing for a long time to defend theories of standpoints⁴. In his study of Lesbian reception of HIV by communities on holiday in Eressos, Greece, Sam Bourcier argues for community based investigations as follow⁵:
“Collecting sexographic data on sexual behaviours and representations is neither observation nor an “objective” approach. It is not observation because it is very difficult to observe, in the literal sense of the word, sexual scenes or practices. This is even more true for lesbians who do not have sex in public (or at least very rarely) and who do not, like gay men or heterosexual men and women, frequent public or semi-public places with a sexual purpose (saunas, baths, sex clubs or parks). If observation is to have any relation to being objective in the classical sense of the term, i.e. promoting the rational Western eye — looking rather than acting or engaging in interaction — if observation means objectifying (scientifically) a group or sample, I do not think this approach is useful for a better understanding of lesbian sex, i.e. sexual behaviours but also and perhaps especially how lesbians think about sex/think about sexuality.”⁶
As Bourcier notes, the lesbians he interviewed would have never answered in the same way if he wasn’t there as a lesbian taking part in the exact same activities as them and being as concerned as them by the topic.
This type of situatedness of the production of knowledge is important to understand the epistemic value of a Bi-standpoint. If Bisexuals can develop a multi-level consciousness⁷ allowing them to somewhat navigate through same sex/gender relationships (and communities?) and non-same sex/gender ones, including some involving experiences of straight passing or a certain marginality added to relationships with gender non-conforming partners⁸, this consciousness cannot be dismissed easily.
A critical engagement with this standpoint as well as all the other situated theories could then allow for a more diverse understanding of sexual practices and scripts as well as cultural codings.
Of course a defense of an epistemological standpoint that begins from a fairly abstract identity omits the diversity of bi experiences. Moreover, the argument so far, while being driven by a multiple tradition of thoughts that do not fall under those weaknesses, could tend to be understood as a gender-blind, colourblind (even ableist and classist) one. I would like to stress that the diversity of bi experiences can only reinforce the value of the bi-standpoint (or should I say standpoints?). Adding to that a deep involvement in a radical intersectionality can only make stronger the critical endeavour of the bi-standpoint, as well as to enable cross essentialist identity boundaries and build solidarities
Understanding this multiplicity makes places to analyse how identities intersect to create complex structures of domination. As bisexuality is already understood as promiscuity⁹, how does it combine with hypersexualised blackness? And even more in the case of black women¹⁰.
I offer to give some fields of investigation that a bisexual standpoint could open or help extend.
As an ambivalent identity¹¹, bisexuality could invest the empirical and comparative study of power dynamics in flirting situations across the sexual spectrum, and how they are linked to perceived sexual identities. This cross-spectrum comparisons could definitely be applied too to straight/gay only spaces including and maybe very importantly kink communities.
This links up to investigations on the concept of passing, interesting developments in digital ethnographies could be expended upon through a bi analysis of passing in digital spaces such as forums, dating apps, etc.
The critique of heteropatriarchal sexuality has long omitted the critique of monosexuality and its role in maintaining the binaries (of both sexual and gender identity) at the centre of the sex/gender system¹².
And last but not least, the study of bisexual identifications and dis-identifications. Is there a bisexual culture(s) besides not sitting straight¹³? If not, what are the conditions restraining the formation of such (sub)culture(s)?
In other languages/En otros idiomas/Dans d’autres langues:
Further readings on Bisexuality:
Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution, Shiri Eisner
Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out, Loraine Hutchins (Editor), Lani Ka'ahumanu (Editor)
Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions, Naomi Tucker (Editor)
Notes:
[1] My goal here is not to defend the relevance of pederasty (I believe there is nothing to defend) but only to note inconsistencies.
[2] In reference to Halperin’s How to do the History of Homosexuality, 2002
[3] I am here under the influence of theories of double/triple consciousness developed by black and feminist theorists. I, however, do not want to claim that bisexual consciousness is akin to the political consciousness of say, black women. I merely work from their legacy to conceptualise what could make up a bi-consciousness in the sphere of sexual identities.
[4] We can go back to Marx, Weber or Lukacs, but as both a constituted theory and a political practice it only appeared through the consciousness raising of black, feminist and LGBTQ+ movements of the late 60s. Indeed, the main white feminist theorists of standpoint theory Hartsock, Harding and Haraway all were in the same consciousness raising group. Also see Patricia Hill Collins’ Black Feminist Thought (1990)
[5] Previously to identifying as a trans man, Sam Bourcier identified as a butch lesbian.
[6] Sam Bourcier. Queer Zones, 2018, “Soeurs de sang: le role du SM dans le sexe a risque chez les lesbiennes d’Eressos”. In French: “Collecter des données sexographiques en ce qui concerne les comportements et les représentations sexuelles ne relève ni de l’observation ni d’une approche « objective ». Il ne s’agit pas d’observation parce qu’il est très difficile d’observer, au sens littéral du terme, des scènes ou des pratiques sexuelles. Et ceci est encore plus vrai en ce qui concerne les lesbiennes qui ne pratiquent guère le sexe en public (ou du moins très rarement) et qui ne fréquentent pas, à l’instar des gays ou des hommes et des femmes hétérosexuels, des lieux publics ou semi-publics à vocation sexuelle (les saunas, les bains, les sex-clubs ou les parcs). Si l’observation doit avoir quelque rapport avec le fait d’être objectif dans le sens classique du terme, c’est-à-dire le fait de promouvoir l’œil occidental rationnel — le fait de regarder plutôt que d’agir ou de s’engager dans une interaction — si observer veut dire objectifier (scientifiquement) un groupe ou un échantillon, je ne pense pas que cette approche soit utile pour mieux appréhender la sexualité lesbienne, c’est-à-dire des comportements sexuels mais aussi et peut-être surtout comment les lesbiennes pensent au sexe/pensent la sexualité.”
[7] A level for every gender and every type of (non)sexuality available in bi-relationships .
[8] And obviously AS a gender non-conforming person too.
[9] On Bisexuality as promiscuity, see Shiri Eisner’s Bi: Notes for a Bisexeual Revolution, 2013
[10] For an example of the intersection of gender-class-race-sexuality, see La Güera, Cherrie Moraga, 1979
[11] “On the fence” would say Maria Pramaggiore. In BI-ntroduction I: Epistemologies of the Fence, 1996
[12] Thinking Sex, Gayle Rubin, 1984
[13] Bisexual people can’t sit on chairs properly, says internet, Pink News. I am of course joking here, but it still is a legitimate concern to ask what could constitute a bi culture outside of cliches.
